Photo by Fish and Wildlife Service
Mountain bikes, furbearer trapping and brown bear baiting: What they have in common and why it matters
By John Morton, Ph.D.
Brown bears investigate a bait station on Kenai National Wildlife Refuge
On 11 June 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed a new rule for the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. This “Kenai Rule” amends Kenai Refuge regulations codified in 2016 by replacing its furbearer trapping program with the State’s less restrictive regulations; allowing brown bear harvest over bait in a 200 square mile permitted area in the Kenai Lowlands; allowing firearm discharge within ¼ mile of the Kenai and Russian Rivers from November 1 to April 30; allowing bicycles on 137 miles of designated trails, roads and right-of-ways, and on certain frozen lakes in the Skilak Wildlife Area; allowing game carts on industrial roads in oil and gas fields, and selected roads and right-of-ways; and allowing ATVs, UTVs and snowmachines wherever automobiles are allowed on lakes for icefishing.
The proposed rule is the Department of Interior’s response to litigation filed by the State of Alaska and the Washington DC-based Safari Club International (SCI) against Kenai Refuge (and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance as a defendant-intervenor) in 2016. These plaintiffs sought to undo federal regulations that reflected new management directions arising from public input into a 2010 revision of the Kenai Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan. In any other administration, Kenai Refuge would have been supported by the Department of Interior and this issue settled in court. After all, National Wildlife Refuges are administered by the USFWS, one of several agencies nested under the Department of Interior. However, that is not the case here. The Department of Interior chose to appease the State by proposing these new regulations, although it is not clear if the State or SCI will be satisfied with what is in the Kenai Rule.
At first blush, this proposed rule doesn’t seem like a big deal. In fact, the increased public access probably seems like a good thing to many locals. And making furbearer trapping and bear hunting on Kenai Refuge consistent with state regulations is seemingly reasonable. The problem is that the state regulations regarding trapping and brown bear baiting are not reasonable in this case, as I’ll show below. More significantly, the management of a National Wildlife Refuge that must balance wildlife needs with multiple recreational and commercial stakeholders is being hijacked.
Hijacking management of a National Wildlife Refuge
Let’s start big and drill down. Looking at this granularly, doesn’t it seem incongruous that mountain bike regulations are mixed in with harvesting brown bears over bait? That’s because Kenai Refuge has multiple and sometimes conflicting mandates and policies that the refuge manager must balance. The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) tasked Kenai Refuge to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, and two-thirds of the 2 million-acre refuge is congressionally-designated Wilderness with its own set of regulatory constraints under the 1964 Wilderness Act. The 1997 Refuge System Improvement Act further tasked Kenai Refuge (and all other National Wildlife Refuges) with maintaining biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.
While upholding those mandates, the Kenai Refuge is also tasked with providing opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation), federal subsistence harvest, commercial oil and gas extraction on 14,000 acres of leased lands, commercial guiding and rafting operations, protecting archaeological and historical sites, managing wildfires, and managing utility and road right-of-ways. On any given day in July, for example, Kenai Refuge staff can be found contacting Russian River anglers, repairing a hiking trail or canoe portage, restoring a public use cabin, herbiciding invasive plants, conducting search and rescue operations, hosting a summer youth camp, surveying trumpeter swans, researching post-fire vegetation response, reducing fuel loads along the wildland-urban interface, enforcing fishing regulations, cleaning campground outhouses, grading a road, assisting with an oil spill, or guiding a bus-load of tourists through the visitor center on Ski Hill Road.
So why do folks like Eddie Grasser, an Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) commissioner, characterize this proposed rule as a conflict between federal and state wildlife management, or a conflict between managing for maximum sustained yield (ADF&G) and conserving natural diversity (Kenai Refuge)? Consider how few of these daily tasks by refuge staff are actually about game management. Grasser’s framing is simply not valid - it’s an effort to divert the narrative away from the fact that the ADF&G and Board of Game (BOG) are imposing an exploitive ethos on federal land management.
