Adaptive Management Plan

Alaska Predator Consortium
Photo Credit: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/about
/management/wildlifemanagement/intensivemanagement/pdfs
/predator_management.pdf
An Adaptive Management Plan for Alaska's
Predator Control Programs

2
Adaptive Management Plan Alaska Predator Consortium
The Issue:
Wildlife management in the State of Alaska is conducted by the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game's [ADFG] Division of Wildlife Conservation, and is directed by the policies
and guidelines implemented by the Alaska Board of Game [ABOG] (National Research
Council [NRC], 1997). Amongst the most controversial management actions conducted by
the ADFG and ABOG are programs designed to suppress wolf and bear populations (1997).
These programs are known collectively as predator control programs.
The Alaska State Constitution states that natural resources shall be developed for the
maximum benefit of the people, and that natural resources such as wildlife "shall be
utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained-yield principle, subject to preferences
among beneficial uses" (Alaska State Constitution, Article, 1956). The sustained-yield
principle has become a central theme of Alaska’s wildlife management programs, and this
particular section of the constitution authorizes the ADFG to carry out predation control in
an effort to increase prey populations for human use (Titus, 2007)
Predator control programs, which are lethal in nature, have been conducted in the
State of Alaska for over three decades (van Ballenberghe, 2006), though the methods have
varied considerably from administration to administration (Titus, 2007). These programs are
currently underway in six geographic regions in the State of Alaska (Alaska Department of
Fish & Game [ADFG], 2011).

3
Figure 1. Active predator control areas in the state of Alaska. Reprinted from "Intensive
Management of Wolves and Ungulates in Alaska" by K. Titus, March 2007, retrieved from
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/about/management/wildlifemanagement
/intensivemanagement/pdfs/refs/titus_wolves_ungulates.pdf
According to the ADFG, the predator control programs are designed to reduce
predation by wolves and bears in order to increase the populations of moose and caribou
(ADFG, 2011). The State of Alaska cites the dependence of rural sustenance livers on
moose and caribou as the primary reason for the intensive management of predators
(2011). The ADFG also states that predators keep prey populations significantly depressed,
and that the habitat is capable of supporting larger populations of moose and caribou than
are currently present (2011).
Those who oppose Alaska's predator control programs claim that the programs are
based on flawed science and are primarily in place due to the influence of the commercial
hunting lobby (Alaska Center for the Environment, 2008). Biologists and ecologists have

4
also questioned the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s accuracy at counting wolf and
bear populations, and have argued that the government’s goal for moose and caribou
population growth are unreasonably high and unsustainable (2008). Critics further argue
that estimates concerning the number of moose and caribou needed by rural Alaskans for
sustenance purposes is greatly exaggerated by the government in order to justify increasing
the number of wolves and bears killed on an annual basis (Ballenberghe, 2006).
Opponents of Alaska's predator control programs believe there needs to be well
documented biological support for the continuation of Alaska's predator control programs
including evidence that predators kill significant numbers of moose and caribou that would
otherwise be available for harvest by sustenance livers and hunters; lower rates of
predation facilitate higher harvest of prey animals; habitats can support larger populations
of ungulates and can be protected from the presence of these larger populations; and
sustainable numbers of wolf and bear populations can be maintained in areas outside
population control regions (Boertje, Keech, & Paragi, 2010).
Though there is much disagreement and controversy over Alaska's predator control
programs, some common ground can be found in areas of the state where so-called
'predator pits' exist. Predator pits are areas where high densities of predators severely
deplete prey populations and keep those populations at extremely low levels (Regelin,
Valkenburg, & Boertje, 2005). Scientists agree that special management actions are needed
in these areas to reduce predation in order for prey populations to recover, however
controversy exists as to when -- and how -- it is appropriate for human intervention, and
whether the basis of such intervention is based upon factual science or the combined will of
commercial hunting interests (2005).
Because of this controversy, van Ballenberghe et. al. (2007) have asked the State of
Alaska to do the following:

