Tradeoffs Among Predator Control, Moose Harvests, and Trophy Antlers: Principles Pertinent to Managing Alaska's...

The State of Alaska, USA, has a long and controversial history of controlling predators to enhance ungulate populations, including moose (Alces alces). Moose management is complicated by a dual system in which the Federal and State governments prioritize harvesting moose for human consumption over other considerations, such as trophy or sport hunting, but have conflicting regulations regarding who is eligible to harvest moose. Wildlife management for the State is overseen by the Alaska Board of Game (BOG), with advice from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). In accordance with its Intensive Management Policy, the BOG establishes regulations promoting the harvest of moose and other ungulates for human consumption. This typically occurs by controlling bears (Ursus americanus and U. arctos) and gray wolves (Canis lupus) in anticipation of increasing ungulate harvests, often without adequate information on the status and ecology of predator or ungulate populations. We provide a narrative and integrative review of moose population dynamics to help resolve those issues. We argue that the current management of moose and their predators in Alaska does not encompass a full range of management options and fails to consider or implement important aspects of their population dynamics. Predators maintain some moose populations at a low density, reducing the harvest of moose but promoting large-antlered individuals, which are of value to Alaska's professional guide and tourism industries. Using modern models of population dynamics of moose and other ungulates, we argue that if the proximity of the moose population to K (the ecological carrying capacity) is known, management strategies that increase the human harvest of moose and also promote large-antlered trophies are not mutually exclusive. We list life history and population characteristics to help determine the nutritional status of moose populations in relation to K, thereby guiding wise management of that valuable resource. We also recommend an adaptive management approach to assessing the effects of such activities. We caution, however, that to wisely manage these important wildlife resources, more information on the dynamics of moose and their predators is necessary. A system that embraces more biology and fewer politics would provide greater opportunities to employ the best science in the management of moose and their predators.