This issue has already been addressed. After ANILCA was passed in 1980, the USFWS and ADF&G signed a Master Memorandum of Understanding in 1982 that reflects general policy guidelines within which the two agencies agree to operate, and was reaffirmed by both agencies in 2006. The MOU makes it clear that the USFWS will “manage the fish and wildlife habitat on [USFWS] lands so as to insure conservation of fish and wildlife, populations and their habitats in their natural diversity.” ADF&G expressly agrees to “recognize the [USFWS] as the agency with the responsibility…on [USFWS] lands in Alaska to…regulate human use.”
More pointedly, both parties agree “to recognize that the taking of fish and wildlife by hunting, trapping or fishing on [USFWS] lands in Alaska is authorized in accordance with applicable State and Federal law unless State regulations are found to be incompatible with documented Refuge goals, objectives or management plans.” Compatibility is technical jargon; a refuge manager must ensure that public uses (certainly controversial ones) are compatible with their refuge’s purposes. In this case, the Kenai Refuge manager determined that trapping was compatible as long as the federal permit program was in place to “ensure biological considerations are evaluated, but also those other significant issues that impact the program, such as concerns for safety and animal welfare.” And while harvesting black bears over bait has been deemed compatible by the refuge manager, that has not been determined for brown bears. The proposed Kenai Rule essentially hijacks Kenai Refuge’s ability to manage and balance these competing mandates, elevating ADF&G’s much narrower priorities of managing game and furbearers for a smaller number of users.
Harvesting brown bears over bait is predator control by any other name
Brown bear, Photo licensed by Unsplash
If we drill down a little further, it becomes apparent that the proposed rule is not simply about who gets to manage wildlife. It’s about a continuation of predator control through liberalized harvest statewide and specifically on the Kenai Peninsula where the Kenai Refuge is such a large piece of Game Management Unit 15. In 2017, Dr. Sterling Miller, Dr. John Schoen and Dr. Chuck Schwartz, all former ADF&G bear biologists, published a scathing analysis of recent regulatory actions by ADF&G and the Board of Game in the journal Ursus. In lieu of expanding predator control actions under the Intensive Management program, which has several policy and public perception hurdles, these experts wrote:
“From Regulatory Years 1995–1996 to 2017–2018, the State of Alaska general hunting regulations for resident brown bear hunters in [Southeast and Southcentral Alaska] were made more liberal 222 times in a Game Management Unit subunit and made more conservative [only] 4 times. There was a shift in the types of regulations that were liberalized prior to RY2010–2011 and the types that have been liberalized subsequently. Since 2010–2011 changes have focused on increasing bag limits to 2 bears/year, allowing commercial sale of bear hides with claws attached and skulls, and allowing shooting of brown bears at bear bait stations.”
Furthermore, “the most abrupt shift from conservative to very liberal management regulations for brown bear hunting by Alaskan resident hunters occurred on the Kenai Peninsula starting in RY 2012–2013 and increasing in 2013–2014. Subsequent to the [25-fold] spike in harvest numbers following the 2013–2014 liberalizations, we speculate that the subsequent decline in harvest numbers resulted from depletion in bear abundance on the Kenai Peninsula. Achieving such a reduction along with reducing non-sport mortalities were the State of Alaska’s objectives for the liberalizations.”
Why systematically persecute bears (and wolves)? Many Alaskans and tourists value these animals alive much more than dead, and ADF&G has a responsibility to manage state wildlife for all stakeholders. Perhaps it’s the close relationship between ADF&G and SCI. Jeff Garness, President of the SCI’s Alaska Chapter, writes in their Summer 2019 newsletter:
"Several of our key Board members left the SCI-AK leadership team to take influential leadership positions with the State of Alaska. Former SCI-AK Board member Doug Vincent-Lang was selected by Governor Mike Dunleavy to be the new Commissioner at the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). Accompanying him was former SCI-AK Board member Ben Mulligan, who is now the Deputy Commissioner of ADF&G. Former SCI Vice President and SCI-AK patriarch Eddie Grasser was selected to be Director for the Division of Wildlife Conservation. Although their presence will be missed at SCI-AK, it is comforting to know that people of their caliber and mindset (in regard to hunting and wildlife conservation), are leading the ADF&G."
