The Delicate Balance of Managing Moose and Bears
In the vast wilderness of Alaska, a quiet war is being waged over the future of the state's iconic wildlife. Here, science and values collide in a complex debate over how to manage predator-prey relationships, particularly when it comes to sustaining moose populations that many Alaskans rely on for food.
At the heart of this conflict lies Alaska's Intensive Management Law, a controversial policy that mandates boosting moose, caribou, and deer populations for human harvest, sometimes through aggressive predator control methods including the aerial gunning of wolves and bears 2 6 .
This approach represents a fundamental question: Should wildlife management prioritize human consumptive use above natural ecosystem balances? As one former official noted, the law essentially treats "moose and caribou like cattle that need to be farmed for hunters" 6 . With recent court challenges, shocking aerial gunning statistics, and passionate arguments on all sides, understanding the science and values driving these policies has never been more critical for anyone concerned about wildlife conservation and subsistence traditions.
The legal bedrock for Alaska's current predator control approach dates back to 1994 when the state legislature passed the Intensive Management (IM) Law 2 6 .
This legislation requires the Alaska Board of Game to identify moose, caribou, and deer populations that are especially important as food sources for Alaskans and ensure these populations remain large enough to allow for adequate and sustained harvest 2 .
Based on Alaska Constitution's mandate that replenishable resources "shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle" 6 .
Includes restricting hunting seasons, improving wildlife habitat, and implementing predator control programs 2 .
Prioritizes "high or maximum sustained level of consumptive utilization for humans" according to then-Lt. Gov. Jack Coghill 6 .
The biological rationale for predator control stems from research showing that wolves and bears are highly effective predators on moose, caribou, and deer 3 .
| Concept | Definition | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Sustained Yield | Managing resources to maintain stable populations over time 6 | Core constitutional requirement with disputed interpretation |
| Maximum Sustained Yield | Managing to provide high levels of human consumption 6 | Basis for intensive management law |
| Intensive Management | Process to increase ungulate numbers through regulations, habitat improvement, or predator control 2 | Legal mandate when prey populations drop below objectives |
| Predator Control | Direct reduction of predators to lower predation rates on prey species 1 | Controversial tool used in intensive management |
Perhaps the most illuminating contemporary case study in Alaska's predator control debate is the Mulchatna Caribou Herd program, which has significant implications for moose management as it employs similar methodologies 7 .
According to ADF&G, the western Mulchatna herd showed a 17% population increase following bear control efforts, with calf survival improving when bear numbers were reduced in calving areas 8 .
The Alaska Superior Court ruled in March 2025 that the original program was "unlawfully adopted and, therefore, void and without legal effect" due to procedural issues 4 . However, the Board of Game reinstated it weeks later via emergency regulation 4 .
| Research Method | Application | Limitations in Current Practice |
|---|---|---|
| Aerial Population Surveys | Estimating predator and prey populations across large areas | Limited by weather, terrain, and funding constraints |
| Radio Telemetry/Collaring | Tracking animal movements, survival rates, and mortality causes | Partial data that may not represent entire populations |
| Population Modeling | Projecting outcomes of management interventions | Highly dependent on accurate input data |
| Calf Survival Studies | Measuring specific impacts on recruitment | Labor-intensive and provides limited context |
The ADF&G points to increased calf survival and herd growth as evidence of success 8 .
The Alaska Wildlife Alliance argues that "overwhelming evidence that predator control programs do not work to recover struggling moose and caribou populations" 7 .
They point to alternative studies, including one on moose harvests in GMU 13 and another on wolf predation on the Nushagak Peninsula caribou herd, that have shown reducing predators doesn't necessarily increase ungulates 7 .
| Program/Area | Predator Reduction Goals | Documented Outcomes | Reported Prey Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mulchatna (2023-2024) | Not specifically quantified | 175 brown bears, 19 wolves killed over two years 7 | 17% population increase in western herd 8 |
| Unit 16 (Newly Authorized) | 60% brown bears, 60-80% black bears, 73-80% wolves | Program authorized but not yet implemented | To be determined |
| Statewide Impact | Programs occur on approximately 5-6% of Alaska's land area 1 3 | Thriving overall wolf population (7,700-11,200 wolves) 3 | Varies by specific area and conditions |
Beyond the scientific debate, Alaska's predator control controversy ultimately revolves around competing values and worldviews. As Commissioner Vincent-Lang acknowledged, "Ultimately, wildlife management decisions are shaped not just by science but by values" 8 .
Critics question whether humans should extensively intervene in natural predator-prey dynamics, particularly through methods like aerial gunning 6 7 .
The Alaska Wildlife Alliance argues that management decisions should follow "full due process and baseline data" rather than circumventing public input 4 .
Considers all residents subsistence users
Restricts this designation to rural residents with customary traditions 6
This creates tension between managing for widespread hunting opportunity versus specific cultural subsistence needs.
While the Intensive Management Law mandates prioritizing human harvest, the biological effectiveness of predator control remains disputed.
The Mulchatna case demonstrates both potential for short-term prey population responses and serious questions about long-term sustainability.
Finding common ground requires transparent science, respectful dialogue, and adaptive approaches.
In the balance hang not just the futures of moose populations, but the predators that help define Alaska's wild character and the human traditions that depend on them.