5
 Re-examine the biological basis of existing predator control programs.
 Reevaluate ungulate population objectives in relation to carrying capacity.
 Monitor predator reductions with protocols having proper magnitude, duration
and
geographic extent to demonstrate clear outcomes.
 Implement new control programs only within an adaptive management
framework and revise existing programs to incorporate adaptive management.
 Apply the National Research Council’s recommended standards to existing
programs
when possible and to all proposed new programs.
 Provide additional funding to ensure that adequate data are available on key
components of predator-prey-habitat interactions.
The aforementioned issues were sent to Governor Frank Murkowski (van
Ballenberghe, 2005), and Governor Sarah Palin in 2005 and 2007 respectively. To date
there has been little change to Alaska's predator control programs, and Governor Sean
Parnell continues to support the decisions made by the Alaska Board of Game (Office of
Governor Sean Parnell, 2011).
Vision Statement:
The Alaska Predator Consortium, a group of environmental organizations,
government agency personnel and individuals from within the community, aims to
strengthen the application of science-based wildlife management to Alaska’s predator
control programs in order to ensure the sustained health and conservation of the Alaskan
ecosystem.

6
Stakeholders/Interested Parties:
Successfully incorporating science-based wildlife management into Alaska's predator
control programs will require extensive cooperation and collaboration between stakeholders
and interested parties of varying backgrounds as identified in Table 1.
Table 1
Alaska Predator Consortium Stakeholder and Interested Parties
Government Agencies: Office/Position:
Alaska Department of Fish & Wildlife Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Board of Game Chairman, Vice Chairman
Fish & Game Regional Advisory Committees Interior Region Program Coordinator,
Southcentral Region Program Coordinator
Alaska Department of Economic Development Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner
Public Agencies: Office/Position:
University of Alaska, Department of Biology
and Wildlife
Department Chair, Wildlife Program Chair
Institute of Arctic Biology Director, Associate Director - Ecology &
Wildlife
Rural Alaska Subsistence Livers: Office/Position:
Western Interior Alaska Subsistence Regional
Advisory Council
Chairman, Vice Chairman
Eastern Interior Alaska Subsistence Regional
Advisory Council
Southcentral Interior Alaska Subsistence
Regional Advisory Council
Environmental Groups: Office/Position:
Alaska Wildlife Alliance President, Vice President
Alaska Center for the Environment President, Vice President
Alaska Conservation Alliance Board Chair, Vice Chair
Private Groups: Office/Position:
Alaska Trophy Hunting and Fishing, LLC President
Alaska Professional Hunters Association, Inc. President, Vice President

7
Communication Goals:
The Alaska Predator Consortium aims motivate stakeholders to support the
application of science-based wildlife management to Alaska's predator control programs.
To keep all stakeholders, interested parties, and members of the public educated and
up-to-date on the progress of the Consortium we intend to:
 Establish regular monthly meetings that will allow stakeholders and interested
parties to interact and share ideas.
 Create a monthly newsletter to be used as a quick reference to tasks completed,
upcoming tasks, and overall progress made on the project.
 Draft issue papers on the known environmental impacts of predator control
programs. These papers will be available to the public as well as stakeholders.
 Hold quarterly public meetings to discuss progress on the project. Allow citizens
to get information on the project, participate in meetings, and become involved
in all aspects of the process.
 Establish a project website to include member information, history/background of
the issue, state and federal legislative actions that may impact the issue, how to
get involved, and so on. The website will also allow the public to submit a
feedback form and questions online in order to gauge the effectiveness of the
information and to determine possible revisions if necessary.
 Generate fact sheets, presentations, brochures, outreach video, and press kits for
the local public and media that will allow interested persons to learn more about
predator control programs and the goals of the project.

