Connect with us

Alaska

Opinion: Alaska’s war on grizzly bears

Published

on

Opinion: Alaska’s war on grizzly bears


A young adult brown bear walks in front of a forested area in Katmai National Park and Preserve. (National Park Service photo)

The attention focused on the spectacle of state wildlife biologists flying around in helicopters shooting every grizzly bear they can find (186 killed so far plus 5 black bears and 20 wolves) on the calving grounds of the Mulchatna Caribou Herd in Southwest Alaska should not obscure the geographically much larger campaign against grizzly bears being conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Board of Game.

This war, often termed “intensive management,” is being conducted through decades of liberalized bear hunting regulations motivated by the desire to reduce bear numbers in the hope this will result in more moose and caribou for harvest by hunters (most of whom live in urban areas).

The Mulchatna program is officially defined as being “predator control” because it involves aerial shooting of bears by Fish and Game staff. The geographically much larger effort to reduce bear abundance using regulation liberalizations is not defined as predator control. This lawyerly sleight-of-hand by definition allows Fish and Game to misleadingly claim that predator control on bears (and wolves) is occurring only in the relatively small portions of Alaska where aerial shooting of bears is ongoing. The opposite is true using a commonsense definition of predator control, which is to achieve declines in predator numbers.

We are four retired Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists who have published one or more peer-reviewed papers documenting this effort to reduce grizzly abundance through regulation liberalizations. We documented this in an area that represents approximately 76% of Alaska; the area where liberalizations of bear hunting regulations are most aggressive. This is everywhere except in Southeast Alaska, Kodiak, Prince William Sound and the Alaska Peninsula, where bears are large and are still managed for sustainable trophy harvests. It includes all areas where moose and/or caribou are common. Some elements of the liberalizations in this area include:

Advertisement

• Liberalized regulations in a Game Management Subunit a total of 253 times and made more conservative only six times. This contrasts dramatically with the pattern prior to passage of the Intensive Management law in 1994, when regulation changes were equally balanced between small tweaks in either direction.

• Increasing the bag limit from one bear every 4 years (everywhere in 1980) to 1 or two bears per year. In 2005, 5% of the area had an annual bag limit of 2 per year but this increased to 45% by 2020 and to 67% by 2025.

• Longer open hunting seasons to include periods when hides are in poor condition and bears are in dens. The whole area had hunting seasons totaling less than 100 days in 1975; by 2015, 100% of the area had seasons longer than 300 days (20% longer than 350 days).

•Grizzly bears could not be baited anywhere in 2010 but, by 2022, grizzlies could be baited in 75% of the area (essentially everywhere except north of the Brooks Range).

• In 1975, all resident hunters were required to purchase a $25 tag prior to hunting grizzly bears but this is now routinely waived everywhere.

Advertisement

• Regulations designed to incentivize killing more grizzlies even include allowing hunters to sell the hides and skulls of bears they kill (nowhere prior to 2010, 26% of the area in 2016 and 67% in 2025). Allowing these sales is, effectively, a bounty on bears and is contrary to one of the basic principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation against the commercialization of hunted wildlife.

Throughout this entire area of our analysis, there has been only one scientific study with new information on grizzly bear numbers or trends. In Subunit 13A, Fish and Game biologists reported a decline in bear density of 25%-40% during 1998-2012; results from a follow-up ADFG study in the same area 5 years ago have not been analyzed. It is scientifically irresponsible to conduct a study like this with (in all likelihood) more than $200,000 of public funds expended and not analyze and report the results. Declines in grizzly bear density similar to or greater than those found in 13A have probably occurred throughout Alaska correlated with the regulation liberalizations (and documented increases in grizzly bear harvests). Nobody can say this for sure however, because the state has not done any studies. Short of avoiding extirpation, it is hard not to conclude that the BOG and the leadership of ADFG does not care what is happening to grizzly bear populations in most of Alaska.

