Alaska should support existing National Park wildlife regulations

  • By Tony Knowles
  • Friday, August 17, 2018 11:13am
  • Opinion

The current proposal by the Trump administration, in collaboration with the Walker administration, to permit unethical and unscientific predator control practices on National Park Service (NPS) lands in Alaska is contrary to Alaska’s interests and should be abandoned.

For 44 years, the State of Alaska and the NPS had a mutually agreed upon relationship for wildlife management on federal conservation units enshrined in the Alaska Statehood Act, the Organic Act, and ANILCA. The agreement in practice and in law spanned many state and federal administrations. One specific purpose was to protect and conserve the treasured wildlife of Alaska’s National Parks.

Now Interior Secretary Zinke and the Walker Administration are attempting to rescind Alaska National Park wildlife regulations, which are fundamental rules of stewardship required by federal law. A brief historical perspective can help shed some light on this shortsighted, political maneuver.

Passage of the Alaska Statehood Act in 1959 was a triumph for Alaskan control of resources, including fish and wildlife, with one important exception. The Feds remained in control of wildlife on federal lands “withdrawn or otherwise set apart as refuges or reservations for the protection of wildlife.” For 21 years the State managed wildlife in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges adhering to federal wildlife regulations.

The next major change came in 1980 with enactment of ANILCA. This law added 43 million acres to Alaska’s National Parks system, of which over 20 million acres were designated National Preserves where subsistence and sport hunting were permitted.

Governor Jay Hammond negotiated the State’s interest in fish and wildlife management on the new lands in the National Park System. The ADF&G Commissioner and the Regional Director of Alaska National Parks signed an agreement in 1982. It once again recognized that the State would adhere to federal fish and wildlife regulations and that there would be no manipulation of species or predator control.

The agreement states:

“The Department of Fish and Game agrees to manage fish and resident wildlife populations in their natural species diversity on Service lands, recognizing that nonconsumptive use and appreciation by the visiting public is a primary consideration.”

In 2003, after 23 years of cooperation post-ANILCA, a new state administration attempted to apply state predator control policies to the National Preserves. After numerous unsuccessful consultations with the state, National Park Service managers used their authority to impose emergency hunting closures to counteract each specific action by the State.

This interplay occurred more than 50 times over the next 12 years and ultimately was the basis for the NPS beginning a multiyear public process to permanently resolve the issue. In that process, the National Park Service received more that 70,000 comments and held over 25 Alaska public hearings.

In 2015 regulations were adopted prohibiting any predator control program on NPS lands based on the legal requirements of applicable federal laws. Additionally, the regulations prohibited the following taking of wildlife historically considered unethical: bear cubs or female bears with cubs; any bear using artificial light at den sites; brown bears and black bears over bait; wolves and coyotes during the denning season; and black bears hunted using dogs. All of these NPS regulations are reasonable, publicly supported, and consistent with both the original state-federal agreement and current federal law.

The Walker administration, listening to predator control advocates, disagreed. It filed suit against the NPS for imposing these regulations arguing that it is not advocating predator control but just “asserting states’ rights”. Make no mistake, the current state administration has aggressively pursued predator control programs and allowed unethical methods of harvesting.

If the Feds and the State are successful in allowing predator control in our National Parks, there are two obvious consequences that should be troubling to Alaskans. First, there will be strong opposition across America to opening our National Parks to predator control programs and to the historically banned unethical harvesting practices. This will surely give a black eye to Alaska’s tourism industry, which relies heavily upon the more than 2.7 million visitors who visit our National Parks each year.

Secondly, the Department of Interior currently manages all of the subsistence hunting and fishing on federal lands based on rural preference as provided under ANILCA. By contrast the State cannot manage hunting and fishing with a rural preference as it was declared unconstitutional in 1989. If fish and wildlife management in the National Preserves now becomes a State function, this should be a serious concern for rural residents who rely on subsistence.

Neither of these consequences, as well as others, bodes well for Alaskans.

The former Director of National Parks issued a directive to the National Park System that all its policies should be based on three factors: the best science available, compliance with the law, and the long-term public interest. Secretary Zinke rescinded that directive. It will be a sad day for Alaskans if the Department of Interior with support from the State of Alaska — ignoring science, existing federal law, and the best interests of the public — is allowed to rescind responsible National Park Service wildlife regulations.

The public has until August 31st to comment on the proposed deletion of the current wildlife regulations in our National Parks. In the brief time period that is left, please speak up to help protect our unique wildlife and the lands where they live.


• Tony Knowles was governor of Alaska from 1994-2002 and Chair of National Park System Advisory Board 2010-2017.


More in Opinion

Web
Have something to say?

Here’s how to add your voice to the conversation.

A person departs Bartlett Regional Hospital on July 26, 2023. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: The importance of a strong, independent community hospital

Juneau’s city-owned Bartlett Regional Hospital (BRH) is in the news, presenting our… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: Disappointed by JAHC director’s opposition to Ship-Free Saturdays

As a member of the Juneau Arts and Humanities Council, I was… Continue reading

Juneau residents pack a room at the downtown public library for a June 6 meeting of Eaglecrest Ski Area’s board of directors. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire file photo)
My Turn: Eaglecrest unplugged

Serving on a board or commission is hard work and that service… Continue reading

Downtown Juneau in late October of 2022. (Clarise Larson / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Mitigating the loss of tax revenue from cruise ship free Saturdays

The cruise ship free Saturday initiative presents us with a modified lesson… Continue reading

Leaders at Bartlett Regional Hospital listen to comments from residents during a forum Monday about proposed cuts to some services. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire)
My Turn: Bartlett board faces challenges

Once upon a time, Alaska’s capital had a well-run municipal hospital, but… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: SEARHC’s goals seem likely to limit, rather than expand, health options in Juneau

Max Mertz’s comments at the Bartlett Regional Hospital public forum about SEARHC’s… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: Allow locals to have their town back once a week during the summer

Perhaps Nate Vallier shrugs when he sees eagles and bears (My Turn,… Continue reading

Former President Donald Trump arrives at Trump Tower after he was found guilty of all counts in his criminal trial in New York on May 30. (Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times)
Opinion: Trump’s new fixers

“Alaska Republicans back Trump after historic conviction in hush money case,” the… Continue reading

Most Read