8
Materials Needed:
The Alaska Predator Consortium will need funding, studies, and personnel to begin
the integration of science-based wildlife management to the state's predator control
programs. This will include:
 Census estimates for moose, caribou, wolf and black/brown bears populations.
 Harvest demand estimates for moose and caribou.
 Predation rates for wolves and bears.
 Accurate counting methodology for brown/black bears.
 Cost-benefit analysis.
 Identification of calving grounds for caribou and moose.
 Funding (state and federal grants, private donations).
Objectives:
To begin of project of such scope, it is beneficial to formulate initial objectives,
identify how to accomplish those objectives, and prepare a plan to track and monitor
progress made towards the completion of each objective. To begin this process, the
following tables identify each objective as established by the Alaska Predator Consortium
and provides a strategy on how to implement, evaluate, and adjust the methodology used
to accomplish each objective as necessary.

9
ASSESS
OBJECTIVE 1 Sustain predator/prey populations
METHODS 1. Explore alternative, non-lethal methods of population control
(sterilization, relocation, diversionary feeding).
2. Devise accurate counting techniques for black and brown bear
populations.
3. Establish protection for known calving grounds.
4. Explore use of controlled fire to increase carrying capacity of moose
habitat.
PREDICTIONS 1. Wolf populations manageable without use of lethal control methods.
2. Better understanding of the size and scope bear populations.
3. Fertility in female caribou to increase.
4. Moderate to high quality habitat results in earlier breeding and increased
reproduction among female moose.
MEASURES Predator/prey population numbers
UNCERTAINTIES 1. Effectiveness of non-lethal methods of predator management.
2. Wide range and winter hibernation of bears may impact accuracy of
count.
3. Impact of 'immigration' of individual caribou from large herds to smaller
herds on population counts.
4. The impact of political pressure to achieve quick, short-term results on
long-term habitat management.
DESIGN
1. Examine previous control experiments (Vancouver Island, BC and Finlayson, Yukon) using non-
lethal methods.
2. Gather additional data on bear foraging and population ecology.
3. Examine data from radio-collaring of caribou in the Nelchina, Delta, Ashinik, and Fortymile herds
to determine if large scale immigration between herds is occurring.
4. Community outreach and discussion with state and local government officials on the importance of
long-term monitoring.
IMPLEMENT
1. Control study using non-lethal methods (sterilization, relocation) on wolf populations in Game
Management Unit 20A, a 17,000 km2 area. GMU 20A has low ungulate populations and moderate
wolf populations.
2. Counts of brown and black bear populations in southeast Alaska (outside current population
control areas) will be conducted to devise an accurate counting methodology.
3. Control study using diversionary feeding tactics to protect calving grounds in peak calving season
(mid-May to early June) of the Delta caribou herd. This heard is located near a known wolf den.
4. Meetings with state and local government officials will be conducted on a biannual basis to
reiterate need for long-term monitoring and to share results.
EVALUATE
1. Annual counts of predator and ungulate populations will be conducted over a five year period in
control areas.
2. Counts of brown and black bear populations will be conducted annually for a period of three years.
This data will then be compared to historical counts to determine viability of counting method.
3. For habitat control experiments, monitoring of populations within altered habitats will occur
annually over a 10 to 12 year period.
4. Assessment of diversionary feeding tactics at caribou calving grounds will require periodic
population counts during the time when the caribou remain near the wolf den. Additional
population counts will be necessary when the caribou return to the calving ground the following
year. The population counts will be conducted annually at the calving ground for a period of five
years to determine if protection of the calving ground results in a lower mortality rate and
increased population size.
ADJUST
Long-term monitoring of predator/prey populations has been mostly nonexistent. Adjustments will be
necessary once sufficient data is collected to evaluate the effectiveness of control measures.

