Starting October 1, 2007, the annual fall brown bear hunting season will open for three weeks in Alaska’s Katmai National Preserve. The state of Alaska has set no limit on the number of bears that can be harvested—putting the park’s bear population at risk from over-harvesting.
I bet you’re surprised. Brown bear hunting in a national park site?! Yep, here in Alaska national preserves are just like national parks with one exception: sport hunting is allowed. And in Katmai National Preserve, that hunting includes big, brown bears. Congress recognized that sport hunting should continue in this area when it established the park site as a national preserve. Current hunting regulations allow hunters to take as many bears as they want during the three-week fall hunting season.
But nearly three years ago, I became aware that something was amiss with the brown bear population in Katmai National Preserve. My bear-viewing guide friends in Homer, Alaska, were seeing fewer and fewer bears each year—which are a huge attraction for visitors. The National Parks Conservation Association investigated and found an almost 100% increase in the number of brown bears harvested since 2003 as the probable culprit. Specifically, we found:
- There has been an observable decline in the number of bears seen in Katmai National Preserve. Bear viewing guides today are seeing one-third the number of bears they were observing 10 years ago.
- In 2003, Alaska Department of Fish & Game estimated a sustainable harvest for Katmai Preserve at 14 to 18 bears per hunting season (fall and spring hunt combined).
- Bear harvest was fairly steady until the fall 2003/spring 2004 hunting season when the number of bears harvested doubled to 34 bears, with 35 bears again harvested in the next hunt which occurred in fall 2005/spring 2006.
The National Park Service is directed by Congress to ensure that any hunting that occurs doesn’t negatively impact park resources, such as wildlife. And Congress was very clear that the Park Service was to manage Katmai for “high concentrations” of brown bears. That’s the language included in the Alaska Lands Act that expanded Katmai and created the preserve.
Alarmed by the research that revealed over-harvesting at Katmai, local bear-viewing guides, photographers, the Park Service, and conservation groups, including NPCA, all provided comments on proposals at the Alaska Board of Game’s meeting in March 2007 to reduce the number of bears harvested during the hunting season.
At this meeting, the Park Service suggested a couple of ways to get a handle on the bear harvest: reduce the season and/or limit the number of hunters. Since the state of Alaska issues the hunting licenses, it would be pretty difficult for the Park Service to limit hunters through any kind of permit system tied to a license, but they can certainly shorten the season as a strategy to reduce the number of bears killed.
But the Board of Game ignored all of our proposals for action in Katmai National Preserve. Is this good park management? We don’t think so.
So today, NPCA, bear-viewing guides, former Board of Game members, and others sent a letter to the Alaska regional office of the Park Service [PDF] asking it to do nothing more than the agency already asked of the state of Alaska in March.
Of course, we’re not holding our breath. Even though the Park Service recognized a problem and wrote detailed comments to the Board of Game asking that the hunting levels be reduced, they are now reluctant to buck the state of Alaska.
Moreover, the Park Service has told us that there isn’t enough scientific data to show that 1) There is a problem and, 2) Hunting is the cause. This graph illustrates our concern. But something is clearly amiss and the Park Service should take a precautionary approach to managing Katmai Preserve bears. We feel it is incumbent upon the Park Service to do something about the harvest this fall.
What comes after this fall? We’ve also asked the Park Service to begin a collaborative management plan with the state of Alaska that defines “high concentrations” of brown bears and then tightly manages the bear hunt to ensure that high concentrations continue. The state has developed a bear management plan for Kodiak Island that serves as a good model for how to manage for specific population goals. In the meantime, however, the hunt continues at Katmai and we can only hope that the localized brown bear population doesn’t get hammered any further while the Park Service tries to figure out what it can do.
Jim Stratton
Senior Director, NPCA Alaska Regional Office
Comments
Off hand ... I don't know, although, it may be worth checking into. I do know that 2/3 of the acreage for the entire National Park Service is held in Alaska's parks, more than 55 million acres. We've covered stories in the past about the challenges the parks face having to patrol that much acreage, but I couldn't find anything specific to poaching with a quick search of our archives.
Interesting related story from the policy standpoint in today's Casper Star-Tribune. This talks in general about the Bush Administration policy toward hunting on public lands and not to Alaska in particular - but certainly relevant.
See President orders hunting focus (by Brodie Farquhar)
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World
Jim, thanks for sharing the Casper Star-Tribune article on: President orders hunting focus. I think this article will relate very well with Alaska's fish and game policies. I can now see these sporting trek outfits licking there chops over this article...$$$! Anything that relates to Gale Norton and her former administrative policies, I smell a rat in the hole. What we really need is more bioregional wildlife land expansion (with inter-connecting corridors) were wildlife cannot be fragmented and slivered into micro parcels of land. Now, that's where game mangement (with ample manpower and critical oversight) should really begin...not more guns and bullets towards wildlife!
The state of Alaska seems to be managing their bear population as if they have too many bears. One huge problem with that is people visit Alaska not only to hunt but also to view the bears. So for the sake of an extra 20 to 30 successful hunters a year now, the are starting to sacrifice a much more sustainable recreational viewing industry that could easily bring more dollars into the state than the hunting does.
The brown/grizzly bear is a long lived slow reproducing animal. Intensive hunting can decimate the populations. The females take up to 6 years to become sexually mature and may produce 1 to 3 offspring every 2 to three years. That is very slow population recruitment. Especially considering how many cubs will survive to breeding age. Take out an excessive number of bears for several years and you will depress the population for decades.
The state of Montana in the 80's, while grizzlies were endangered in that state still had a public hunt. The total limit on takings was small statewide. Especially important in recovering the bear was that the hunt would be stopped if and/or when a certain number of female bears were killed from any cause. The female numbers are the key to the long term population of slowly reproducing animals.
To me it looks like the State of Alaska manages it's predator population mainly for the benefit of the "sportsman" and is repeating the mistakes of predator management made in the lower 48.
Mike:
I have been an avid hunter in the state of Alaska for over 40 years. The meat that I harvested for my family helped sustain us over the years and I greatly appreciate the fact that I have been allowed to do so. I, however like so many other true hunters and outdoorsmen am soundly against the killing of any and I mean any wild animal that cannot be or will not be consumed.
The thought of taking of these big brown bears for trophy purposes only turns my stomach and it should yours too.
I believe that the statements are not anti-hunting, but are against unethical hunting. I would guess that ethical hunters enjoy hunting because it provides meat for sustenance and a challenge for the mind and body. What joy or purpose is there in a hunt when the "prey" animals will walk within a few dozen feet of the hunter, totally uncaring of the hunter's presence, and when the hunter leaves the meat behind?
In this ever-evolving world of political correctness, it was deemed the term "killing" gave the NRA-supported hunting lobby a bad image, so it was they who placed the moniker of "harvesting" animals, acceptable due to the portion of hunting that was engaged in during the fall season. Talk about glossing over the truth.........
I've seen mention of concentrating more on particular species that breed rapidly, so that proper numbers could be maintained for hunters and for the animal to provide it's normal function in the wild. I'll bet anything these same people are going to find it rather difficult at best and unappealing at worst to "harvest" gerbils.......
Is hunting baby deer legal?