NPS to Ban Bear Baiting, Predator Control on Alaska Preserves

[207-12A]

I'm pretty surprised this proposal hasn't gotten more spotlight time, as it appears to be yet another federal overreach on Alaska's resources. I understand the proposal only targets National Preserve land, but that's a sizeable chunk of accessible Alaska (WRST comes to mind).

My first problem is the cloaking of the emotional arguments behind 'science' (this is becoming a problem elsewhere in society as well). See statement from NPS regional director Sarah Creachbaum: "The new regulation would reduce visitor use conflicts and concerns over potential safety issues related to bear baiting". Source: https://www.nps.gov/locations/alaska/proposed-changes-to-hunting-regs.htm

Can anyone produce a credible story of a threat to human safety being caused by bear baiting?

Second issue, the removal of predator control hunts on Preserve land. "The NPS would therefore not allow harvest practices and activities or management actions that involve predator reduction efforts and associated natural ecological processes to increase harvest of ungulates". Source: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectId=111863

Seems like were taking tools away from the biologists that manage those areas, all to score emotional points with the public. But again, we'll cloak it in science. I don't bait for bears, and I don't specifically target predators. My only skin in this game is pushing back on lifetime federal employees who wish to override the common sense management practices that have kept Alaska wildlife afloat and accessible for residents and non-residents alike.

The public comment period closes on 10 March, 2023. Visit www.regulations.gov and search for “RIN 1024-AE70”.

To comment on the 'science' behind the rule, go to https://parkplanning.nps.gov/documentsOpenForReview.cfm?projectID=111863&parkID=1

 

[Turkeyfreak12]

The EA that was written it isn't trying to take away predator hunting but to remove it from when pups and cubs are in the den. Predator harvest opportunities will still exist just with actual structure. NPS is all about managing a healthy ecosystem which includes predators. They did site legitimate peer reviewed journals for it which is using science. The bear baiting argument seems to be a concern from getting the bears used to the bait and then venturing to campgrounds from there. That is what I can gather. Overall it looks like they are trying to undo the 2020 ruling to go back to the way things were in 2015.

 

[207-12A]

"The NPS would therefore not allow harvest practices and activities or management actions that involve predator reduction efforts".

Alaska uses special predator control hunts to reduce wolf and bear populations in areas where regional biologists determine that their levels are too high. This seems like a pretty sizeable dent in the toolbox of the scientists that are directly responsible for the area of concern.

Regarding bear baiting luring animals towards campsites, again I'm just looking for a single credible story where bear baiting was directly responsible for a threat to human safety.

 

[Bighorn80]

There are already regulations in place to forbid baiting anywhere close enough to cause user problems (ie campgrounds, homes, recreational cabins, even roads), so that is not a valid argument. Besides, most of these federal preserve lands dont have a campground or other users within a hundred miles of where people would be baiting bears anyway... and if users are out enjoying the wilderness remotely, it wouldnt be any different that taking a walk through the woods anywhere else in Alaska- there will be bears.
This is simply another liberal Biden administration agenda to restrict hunters on federal land.

 

[WalterH]

The EA that was written it isn't trying to take away predator hunting but to remove it from when pups and cubs are in the den. Predator harvest opportunities will still exist just with actual structure. NPS is all about managing a healthy ecosystem which includes predators. They did site legitimate peer reviewed journals for it which is using science. The bear baiting argument seems to be a concern from getting the bears used to the bait and then venturing to campgrounds from there. That is what I can gather. Overall it looks like they are trying to undo the 2020 ruling to go back to the way things were in 2015.

That is right. This is nothing new and these narrow limitations on specific harvest practices were all previously in place before they were rescinded in 2020 by a new administration. Wildlife should be and is managed by the state, but the feds have a role to play as well.

As a side note, the state has greatly reduced the areas where they allow these harvest methods and more aggressive predator harvest.

As much as I hate limiting opportunities and additional layers of regulations, I support these limitations, which are actually very narrow in focus. Even more so that the 2015 version I think. Anyone that is interested should read the details before railing against federal overreach.

Here is what they are trying to reinstate:

1. Prohibit methods considered inconsistent with "sport" hunting, including taking big game while the animal is swimming, taking wildlife from a motorboat, taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during their denning period (May 1-August 9), and taking cubs or female bears with cubs; 2. Prohibit bear baiting in the preserves for "sport" hunting; 3. Prohibit predator control or predator reduction on the preserves.

The wording is a little messy and could be better.

It was pointed out to the NPS that certain harvest methods that are allowed by the state in areas they have deemed "intensive predator management" necessary, are inconsistent with laws and regulations regarding National Preserves. The NPS has a legal mandate to preserve intact ecosystems with limited influence/impact from man. In other words, they have to let wild places and wild animals be wild as much as they can. Allowing "intensive predator management" with the goal of tipping the balance between predator and prey is inconsistent with that mandate.