10
ASSESS
OBJECTIVE 2 Maximize economic benefits.
METHODS 1. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis.
2. Promote wildlife viewing opportunities.
3. Promote fair-chase hunting practices.
4. Encourage donation of game meat to rural sustenance livers.
5. Encourage education of hunters about need for conservation and
sustainability.
PREDICTIONS Adjustments to predator control programs will increase recreation/tourism.
MEASURES Number of visitors/hunting parties; number of jobs created/lost (hunting
sector, tourism sector); personal income levels.
UNCERTAINTIES There may be a decline in hunting revenue due to shift to non-lethal
predator control measures.
DESIGN
A cost-benefit analysis will be conducted to determine the economic impact of Alaska's predator
control programs.
The outreach group will work with stakeholders in developing promotional information to encourage
wildlife viewing and fair-chase hunting practices.
IMPLEMENT
A cost-benefit analysis will be among the first items created due to a lack of understanding of the
economic impact of predator controls.
Promotional work will begin after the cost-benefit analysis is reviewed by stakeholders and interested
parties.
EVALUATE
Economic data will be collected on an annual basis and compared with previous years to establish
what impacts predator control projects have on local and state economies, and where improvements
can be made. Analysis should be conducted following peak visitor season (mid-June to mid-August).
ADJUST
Adjustments in promotion of wildlife viewing and fair-chase hunting practices may be necessary
depending on the gains/loss incurred by the tourism and hunting industries.

11
ASSESS
OBJECTIVE 3 Increase public involvement.
METHODS Creation of an outreach group that can engage members of the public by
communicating the purpose and progress of the project, encouraging
individuals to attend and participate in open meetings, and recruit interested
members and organizations.
PREDICTIONS An effective outreach group can educate the public on the need for a
science-based approach to predator controls. Some members of the public,
particularly of the hunting lobby, will view any attempts to alter existing
control programs in a negative light.
MEASURES The frequency of questions, concerns and conflicts, as well as the number of
individuals participating in open meetings, can measure the effectiveness of
the outreach group.
UNCERTAINTIES It is unknown how willing members of the public may be at becoming
involved in the process.
DESIGN
The outreach group will focus on the creation and distribution of presentations,
educational/informational documents (flyers, brochures, pamphlets), and advertisements to spread
word of the project's purpose and objectives. The use of public meetings, social media and traditional
media outlets will assist in garnering public interest and participation.
IMPLEMENT
The outreach group will conduct ongoing meetings and public engagement over the course of the
project.
EVALUATE
The outreach group will monitor the level of public involvement biannually across all mediums to
establish which methods are most effective.
ADJUST
Certain outreach methods will be more effective than others. Adjustments may be necessary to how
the outreach group interacts with individuals and organizations depending on which methods work
best.

12
Outcomes and Challenges:
Due to the many uncertainties surrounding Alaska's predator control programs,
challenges and unanticipated outcomes are expected to arise as the Alaska Predator
Consortium strives to complete the objectives indentified in the above tables. The following
tables outlines each initial objective and attempt to identify potential outcomes for each
action, possible resolutions, and assessments on the feasibility of suggested actions.
Goal Objective Implemented
Action(s)
Trigger Possible Next
Steps/Actions
Feasibility of
Next
Steps/Actions
Sustain
predator/prey
populations
Explore
alternative,
non-lethal
methods of
predator
population
control
Relocation,
sterilization
and
diversionary
feeding tactics
Increase or
no change
to ungulate
mortality
rates
Examine causes
for ungulate
mortality
This requires
additional study of
the causes of
ungulate
mortality; funding
may be difficult to
obtain.
Increase in
ungulate
populations
Formal adoption
of non-lethal
methods in all
predator
management
areas
May result in an
overall increase in
ungulate
populations.
However, the new
techniques may be
more costly than
previous methods;
possible objection
from hunting
lobby.