This aggressive management of bears is largely driven by the 1994 Intensive Management Law (IM). This law set a wildlife management priority for human consumptive use of moose, caribou, and deer. Under the IM law, state managers are effectively required to conduct predator reduction efforts wherever hunter demands for more moose or caribou harvests exceed the supply.

Nowhere in Alaska since the passage of the IM law has there been any scientifically-documented “success” showing increased hunter harvests of moose, caribou or deer that is significantly correlated with the predator reduction programs. One of us (Sterling Miller) co-authored the only peer-reviewed paper on this topic since passage of the IM law; this paper concluded that 40 years of wolf and bear reduction efforts in GMU 13 were not correlated with increased hunter harvests of moose. We are saddened to see the agency in which we once proudly served the Alaska public now reduced to shooting bears (and wolves) from helicopters in some areas while misleading Alaskans about the true extent of the war on bears that is occurring in Alaska and its “effectiveness”.

Sterling Miller, PhD; John Schoen, PhD; Charles C. Schwarz, PhD; and Jim Faro, MS are retired research and management biologists for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s Division of Wildlife Conservation who have conducted research on bears and other topics in Alaska and elsewhere.

Advertisement

• • •

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.





Source link

Alaska

Sen. Sullivan defends approach to Trump administration during address to Alaska Legislature

Published

on

Sen. Sullivan defends approach to Trump administration during address to Alaska Legislature


Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan delivers his annual address to the Legislature on Wednesday, Feb. 18, at the state Capitol in Juneau. (Mari Kanagy / ADN)

JUNEAU — U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan defended his stance on the administration of President Donald Trump in response to questions from Alaska lawmakers after his annual address Wednesday, even as he called on them to unanimously adopt a resolution opposing one of Trump’s policy ideas.

“In terms of the president and his team, my North Star, in terms of my dealing with those guys, is what’s good for Alaska and what’s good for our country,” Sullivan said. “When they do things that I don’t like, there’s times that I will beat them up in public.”

Sullivan made the comment in response to a question from Anchorage Democratic state Sen. Forrest Dunbar, after a speech in which Sullivan, who is up for reelection this year, extolled Trump and declared Alaska was experiencing a “comeback” under his leadership.

“You said ‘yes’ to Trump many times,” Dunbar said. “I’m wondering if you’re willing to say ‘no.’”

Advertisement

“You want to put out a tweet, smashing them on certain issues or criticizing them?” Sullivan asked in response. “Sometimes that works, but sometimes, if you want results, that’s not always the best way to get results.”

Sullivan listed federal funding freezes and worker layoffs as areas where he disagreed with Trump in recent months. He said his office “made huge impacts on all of those issues,” though he has often refrained from speaking publicly about those topics or responding to questions from reporters about them.

“I push back publicly and in private on all kinds of things — with always the North Star for me, how to be effective for all of you, for the people I represent and for my country,” said Sullivan.

Sullivan’s speech surveyed many familiar themes. He decried former President Joe Biden’s past environmental policies, which he said hindered resource development in Alaska; he celebrated Trump’s executive order seeking to expand the state’s resource industries; he promised progress on a long-sought natural gas pipeline; he praised a GOP-backed bill that extended tax cuts first enacted in 2017; he downplayed lawmakers’ concerns over cuts to Medicaid enacted to pay for those tax cuts; he criticized Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, for blocking legislative provisions that would have benefited Alaska; and he lauded a new rural health program that he said would direct more than $1 billion in new federal funding to the state.

Sullivan’s speech focused primarily on areas where he said he agrees with the president. But he called on the Legislature to pass a resolution opposing Trump’s move to charge $100,000 for visas that are used by educators coming to Alaska from other countries, primarily the Philippines, to fill vacant teaching positions in rural districts.