It becomes apparent that ADF&G and SCI are complicit in this effort to liberalize brown bear harvest and undermine Kenai Refuge management that seeks compromise between competing user groups, such as trappers and hikers with dogs. Neither ADF&G nor SCI fully understand that allowing game carts within commercial oil and gas fields can create conflict and liability issues for the company that holds the lease. Neither appreciates that reducing brown bears for moose is reducing commercial and recreational viewing opportunities for tourists and residents. Neither recognises that brown bears as apex predators are iconic symbols for those who appreciate Wilderness. Neither appreciates that larger moose populations can only be sustained through fire-manipulated habitat (not through predator control), an action that Kenai Refuge manages, not ADF&G or SCI. And that more moose means higher moose-vehicle collisions, an outcome that ADF&G tallies but Kenai Refuge tries to mitigate with wildlife underpasses.
Eliminating the refuge trapping program increases risk of harm to wildlife and people
Black bear in the Kenai Refuge caught in a leghold trap that was left out after the season, Photo courtesy of former FWS employee
When we drill down to the actual proposed changes, we can see how this background of subterfuge tangibly affects many more user groups (and wildlife) than solely hunters and trappers who use Kenai Refuge. The elimination of the Kenai Refuge’s furbearer trapping program is not trivial. This program developed from a public process in the early 1980s, which resulted in the 1988 furbearer management plan. The permitting program that developed from that plan was carefully crafted to reduce incidental take of non-target animals; enhance public safety and reduce conflicts among trappers and between trappers and other recreational users; address humane issues associated with trapping; and help conserve furbearer species susceptible to overharvest (lynx, beaver) or occurring at low densities (American marten, red fox).
These eagles, caught on the Kenai Refuge in illegal traps, exemplify the importance of the Refuge trapping permit.
This program includes a one-time requirement to attend a refuge-sponsored trapper orientation class; identification of all traps and snares; a requirement to check all leghold traps and snares either every 4 days (accessible areas) or 7 days (more remote areas); prohibition of traps and snares within 30 feet of any sight-exposed bait; prohibition of trapping within 1 mile of road accessible trailheads, public roads, and public recreational facilities (see map here), within the Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area, and around the Refuge Headquarters and Visitor Center; and special restrictions to conserve lynx during the closed season, beaver, red fox and American marten.
Violation #1: The trapper buried bait in the snow and set the traps directly on top. For traps to be legal under the Refuge permit, they must be 30 feet away from sight exposed bait. When the snow melted, the eagles landed on the bait and were trapped by their pinky talons.
Violation #2: The trapper didn’t check the traps for over 21 days. The Refuge permit requires trap checking every 4-7 days depending on the area. Had the trapper checked their traps to release non-target catch, these eagles would have likely survived. Instead, they died slowly of dehydration, starvation, and exposure.
Violation #3: The trapper did not mark their traps, per the Refuge trapping permit requirement, making it more difficult for law enforcement to cite the violations.
Thanks to the existing Refuge permit, law enforcement was able to successfully prosecute this case under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. If the Refuge permit is removed, none of the cited violations in this case would be illegal, and the incidental catch of non-target species, such as eagles, would be unregulated.
Photos courtesy of former FWS employee
Abolishing this program will open new areas of the refuge to trapping—including areas within a mile of campgrounds and road accessible trailheads. This puts other refuge visitors—for example, people hiking with their dogs—at greater risk of accidentally encountering a trap. State regulations do not adequately consider that Kenai Refuge is effectively Alaska’s version of an “urban” refuge, surrounded by rural subdivisions and communities with almost 56,000 people, and a visitation rate that numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Eliminating the requirement for a federal permit for trapping means that trappers need not periodically check traps – so animals could be inhumanely left trapped for long periods of time; that trappers need not identify their traps and snares, avoiding accountability; that trappers may use methods that are more likely to increase trapping of nontarget species, and that trappers may use steel leg hold traps with teeth, spikes or serrated jaws. These changes place both human health and wildlife at risk, which is exactly why trapping was deemed compatible by the Kenai Refuge manager only as long as the permit program was in place.
