Responding to requests from Alaskans that the state of Alaska submit its predator control program — including the Mulchatna program, in which the state recently killed hundreds of bears and wolves — to independent scientific review by the National Academies of Sciences/National Research Council, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang wrote the following: “At this point, I do not see a need for this study. I believe our program is legal, science-based, and proven to have results that benefit Alaskans. As such, I will not be asking for funding to support this assessment nor to have it done by individuals not familiar with our state.”
In fact, the commissioner’s refusal to agree to such review says exactly the opposite. The state’s fear of critical scientific review betrays its lack of confidence in the veracity of its predator control program. Any good scientist or resource policymaker would invite independent scientific review of a significant program such as this, particularly as it is so controversial, and so widely criticized by many Alaskans, including many scientists, even those from within the department.
Also note that the state and other predator control proponents continue to ignore the opportunity to expand well-managed, sustainable reindeer herding to address the food security needs in western Alaska while allowing the natural predator/prey dynamics of the caribou herds to stabilize on their own. They are not looking for solutions, they are looking for excuses to continue killing wolves and bears.
Just to recap, Alaska’s controversial bear/wolf control effort is a state government program, conducted on state lands, by state employees, with state monies, killing wildlife managed (ostensibly) on behalf of all Alaskans. Yet the state refuses to allow independent scientific observers to monitor the program, refuses to permit any photographs to be taken, refuses to disclose locations of the kill sites, ignores the opportunity to expand reindeer herding to address rural food security needs, has yet to provide detailed results of its 2024 program, and refuses to submit the program to independent scientific assessment. Draw your own conclusions.
— Rick Steiner
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.