13
Action(s)
Steps/Actions
Feasibility of
Next
Steps/Actions
Sustain
predator/prey
populations
Devise
accurate
counting
techniques
for black
and brown
bear
populations
Population
census for
brown and
black bear
populations
Decrease/no
change from
previous
estimates using
old counting
techniques
Revert to
previous
counting
techniques
Reverting to
previous
counting
methods may
save resources
and funding
Visible increase in
population
estimates
Adopt new
counting
techniques
across all
management
areas
New counting
techniques may
require
additional
personnel and
resources
Establish
protection
for known
calving
grounds
Diversionary
feeding of
wolves and
bears near
calving ground
Increase or no
change in calving
mortality rates
Identify causes
of calve
mortality
Will require
studies on
causes of
mortality
outside the
calving grounds
Decrease in calve
mortality rates
Implement
diversionary
feeding near all
known calving
grounds
Costs for time
and resource
may be high
Explore
use of
controlled
fire to
increase
carrying
capacity of
moose
habitat
Control burn in
known moose
territory
Increase of
moose
populations/calve
mortality
Implement
controlled
burns across all
management
areas
Habitat
management is
long term, will
require
significant time
investment
from
stakeholders
Decrease or no
change in moose
populations/calve
mortality
Abandon
controlled
burning as a
management
option
May save
funding and
resources;
possible
objections from
science and
environmental
personnel

14
Action(s)
Steps/Actions
Feasibility of
Next
Steps/Actions
Maximize
economic
benefits
Understand
economic
impact of
predator
control
programs
Cost-benefit
analysis
Decrease in
hunting revenues
due to adoption
of non-lethal
predator controls
Promotion of
fair chase
hunting
practices
Will require
additional
efforts from
outreach
group; Possible
objections from
certain aspects
of hunting
industry who
profit from
aerial and
gassing
practices.
Action(s)
Steps/Actions
Feasibility of
Next
Steps/Actions
Increase
public
involvement
Educate
members
of the
public on
predator
controls
and involve
them in all
levels of
the
decision-
making
process
Creation and
implementation
of outreach
group and
practices
Lack of public
involvement
Adjust outreach
methods
Requires
examination of
outreach
methods by
group
personnel; may
require
additional
resources to
reach target
audience

15
Literature Cited:
Alaska Center for the Environment. (2008). Predator control. Retrieved from
http://akcenter.org/forests-and-wildlife/chugach/alaskas-wildlife-1/predator-control-
1
Alaska State Constitution. (1956). Article VIII, section IV: Sustained yield. Retrieved from
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/folioproxy.asp?url=http://wwwjnu01.legis.state.a
k.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/acontxt
Boertjie, R.D., Keech, M.A., & Paragi, T.F. (2010). Science and values influencing predator
control for Alaska moose management. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74, 917–
928. doi:10.2193/2009-261
National Research Council. (1997). Wolves, bears and their pretty in Alaska: Biological and
social challenges in wildlife management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Office of Governor Sean Parnell. (2011). Governor hails supreme court ruling on predator
control programs. Retrieved from http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell/press-room/
full-press-release.html?pr=5469
Regelin, W.L., Valkenburg, P., & Boertje, R.D. (2005). Management of large predators in
Alaska. Wildlife Biology in Practice, 1, 77-85. doi:10.2461/wbp.2005.1.10
Titus, K. (2007). Intensive management of wolves and ungulates in Alaska. Retrieved from
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/about/management/wildlifemanagement
/intensivemanagement/pdfs/refs/titus_wolves_ungulates.pdf
van Ballenberghe, V., Klein, D., Haney, J.C., Schoen, J.W., Senner, S.E., Miller, S. … Brown,
C. A Letter to Governor Murkowski. Retrieved from http://www.defenders.org/
resources/publications/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species
/wolf/alaska_wolf/letter_to_governor_frank_murkowski.pdf

16
van Ballenberghe, V., Tabot, L.M., Morin, D.J., Havelka, M., Rivals, F., Patterson, B.D. …
Rentz, M.S. (2007). A Letter to Governor Palin. Retrieved from
http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/
wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/wolf/alaska_wolf
/scientist_and_wildlife_professional_letter_to_ak_gov._palin.pdf
van Ballenberghe, V. (2006). Predator control, politics and wildlife conservation in Alaska.
ALCES, 42, 1-11. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

Adaptive Management Plan

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Adaptive Management Plan

Ähnlich wie Adaptive Management Plan (20)

Mehr von trisol1

Mehr von trisol1 (7)

Adaptive Management Plan