Alaska EPSCoR AHM
May 27, 2010
Shannon Donovan
University of Alaska Anchorage
Department of Geography and
Environmental Studies
The Issues: They are Complex
 Predator control occurs across many Northwest states and
Alaska
 Gray wolves were delisted from the Federal ESA
 Prey (caribou and moose) populations seem to be
decreasing/fluctuating in some areas
 Different management strategies employed on different
land types and by different agencies
 Problematic for sport and subsistence hunting
 Little is known/agreed upon about existing numbers of
predators and prey
 Highly controversial topic
 Need for biological, economical and social baseline data
Bringing Together an Interdisciplinary Team
 To date, several folks have met to develop an interdisciplinary
project focused on predator/prey management issues.
 Matt Berman, UAA ISER
 Shannon Donovan UAA
 Julie Lurman Joly, UAF
 Don Spalinger, UAA
 Toby Schwörer , UAA ISER
 Jeff Welker, UAA ENRI
 Discussed needs, resources and opportunities as well as the
challenges of addressing predator management in Alaska.
Wolves, Bears, and Their Prey in Alaska: Biological
and Social Challenges in Wildlife Management.
Report by the National Research Council
in 1997
 Provides 17 conclusions and
recommendations for moving forward
 Many of these recommendations have
not been followed up on as of yet
 Need and opportunity to develop an
interdisciplinary approach for collecting
baseline data
Select Recommendations:
Coordinate and Cooperate
 Habitat availability and quality need to be better
understood
 Increase coordination across agencies to better
understand predator-prey relationships across
landscapes
 Assess full economic costs and benefits of predator
management programs
 Manage and monitor predators and prey using adaptive
management strategies
 Increase understanding of social values
 Develop a framework for incorporating public opinion
 Create and implement conflict resolution strategies
Alaska Residents’ Attitudes toward Predator
Management Statewide in Unit 13
Study conducted by Cornell for ADF&G in 2003
 Random sample of 1300 households statewide and 1300 in
Unit 13
 Among other things, the study assessed public acceptance
of predator control
 Study shows public acceptance is conditional
“when predation reduces prey populations to the point that
some local residents who rely on game for food are unable
to find moose or caribou to hunt”
 Study also suggests public interest in increasing prey is
greater than their interest in decreasing predators
Umbrella Research Question
Under what conditions does predator
control make social and ecological
systems more resilient?
Sub-Topics
 Predator-prey relationships
 Carrying capacity (habitat)
 Migration (in and out of local areas




and across land types)
Fire and fire management
Predator management and policies: different rules in
different lands
Public opinions and stakeholder values
Rule making processes
 What are the optimal predator and prey harvest rates that








maximize long term social net benefits?
How effective is predator control in selected study areas?
What are the economic benefits and costs of predator control
versus what they could be under ecosystem-based management?
To what degree are prey populations changing at regional levels?
How do population changes coincide with other factors?
How can social and ecological changes be monitored at a
landscape level – to what degree can spatial mapping help better
understand systems?
What are the range of factors affecting prey populations?
How important are predators in shaping sense of place?
How can lessons learned about predator management in the
North be applied to other areas -like WY, ID and MT?
What strategies can be employed to reduce stakeholder conflict?
Other potential ideas
 Assess impacts of predator management and reduced
prey on native communities
 Incorporate local knowledge into adaptive
management strategies
 Look at the impact of climate change on prey
movement
 Modeling changes in predatorprey relationships
Approach
 Assess impacts of predator management and prey
availability across landscapes
 Identify what is already known and gaps in the
knowledge
 Develop intensive case studies in varying geographic
regions
 Generate baseline data sets
 Bring stakeholders together
 Develop plausible strategies for effectively monitoring
and managing predators and prey
Hopeful Outcomes
 Provide managers and policymakers with relatively
objective data needed to solve a complex bio-social
problem
 Create a framework for collaboration across landscapes
 Create a framework for collaboration across agencies
 Understand public values regarding predator
management
 Identify true costs and benefits of predator
management
 Develop a successful models that can be implemented
in other regions
Potential Funding
 NSF
 Dynamics of coupled human
and natural systems
(Nov. deadline)
 ARCSS (Dec. deadline)
 National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (Nov. deadline)
 Federal initiatives/earmarks
Shannon Donovan
907-786-6052
afsmd@uaa.alaska.edu