Advertisement

Alaska has increasingly relied on teachers from other countries amid stagnant school funding and other concerns that have made attracting educators to the state from the Lower 48 increasingly difficult. Sullivan said he is working with other members of Alaska’s congressional delegation to seek an exemption to Trump’s visa surcharge.

Protesters gather outside the Alaska State Capitol in Juneau ahead of U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan’s annual address to the state Legislature on Wednesday, Feb. 18. (Mari Kanagy / ADN)

Around three dozen protesters gathered outside the Capitol ahead of Sullivan’s address, speaking against several of his policy positions. Some lined the hallways as Sullivan entered the Alaska House chamber, holding signs reading, “We the People Do Not Consent.”

“When I entered the U.S. military, 60 years ago, I took an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution,” Juneau resident Paul DeSloover said. “Sen. Sullivan, when he entered the Marines, took the same oath, and he likes to say ‘Semper Fi’ because he’s a Marine. But (it) should be, ‘Semper Timidus,’ because he is a timid coward.”

Erin Jackson-Hill, member of the left-leaning activist group Stand Up Alaska, criticized Sullivan’s support of the SAVE Act, a bill that would require proof of citizenship to vote. Alaska Republican U.S. Rep. Nick Begich also supports the legislation, whereas Alaska Republican U.S. Sen Lisa Murkowski opposes it.

“I call on Sen. Sullivan to show a modicum of the bravery shown by our other senator and stand up and say the SAVE Act is wrong. It will disenfranchise people,” Jackson-Hill said.

Sullivan said in a press availability after the speech that he believes “voting should be easy, and cheating should be hard.” He said he does not believe voter fraud is widespread in Alaska, but that it is elsewhere in the country.

Advertisement

“I think having an ID requirement that makes sure that the people who are voting in our country are Americans is not unreasonable,” Sullivan said. “Even though it’s not a big issue here, it is a big issue in other parts of the country. And I’m a senator for Alaska, but I’m also a senator for America.”

Reviews both nationwide and in Alaska have found that voting by noncitizens is exceedingly rare.

In response to a question from a reporter, Sullivan criticized U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Minneapolis. He said he supports “deporting illegals with violent criminal records.”

“ICE needs to refine its techniques and tactics. It was horrendous, regardless of the situation, in my view, that two Americans were killed,” said Sullivan. “That should not have happened. I think there’s practices that they need to learn from. At the same time, I strongly support our law enforcement.”

The Daily News’ Iris Samuels reported from Anchorage and Mari Kanagy reported from Juneau.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Opinion: A defining moment for Alaska’s congressional delegation

Published

on

Opinion: A defining moment for Alaska’s congressional delegation


The U.S. Capitol is seen Friday, Feb. 13, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Sen. Dan Sullivan and Rep. Nick Begich must choose between complicity and commitment to their fundamental constitutional obligations as legislators. Like so many scandals before, the root cause and means of correction for our current national crisis resides in the deliberative body, not the executive.

It’s been nearly 25 years since energy giant Enron filed for bankruptcy. The company collapsed after it was discovered that CEO Kenneth Lay and other executives had concealed massive debt through fraudulent accounting practices. Billions disappeared from pension plans and retirement accounts of ordinary people across the country.

Executives, like Mr. Lay, capture our attention with their boundless capacity to believe in themselves to the very end, even as the lies, abuse and secrets finally catch up with them.

Despite the coverage they receive, such leaders are really a symptom of a more serious underlying autoimmune disease: a systemic failure of the organization’s policymaking and oversight body.

Advertisement

Time and again, boards that could prevent or contain executive misconduct are caught up in the success of the moment, blinded by groupthink, constrained by the perceived necessities of competitive edge and public image, and passive in response to a forceful leader considered integral to the organization’s success.

The U.S. government provides an unparalleled example of this dual failure of executive leadership and legislative oversight.

President Trump has:

• Been found civilly liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll and is the subject of numerous credible allegations of sexual misconduct.