An example of a domestic dog caught in snare near a trap. This happened frequently before the Refuge trapping permit was established. Accidents like this still occur on lands outside of the Refuge andf trapping buffer, including in and around Cooper Landing. Photo courtesy of former FWS employee
Killing brown bears over bait should not be happening on a National Wildlife Refuge
The Rule also permits baiting brown bears. The harvest of brown bears over bait is both a questionable hunting practice on a National Wildlife Refuge and questionable from the perspective of sustaining the brown bear population on the Kenai Peninsula. In the former case, unlike black bears, brown bears are not generally harvested for food. In fact, the requirement for salvaging the meat was dropped by ADF&G in 2016-17; brown bears are now being killed over bait as trophies. In the latter case, ADF&G listed Kenai brown bears as a population of special concern as recently as 2012 before launching on liberalized harvest that killed over 200 of an estimated 600 brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula during 2012-2014. This excessive mortality prompted Kenai Refuge to close the brown bear hunting season in late 2013 and again from 1 Sept 2014 through 31 May 2015. It was these actions by the Board of Game and ADF&G that motivated Kenai Refuge to specifically not allow the harvest of brown bears over bait in the 2016 regulatory package, and that the proposed rule is now trying to roll back.
Photo courtesy of Patrice Kohl
It is also clear that under any other administration, Kenai Refuge would have the authority to deem harvest of brown bears over bait incompatible with refuge purposes. In the 1982 Master MOU between the State and USFWS, both parties specifically agree to “…adopt refuge management plans whose provisions -- including provision for animal damage control – are in substantial agreement with the Department’s fish and wildlife management plans, unless such plans are determined formally to be incompatible with the purposes for which the respective refuges were established.” Furthermore, the USFWS only committed to (and the state accepted that limited commitment by signing the agreement) have its approved predator control program be in “substantial agreement” with what the state wanted, and was reserving the right to differ from and reject state proposals where warranted. Moreover, the USFWS expressly reserved the right to reject a state predator control program that it found to be incompatible with the purposes of a given refuge (i.e., managing wildlife populations for natural diversity). Finally, the State acknowledged under the MOU that it recognized “…that the taking of fish and wildlife by hunting, trapping, or fishing on Service [USFWS] lands in Alaska is authorized in accordance with applicable State and Federal law unless State regulations are found to be incompatible with documented Refuge goals, objectives, or management plans.” Again, this demonstrates that AF&G acknowledged that the USFWS had final administrative decision-making and control over compatibility findings for proposed hunting and trapping activities on refuges.
How can you help?
At the end of the day, the proposed Kenai Rule isn’t a one size fits all. You don’t have to like what is being proposed 100% any more than you have to dislike it 100%. It’s OK to like aspects of the increased public access and to not like some of the changes to furbearer or brown bear management. What is important is that you weigh in, expressing those likes and dislikes. This is only a proposal, not the done deal, and the Department of Interior is supposed to consider public opinions in its final rule.
Click here to view AWA’s factsheet on all the proposed changes, and feel free to use facts from that document in your comments.
Click here to go to the official proposal and online public comment portal. In order to view the draft EA, you will need to click on “Open Docket Folder” near the top left of the webpage, then click on the file titled “Kenai NWR_EA Public Use Rule”. To submit comments on either or both documents, click on “Comment Now!” on the right side of that webpage. You can also mail in your comments to:
Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS-R7-NWRS-2017-0058
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
MS: JAO/1N, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
Comments will be accepted until 7:59 pm Alaska time on August 10, 2020. Click HERE to get tips for writing more effective and substantive comments so your comments count.
About the author: Dr. John Morton was the supervisory biologist at Kenai National Wildlife Refuge for 17 years, retiring from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in December 2019. His estimate of ~600 brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula in 2010, based on mark-recapture modeling of hair DNA, is the only statistically rigorous population estimate to date. He is now vice president of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance.
