# Tradeoffs Among Predator Control, Moose Harvests, and Trophy Antlers: Principles Pertinent to Managing Alaska’s Wildlife

## TL;DR

Alaska's moose management policy focuses on harvesting for meat but overlooks ecological factors, leading to conflicts and ineffective strategies.

## Contribution

The paper proposes an adaptive management approach that integrates population dynamics to balance moose harvests and trophy antlers.

## Key findings

- Predator control can reduce moose numbers but does not always increase harvest yields.
- Harvesting males has little impact on population productivity or meat availability.
- Moose at low densities have larger antlers due to reduced competition, which supports tourism.

## Abstract

Alaska’s Intensive Management law prioritizes the harvest of moose and other ungulates for human consumption over other purposes. This policy, however, does not consider density-dependent processes, whereby the productivity of moose is a result of population size in relation to the carrying capacity of the habitat. Wolves and bears may reduce moose to low numbers, but predator control efforts augmenting moose populations have not increased the harvest of moose and can be controversial. Mostly male moose are harvested, which has little effect on the productivity of populations and, hence, the amount of meat obtained. Moose at low densities are on a high nutritional plane because of reduced competition, resulting in males with trophy-sized antlers, which is of value to hunters and supports tourism. Once moose achieve moderate densities, larger numbers of moose (and more meat) would result from harvesting females; males would also possess large antlers. Moose populations that reached a high density because of predator control would be nutritionally stressed, females would exhibit low productivity, and males would possess smaller antlers. We proposed an adaptive management approach that adjusts management to reflect the population characteristics of moose, thereby incorporating the best available science to manage moose and their predators.

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.