Alaska Resumes Controversial Bear Culling Program to Save Declining Caribou Herd

Court Ruling Allows Aerial Hunting to Continue During Critical Calving Season

In a decision that has reignited debate over wildlife management practices, an Alaska judge ruled Wednesday that state wildlife agents may resume shooting and killing black and brown bears—including from helicopters—as part of an intensive effort to help a once-thriving caribou population recover. Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman denied a request from two conservation organizations to halt the program while their legal challenge proceeds, concluding that the state had acted with reasonable justification in approving the controversial plan. The timing of this ruling carries particular significance as the Mulchatna caribou herd in southwest Alaska approaches its calving season, a vulnerable period when newborn caribou are especially susceptible to predation by bears and wolves. The Alaska Wildlife Alliance and Center for Biological Diversity had sought an injunction to stop the bear-killing program, but Judge Zeman determined they had not sufficiently demonstrated that state officials lacked a reasonable basis for their decision. For state wildlife managers, this ruling represents a critical victory in their efforts to restore a caribou population that has experienced a catastrophic decline over the past two decades, dropping from a peak of approximately 190,000 animals to current estimates of around 16,280.

The Dramatic Collapse of a Vital Food Source

The Mulchatna caribou herd’s story is one of dramatic population collapse with profound implications for Alaska Native communities who have depended on these animals for generations. At its peak, this herd provided approximately 4,770 caribou annually for subsistence hunters from dozens of villages across southwest Alaska, representing not just a food source but a cornerstone of traditional culture and survival in one of America’s most remote regions. The herd’s population began its concerning downward trajectory in the late 1990s and early 2000s, entering what wildlife biologists describe as a population crash. By 2019, surveys indicated the herd had plummeted to approximately 13,000 animals—a staggering 93% decline from peak numbers. The situation became so dire that state officials prohibited all hunting of the Mulchatna herd beginning in 2021, cutting off access to a resource that Indigenous communities had relied upon for countless generations. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, recent surveys suggest a modest uptick, with the 2024 population estimated at around 16,280 animals, offering a glimmer of hope that recovery might be possible with aggressive management intervention, including the controversial predator control program now at the center of legal and ethical debates.

The Scale and Methods of Bear Removal Operations

The scope of Alaska’s bear elimination program has been substantial and, to critics, shocking in its intensity. According to court documents filed by the conservation groups challenging the program, state agents killed 180 bears between 2023 and 2024, with the majority being brown bears, followed by an additional 11 bears last year. The Alaska Wildlife Alliance has provided even more detailed accounting that underscores the concentrated nature of these operations: in less than a month during 2023, aerial hunting teams killed 99 bears, including 20 cubs, shooting the animals from helicopters during focused operations. This method of wildlife management—shooting bears from aircraft—represents one of Alaska’s most contentious wildlife practices, defended by some as necessary population management and condemned by others as unsporting and ecologically questionable. State officials maintain that this intensive approach is justified by the urgent need to protect vulnerable caribou calves during the critical weeks following their birth, when bear predation can significantly impact calf survival rates. The program specifically targets the calving season, when newborn caribou are most defenseless and when reducing predator numbers theoretically offers the greatest benefit to herd recovery, according to the biological rationale underlying the state’s management strategy.

The Scientific and Legal Controversy

At the heart of this legal battle lies a fundamental disagreement about scientific evidence, data quality, and the proper basis for wildlife management decisions. The conservation groups argue that the Alaska Board of Game authorized the program’s reinstatement without possessing crucial data on bear population numbers and the sustainability of removing bears at such intensive levels. Cooper Freeman, Alaska director at the Center for Biological Diversity, articulated this concern clearly: “We want to see the caribou herd thrive, but the state simply hasn’t shown that the unrestrained killing of bears is going to help us get there. We need to stop this disgraceful waste of the state’s limited resources and work based on science to protect all our wildlife.” The conservation groups point to a 2020 assessment by state biologists that identified disease and lack of food as the primary factors in the caribou decline, with bear predation not ranking among the top three causes of mortality. This creates a troubling scenario, critics argue, where the state is implementing a dramatic and expensive intervention targeting a factor that may not be the primary driver of the problem. State attorneys counter that officials took a “hard look” at factors related to bear populations when adopting the plan and note that Alaska’s bear populations remain robust, with an estimated 100,000 black bears and 30,000 brown bears statewide, suggesting the removals won’t threaten overall bear populations.

Competing Perspectives on Wildlife Management Philosophy

Beyond the immediate question of caribou recovery lies a deeper philosophical debate about how Alaska should manage its wildlife in the 21st century. State officials and their supporters view predator control as a legitimate, science-based tool to achieve management objectives, particularly when a population crash threatens both wildlife and the human communities dependent on them. As Sam Curtis, spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Law, stated: “Continuing this program makes sense in light of the scientific record,” noting that “the herd has persisted at low numbers but started showing a positive response since 2023, when bear removal during calving seasons began.” This perspective holds that active, sometimes aggressive management interventions are necessary and appropriate, especially when traditional food sources for rural communities are at stake. Conversely, conservation groups express concern about what they see as a troubling trend in Alaska wildlife management. In a position paper, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance argues: “We are concerned that big game management in Alaska has become a process whereby population objectives for wild ungulates are established based on public demand rather than on habitat capacity, promoting unsustainable management.” This critique suggests that Alaska’s approach prioritizes maintaining artificially high numbers of game animals to satisfy hunters rather than managing wildlife within the natural carrying capacity of the ecosystem, potentially creating a cycle where predators must be continuously controlled to maintain inflated prey populations.

The Path Forward and Ongoing Legal Battle

This case represents just the latest chapter in an ongoing legal saga that has seen multiple court challenges, regulatory changes, and administrative processes. A judge ruled against the program last year in an earlier case brought by the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, finding problems with the adoption process and concluding the state lacked adequate data on bear sustainability. Emergency regulations subsequently implemented by the state were struck down, leading to a new public process that culminated in the Board of Game reauthorizing the program in July of the previous year. Now, with Judge Zeman’s decision allowing the program to continue during the upcoming calving season, attorneys with Trustees for Alaska, representing the conservation groups, are reviewing the ruling and considering their next moves, according to spokesperson Madison Grosvenor. The stakes extend beyond this particular case, touching on fundamental questions about Alaska’s relationship with its wildlife, the balance between subsistence needs and conservation, the role of predator control in modern wildlife management, and how decisions should be made when scientific evidence is incomplete or contested. For Alaska Native communities who have lost access to a traditional food source, the caribou recovery is a matter of cultural survival and food security. For conservation groups, the methods being employed raise ethical questions and concerns about ecosystem management. As spring approaches and the caribou calving season nears, state helicopters will once again take to the skies over southwest Alaska, continuing a controversial program that represents both the complexity of wildlife management and the deep divides in how Americans believe wild landscapes should be managed in an era of ecological change.