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

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).

Adaptive Management Plan Alaska Predator Consortium

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 also

questioned the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s accuracy at counting wolf and bear


4

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:

Re-examine the biological basis of existing predator control programs.

Reevaluate ungulate population objectives in relation to carrying capacity.


5

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.

Stakeholders/Interested Parties:


6

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 CommissionerAlaska Board of Game Chairman, Vice ChairmanFish & Game Regional Advisory Committees Interior Region Program Coordinator,

Southcentral Region Program CoordinatorAlaska Department of Economic Development Commissioner, Deputy CommissionerPublic 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 PresidentAlaska Center for the Environment President, Vice PresidentAlaska Conservation Alliance Board Chair, Vice ChairPrivate Groups: Office/Position:Alaska Trophy Hunting and Fishing, LLC PresidentAlaska Professional Hunters Association, Inc. President, Vice President

Communication Goals:


7

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.

Materials Needed:


8

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.

ASSESS

OBJECTIVE 1 Sustain predator/prey populations


9

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.


13

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.


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


14

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


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


15

Increase

public

involvement

Educate

members

of the

public on

predator

controls

and involve

them in all

levels of

the

decision-

making

process

Creation and

implementatio

n 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

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.ak.

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.


16

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

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

Documents

caribou adfg

active predator control

predation control

intensive management

prey populations

bear populations

larger populations of

administration titus