Dillingham residents had a chance to testify on proposed predator control rules; in D.C., Alaska Sen. Murkowski told Secretary Jewell the rules would violate ANILCA and the state constitution.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service heard mixed feedback in Dillingham Tuesday night about proposed regulations that would limit predator control in national wildlife refuges in Alaska.
The rules are similar to those finalized by the National Park Service last year, and would ban practices such as baiting brown bears, same-day airborne hunting of bears, and take of wolves and coyotes during denning season.
Those practices have been allowed by state wildlife managers in order to boost populations of moose and caribou for subsistence users, but federal managers say that violates their conservation mandate on federal lands.
One of just two locals who spoke at Tuesday's hearing was Dan Dunaway of Dillingham, who opposed the new rules. Dunaway expressed concern that the changes could have unforeseen consequences:
"I think it could have potential national impacts, even though you say it doesn't. I think it could have sign impact on subsistence users, even though you say it won't. Especially depending on how you choose to manage -- or choose not to manage. There's been a long call for predator control in some of these areas, and there's a lot of refusal, and that leaves me uncomfortable."
In support of most of the proposed changes was Paul Liedberg of Dillingham, who said he believes the state’s emphasis on predator control is not guided by principles of conservation, sound science, fair chase or “traditional hunting ethics."
"Congress was clear when passing ANILCA that refuges in Alaska were to be managed to conserve the fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity... In my view, the proposed regulations support the mandates already provided to refuges in Alaska by Congress, and should be implemented."
The third comment came from a Denali naturalist representing the environmental group Alaskans for Wildlife, who called to support the federal rules.
The same conversation was happening on Capitol Hill on Wednesday morning in a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior.
Senate Lisa Murkowski, who chairs the subcommittee, pressed Interior Secretary Sally Jewell on the legitimacy of the federal rule change.
"Do you believe that the state of Alaska has the right to manage its wildlife within the borders of the state?" asked Murkowski.
"Certainly, Sen. Murkowsi, I believe the state has the right to manage its wildlife," said Jewell. "I also, though, say the Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Park Service must operate within the Congressional mandates that they have, and what they've struck in this is really around non-subsistence take of predators."
Murkowski pushed back on that idea, saying restricting predator control would have a negative impact on subsistence users.
And Murkowski stressed that the federal rule changes represent a bigger issue, saying they violate both ANILCA and Alaska’s constitution:
"You need to understand how significant an issue this has become in the state of Alaska. It may be right up there with the fight on ANWR and King Cove. It may surpass them all, because this truly does go to a state’s rights issue."
The public comment period has been extended another 30 days until April 7th . That gives the Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils, including the Bristol Bay RAC, the opportunity to discuss and take positions at their meetings in Anchorage next week.
Contact the author at hannah@kdlg.org.