I think certain pieces of public land should be kept a little more wild than others, which is the intent behind behind the National Conservation System units such as the Preserves. As was pointed out, predators can still be hunted with a whole host of usual and traditional means and in the seasons and quantities otherwise allowed by the state.

I agree that the public safety issue justification for not baiting bears is weak. That having been said, in my experience with bait stations, they tend to be located fairly close to logical and easy access points like landing strips, wheeler trails, easy boat access, etc. I expect to stumble across a bait station whenever I am in the woods near the road system, but definitely don't like to have to worry about then when I am farther off the grid trying to enjoy wild places.

We've got plenty of state and fed land up here where just about anything flies. If nothing else, I think these minor limitations set up an interesting experiment to compare populations of both predator and prey from area to area to gauge the effectiveness of "predator management" and the lack thereof.

 

[displacedtexan]

"The NPS would therefore not allow harvest practices and activities or management actions that involve predator reduction efforts".

Alaska uses special predator control hunts to reduce wolf and bear populations in areas where regional biologists determine that their levels are too high. This seems like a pretty sizeable dent in the toolbox of the scientists that are directly responsible for the area of concern.

What's the rest of the sentence you quoted?

If biologists determine that predator density is too high, that's not the same as "to increase harvest of ungulates".

 

[207-12A]

What's the rest of the sentence you quoted?

If biologists determine that predator density is too high, that's not the same as "to increase harvest of ungulates".

Fair enough, but legal folks will be quick to cut off the end of that sentence just as I did, if it suits their interests. If charismatic predator hunting comes under attack in the future in Alaska (as it has in how many lower 48 states?), that blurb will be the starting point for curtailing the state's ability to manage its own predator populations.

Would you rather have federal management from out of state deciding what healthy game and predator populations are where you live? I have immense trust in ADF&G (less so in AK BOG, but the system works all the same), we should let them decide what's best for managing the resource for the longevity and sustainable use for the most users.

 

[Broomd]

I read some of this, admittedly not all.
As a former Alaskan that spent a ton of time in the Wrangell St. Elias Preserve I can unequivocally state that the NPS is a huge enemy of the average hunter.

I'll never forget talking with Larry K. (RIP) friend and longtime Alaskan and cabin owner there when he shared with me that he intended to bear and wolf hunt near a dead moose carcasse he had happened upon one afternoon. When he returned to hunt the next morning, he soon realized that IT HAD BEEN BURIED by the NPS.
That's right, those Park Service idiots took a tracked backhoe, gouging away deep into the Preserve muskeg to bury that moose to avoid anyone shooting a predator anywhere near it.

 

[207-12A]

For the record, I’ve had only positive experiences with NPS folks everywhere in Alaska, no matter what I was doing in their park/preserve. I’m not blaming the local workforce for this. And I reject the notion that “well it was this way in 2015 so it’s not really a regression to go back to it”.

States manage their wildlife, not the federal government - migratory birds notwithstanding. Until a state proves it cannot ensure proper sustainable use of a resource, why should Uncle Sam step in.

 

[WalterH]

States manage their wildlife, not the federal government - migratory birds notwithstanding. Until a state proves it cannot ensure proper sustainable use of a resource, why should Uncle Sam step in.

Migrating birds, waterfowl, endangered species, game parts and pieces crossing borders, marine mammals, salmon in subsistence fisheries, big game seasons and limits for subsistence hunters on federal lands, etc. etc.

Like it or not, the feds are all up in the business of wildlife management in AK. That doesn’t seem to be changing anytime soon.

I’m not a huge fan of the NPS, to put it mildly, despite mostly positive interactions on the ground. I do cherish quite a few of the places that are under their care though.

My basic understanding, after having followed this issue closely last time around, is that the feds are directed to delegate their management authority over fish and wildlife to the states, until or unless state management laws and regulations conflict with federal laws and regulations, which is how this predator issue in the Preserves came to a head a while back.

 

[displacedtexan]

Would you rather have federal management from out of state deciding what healthy game and predator populations are where you live? I have immense trust in ADF&G (less so in AK BOG, but the system works all the same), we should let them decide what's best for managing the resource for the longevity and sustainable use for the most users.

Fair point, but I want more predators than they do...

And the majority of outdoor recreational users are non consumptive, so be careful what you wish for.

 

[207-12A]

This was covered on today's (6 FEB 23) Meat Eater at the very beginning of the episode. I don't always align with Rinella and Co's views perfectly, but I think they hit the nail on the head with this one.

 

[LoggerDan]

Leave Alaskans and Alaskan Natives alone.

 

[Ishisube]

Regarding bear baiting luring animals towards campsites, again I'm just looking for a single credible story where bear baiting was directly responsible for a threat to human safety.

Lots of unintentional/lazy baiting in Haines and Juneau every year, with some of the attracted bears being brownies. Not so much problem with deliberately and properly placed bait I wouldn't imagine.