• Incited an attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of his supporters, threatened the vice president and members of Congress in an attempt to interfere with the peaceful transition of power, and later pardoned or commuted the sentences of all those criminally convicted of violence against D.C. and Capitol police during the attack.

Advertisement

• Openly profited off the presidency through the use of cryptocurrency pay-for-play political schemes to the tune of billions of dollars.

• Weaponized departments of the federal government to target his personal enemies.

• Terrorized lawful immigrants and U.S. citizens and stoked domestic conflict through the use of militarized and masked federal police forces in the name of crime reduction and immigration enforcement.

• Threatened our allies with military action in contravention of ratified U.S. treaties and committed acts of war without congressional approval.

• Through his Department of Justice, illegally concealed the names of possible co-conspirators in a case of child sex trafficking associated with the highest echelons in our society, a case in which the president himself is potentially implicated.

Advertisement

Congress is the United States’ board of directors. It is responsible for investigating executive misconduct and, if warranted, impeaching and removing the president and cabinet members.

Members of Congress who refuse to perform their constitutional duties of oversight share responsibility for President Trump’s actions.

That Sen. Sullivan and Rep. Begich belong to the same party as the president is irrelevant. No one considers it a valid excuse if trustees happen to belong to the same political party as the executive leadership they are charged with overseeing. The job remains the same: oversight, accountability, exercise of budgetary authority and policymaking.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, often alone in her party, has stood up to the Trump administration, modeling the independent-minded leadership we need from all members of the legislative branch.

The United States of America is not a large energy company. Much more is at stake. Innocent people in Alaska and across the nation and world will suffer even more if Republican legislators, including Sen. Sullivan and Rep. Begich, refuse to investigate and fulfill their oath to check the abuse of executive power.

Advertisement

If the Alaska delegation does not act decisively now, they will never be able to wash their hands of these things. The stench of President Trump’s actions will remain with them long after their service to our state has ended.

Joel Potter is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Former Alaska cop convicted of assault after lying about vehicle attack, according to state

Published

on

Former Alaska cop convicted of assault after lying about vehicle attack, according to state


BETHEL, Alaska (KTUU) – A former Bethel police officer has been convicted of assault and related charges after a jury concluded he used excessive force against a man during a 2023 traffic stop, and then provided false information about the encounter.

Jonathan Murphy, 39, was found guilty of fourth-degree assault, providing false information implicating another in a crime, and second degree tampering with evidence last week following a six day trial.

The charges stem from a Dec. 23, 2023 incident in Bethel, where Murphy, then an officer with the Bethel Police Department, assisted in a traffic stop involving a report of a stolen vehicle. Body-worn camera footage showed Murphy and another officer approach the driver and order him to raise his hands, which the driver did, according to the Alaska Department of Law.

Prosecutors said Murphy then attempted to forcibly remove the driver from the vehicle and struck him in the face. The victim drove away.

Advertisement

Murphy later radioed to the other officer, claiming the driver had attempted to hit him with the vehicle, according to the Department of Law.

After a short pursuit, officers forced the driver’s vehicle into a snowbank. Murphy and other officers surrounded the vehicle, broke its windows, deployed pepper spray and used tasers. Video showed the driver retreating into his vehicle and attempting to remove taser wires while curling into a defensive position, according to the state.

During the encounter, Murphy grabbed the victim through the driver’s window and repeatedly punched him in the head. Body-camera footage showed Murphy striking the driver more than 20 times in rapid succession, according to the Department of Law.

Prosecutors said Murphy later reported that the driver had struck him with the vehicle and implied he had been dragged by it. Investigators said the video did not show the driver attempting to hit Murphy or any part of the vehicle striking him.

Murphy resigned from the Bethel Police Department at the start of the investigation in 2024. He later worked briefly with the Sitka Police Department and currently serves as police chief in Diamond City, Arkansas, according to the Department of Law.

Advertisement

Sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 19. Murphy faces a maximum of three years in confinement.

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending