https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowN...-national-&_ID=35756



Press Release

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publishes Final Rule for Alaska National Wildlife Refuges Non-subsistence Take of Wildlife and Closure Regulations


Rule supports resource conservation and maintains sport and subsistence hunting as priority public uses
August 3, 2016

Contact(s):
Andrea Medeiros
907-786-3695
andrea_medeiros@fws.gov


In response to public interest and concern about predator harvest on national wildlife refuges across Alaska, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) today announced a final rule to clarify that predator control is not allowed on national wildlife refuges in the state unless based on sound science and in response to a conservation concern or is necessary to meet refuge purposes, federal laws or Service policy. In addition, the rule defines the process that will be used for considering predator control, prohibits certain methods and means for non-subsistence harvest of predators, and updates the procedures for closing an area or restricting an activity on refuges in Alaska.

“Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuges are incredible landscapes with wildlife populations that support subsistence traditions and recreational opportunities like hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “The Service manages these refuges to conserve species and preserve biodiversity and environmental health for the continuing benefit of present and future generations of all Americans, while balancing the need to provide sport and subsistence hunting opportunities. Consistent with existing law and agency policy, sustainable harvest of fish and wildlife, including predators, remains a priority public use on national wildlife refuges in Alaska.”

Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), all refuges in Alaska are mandated to provide the opportunity for continued subsistence use by rural Alaska residents in a manner consistent with the conservation of natural diversity. The final rule will not change federal subsistence regulations or restrict taking of fish or wildlife under them.

The state of Alaska regulates general hunting and trapping of wildlife, including on national wildlife refuges.

“Whenever possible, we prefer to defer to the state of Alaska on regulation of general hunting and trapping of wildlife on national wildlife refuges unless by doing so we are out of compliance with federal law and policy,” Ashe continued. “This regulation ensures we comply with our mandates and obligations.”

The rule will help facilitate the ability of the Service to maintain sustainable populations of bears, wolves and coyotes throughout national wildlife refuges across Alaska and will ensure a consistent and transparent approach to management of predators.

The regulations were published as a proposed rule and open for a 90-day public comment period between January 8, 2016, and April 7, 2016. The rule was modified in response to written public comments and testimony provided at public hearings. A table showing the changes that were made between the proposed and final rule and the Service’s responses to all substantive comments can be found in the final rule.

The new regulations will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Additional information, including a copy of the final rule can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/alaska/nwr/ak_nwr_pr.htm.

For more information about national wildlife refuges in Alaska, please visit http://www.fws.gov/alaska/nwr/nwr.htm.

Final rule, questions and answers.



https://www.fws.gov/alaska/nwr...e_FinalRule_FAQs.pdf



Page 4 in link:


Methods and Means of Take of Wildlife:
• Prohibits the following particularly effective methods and means for non-subsistence take of
predators on refuges in Alaska due to the potential impacts to predator populations and the
environment that are inconsistent with the Service’s mandates to conserve the natural and
biological diversity, biological integrity and environmental health on refuges in Alaska:
o Take of bear cubs or sows with cubs (exception allowed for resident hunters to take
black bear cubs or sows with cubs under customary and traditional use activities at
a den site October 15 – April 30 in specific game management units in accordance
with state regulations).
o Take of brown bears over bait.
o Take of bears using traps or snares.
o Take of wolves or coyotes from May 1 – August 9.
o Take of bears from an aircraft or on the same day as air travel has occurred. (Same
day airborne take of wolves or wolverines is already prohibited under current refuge
regulations.)

Kathi thanks for bringing attention to this proposed rule change. The relatively modest changes expressly made (no predator control; no taking brown bear over bait) are really just the tip of the iceberg here. This a massive federal power grab in violation of the Alaska statehood act which guaranteed to Alaska the right to manage fish and game within its borders. This provision was included in the statehood act in response to lthe disasterous federal management of Alaska's fisheries prior to statehood. The rule strips state power over 77 million acres. The rule also sets out a flexible and discretionary standard for federal management which invites abuse allowing the Feds to close areas and restict hunting virtually at whim. This rule also violates ANILCA a federal statute which guarantees subsistence hunting, and travel through Alaska refuges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...-wolves-on-our-land/


Article on the rule.

Whether or not this can withstand a court test remains to be seen. Obviously, the feds researched the legal issues and were confident it was within their purview.

In my view, the state brought this on itself. AK has an "Intensive Management Law" that since 1994 (particularly since 2003) has involved extreme measures to reduce wolves and bears in an effort to provide more moose and caribou for hunters. These included methods that were long ago deemed unethical or illegal--public aerial shooting, gassing pups in dens, trapping/snaring of bears, sale of bear parts, helicopter transport of hunters, same-day-airborne hunting, etc. The Game Board extended these methods onto the federal refuges. Federal guidelines are not compatible with intensive management, hence the new rules.

If hunters had recognized that management of federal refuges had to be different than management of state owned land, and if they had resisted "state over-reach" this never would have happened.

The statehood act does not make Alaska's rights to manage fish and game contingent on your approval or that of any other person. Under the Alaska constition fish and game are reserved to the people of Alaska and are managed under a sustained yield principle. The patronizing tone and the many inaccuracies in your post are an excellent example of why Alaska's fish and game should be managed by Alaskans. For example the use of helicopters in any manner to support hunting is prohibited, as is the use of snares and traps to take big game. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion on such things. If you find Alaska's predator control efforts offensive you are welcome to "vote with your wallet" and stay home. If you had an idea about how destructive and wasteful a wolf pack or high bear population can be on moose and caribou you might change your assumptions about predator control in Alaska.

quote:

Originally posted by PKW:
For example the use of helicopters in any manner to support hunting is prohibited, as is the use of snares and traps to take big game.

You are dead wrong. Helicopter transport of hunters was approved by the Game Board for Unit 16B. ADF&G can also issue permits to use helicopters to retrieve carcasses--for example, wolves shot by private pilots in places where fixed-wings can't land. Also trapping (with bucket snares) of bears was approved by the Board.

I am well aware of the impact of wolf and bear predation on moose numbers. I also know that every last predator can be "controlled" and moose numbers will remain low if poor habitat, severe winters or heavy hunting/poaching are the main limiting factors. Much of Alaska is low quality moose habitat. That's a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by vicvanb:
Much of Alaska is low quality moose habitat. That's a fact.

Anchorage and the Valley seem to have no trouble over producing Moose.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Anchorage and the Valley seem to have no trouble over producing Moose.

I did not say ALL areas had poor habitat. SOME areas have good habitat. Many areas have low moose density. Some areas have high density. There are several places where past predator control failed to increase moose because the habitat was poor.

This is pretty unfortunate. Not so much because I want to reserve my right to shoot bear cubs in a den as a non subsistence Alaskan, but it sets a very bad precedent of federal land management agencies superseding Alaska's state management authority as outlined under ANILCA.

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by vicvanb:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Anchorage and the Valley seem to have no trouble over producing Moose.

I did not say ALL areas had poor habitat. SOME areas have good habitat. Many areas have low moose density. Some areas have high density. There are several places where past predator control failed to increase moose because the habitat was poor.

That's why there are so many GMU's and different regs for each.

I would still rather see AL F&G managing our resources than a politically driven federal alphabet soup agency with no over site.

Cheers
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
I would still rather see AL F&G managing our resources than a politically driven federal alphabet soup agency with no over site.

Yes, but Alaska Fish&Game is also politically driven--just a different brand of politics.

From 1994 (when the Intensive Management Law passed) to 2003, IM was implemented without the extreme methods that the Murkowski, Palin and Parnell administrations adopted.

Palin's proposed bounty on wolves was a political attempt to appease the old timers who wanted a return to the 1950s. The biologists' opposition was ignored.