State will continue killing Southwest Alaska bears despite court order calling program 'unlawful'
May 10—The state Department of Fish and Game said it will continue with a controversial predator control program in Southwest Alaska this month. The announcement was made Friday evening, two days after a Superior Court judge declined a request to block the program made by an environmental group.
"The court clarified that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant a temporary restraining order against the emergency regulation, as it is a new regulatory action not covered in the current case. Consequently, the State is moving forward with the implementation of the bear removal program to aid in the recovery of the Mulchatna caribou population," wrote Patty Sullivan, communications director with the Alaska Department of Law, in an emailed statement.
Wednesday's court ruling from Anchorage Superior Court Judge Christina Rankin was dealt narrowly with the issue of a temporary restraining order, but not the merits of the bear culling program itself. The decision reaffirmed an earlier Superior Court decision from March that found the program is unlawful because it was implemented without sufficient public input or scientific assessment.
Not long after that decision, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game submitted a petition for an emergency order to the Board of Game to keep the program going, which the board passed.
"The emergency regulation was adopted in response to findings that high bear predation is a key factor limiting caribou population growth. The Board of Game has recognized the Mulchatna caribou as important for providing a sustainable food source, thus making intensive management necessary while their numbers remain below established objectives," Sullivan wrote.
Nothing in Wednesday's order from the Superior Court invalidates the earlier ruling that the program violates the state constitution, and is thus unlawful. That means that as Fish and Game fields personnel and resources to begin shooting bears from helicopters this month, there are major questions about the program's legality.
"While the State seeks to address some inconsistencies in the Court's order, it is fully committed to complying with the ruling," Sullivan wrote.
Since 2023, state officials have killed 180 bears, most of them brown bears, in the Mulchatna herd's calving grounds between Dillingham and Bethel. A conservation group, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, has been suing the state since the program first came to light, claiming it was not passed without due public process and is based in science that is either partial or inaccurate.
Nicole Schmitt, the alliance's executive director, said Thursday that the group was waiting to hear the state's response to Rankin's order before deciding how to proceed with litigation.
"In my view, the Court's order makes it clear that if the state proceeds with the predator control program under the emergency regulations it will be inconsistent with the court's original order," Schmitt wrote Thursday in an email. "If they continue to proceed here it will, we believe, be in violation of a court order."
The state estimates there are close to 15,000 caribou in the Mulchatna herd, according to its most recent assessment. That is well below the 30,000-80,000 animal objective that wildlife managers say would allow them to reopen a subsistence harvest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer calls for ‘diplomatic solution' after US strikes Iran
Sir Keir Starmer has called for restraint after Donald Trump launched US air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The Prime Minister said Iran's nuclear programme is a 'grave threat' which the US military action would 'alleviate'. There was no British involvement in the action but the Government was informed in advance of the strikes, which involved B-2 stealth bombers and submarine-launched missiles. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary David Lammy had sought to persuade Mr Trump's administration from holding off on joining Israel in striking Iran, arguing for de-escalation and a diplomatic process. But Mr Trump pushed ahead with the action anyway, which he claimed had 'completely and fully obliterated' key nuclear facilities. Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call… — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 22, 2025 The Prime Minister said: 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. 'The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. 'We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.' Cabinet minister Jonathan Reynolds would not say the UK supported the military action nor whether he believed the US strikes were legal. Asked on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg if the US action was a good thing, he said: 'The outcome. It isn't the means by which anyone in the British Government would have wanted to see this occur.' Pushed on whether the US strike was legal, he said: 'It is where we are today.' He said it would be 'naive' to think the risk of Iranian-backed terrorism in the UK will not increase as a result of the US and Israeli action. The Business Secretary told Sky News: 'This is not hypothetical. There is not a week goes by without some sort of Iranian cyber attack on a key part of UK critical national infrastructure. 'There is Iranian activity on the streets of the UK, which is wholly unacceptable.' He added: 'It's already at a significant level. I think it would be naive to say that that wouldn't potentially increase.' — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 22, 2025 The US attacked Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz which are linked to Iran's nuclear programme. The Tehran regime has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful but its uranium enrichment process has gone far beyond what is required for power stations. In an address to the nation from the White House, Mr Trump warned there could be further strikes if Iran retaliates: 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran.' The strikes followed a build-up of US military equipment, with B-2 stealth bombers – which are the only aircraft to carry a 30,000-pound bunker buster bomb – reportedly used to target the underground facilities. The aircraft have previously used the UK-US airbase on Diego Garcia, one of the Chagos Islands, but it is understood that was not involved in these strikes. The attack on Iran also involved US submarines, which launched around 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Mr Trump's move towards military action came despite Sir Keir's pleas for diplomacy and his repeated calls for de-escalation. On Thursday the Prime Minister warned of a 'real risk of escalation' in the conflict, adding there had previously been 'several rounds of discussions' with Washington and 'that, to me, is the way to resolve this issue'. Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of #Iran concerning the #UnitedStates military aggression against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the… — Foreign Ministry, Islamic Republic of Iran 🇮🇷 (@IRIMFA_EN) June 22, 2025 The Foreign Secretary urged the US to pull back from the brink on a visit to Washington for talks with counterpart Marco Rubio before heading to talks with Iran on Friday alongside European allies. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'By targeting Iran's nuclear sites, the US has taken decisive action against a regime that fuels global terror and directly threatens the UK. 'Iranian operatives have plotted murders and attacks on British soil. We should stand firmly with the US and Israel.' By targeting Iran's nuclear sites, the US has taken decisive action against a regime that fuels global terror and directly threatens the UK. Iranian operatives have plotted murders and attacks on British soil. We should stand firmly with the US and Israel. — Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) June 22, 2025 Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also backed Mr Trump's decision to strike Iran. He said: 'Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, the future of Israel depends on it.' Scotland's First Minister John Swinney called for diplomacy, saying the Middle East conflict has reached 'an alarmingly greater level of danger after the US attacks on Iran'. Iran launched a ballistic missile barrage against Israel in retaliation to the US action. The foreign ministry in Tehran issued a statement condemning 'the United States' brutal military aggression against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities'. It added: 'The Islamic Republic of Iran is resolved to defend Iran's territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means against the United States' criminal aggression.'
Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Fox News
Brandon Lake explains inspiration behind his new ‘King of Hearts' album
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Sen Sanders holds 'Fighting Oligarchy' rally in McAllen, Texas
New York Times
43 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump Claims Success After U.S. Bombs Key Iran Nuclear Sites
Top Republicans in Congress swiftly rallied behind President Trump on Saturday after he ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, even as senior Democrats and some G.O.P. lawmakers condemned it as an unconstitutional move that could drag the United States into a broader war in the Middle East. In separate statements, the leading Republicans in Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson and Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader, commended the military operation, calling it a necessary check on Iran's ambitions of developing a nuclear weapon. Both men had been briefed on the military action before the strike was carried out, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it publicly. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Thune both argued that the airstrikes were necessary after Iran had rejected diplomatic overtures to curb its nuclear program. 'The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing 'death to America' and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace,' Mr. Thune said. Image Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said that Iran rejected pathways to peace. Credit... Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times Mr. Johnson argued that the military action was consistent with Mr. Trump's muscular foreign policy. 'President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated,' he said. 'That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision and clarity.' But top Democrats, who were given only perfunctory notice of the strikes before they occurred, harshly criticized the move. 'President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East,' Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, said in a statement. He said the president 'shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action.' Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, demanded 'clear answers' from Mr. Trump on the operation and called for an immediate vote on legislation that would require explicit authorization from Congress for the use of military force. 'The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased,' he said. Representative Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, condemned the operation as unconstitutional and warned that it could drag the United States into a larger conflict. 'Donald Trump's decision to launch direct military action against Iran without congressional approval is a clear violation of the Constitution, which grants the power to declare war explicitly to Congress,' he said in a statement. 'It is impossible to know at this stage whether this operation accomplished its objectives. We also don't know if this will lead to further escalation in the region and attacks against our forces, events that could easily pull us even deeper into a war in the Middle East.' While Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, called Mr. Trump's move 'the right call,' the top Democrat on the panel, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, said he had taken steps that could drag the United States into a war 'without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community, and without explaining to the American people what's at stake.' Leading national security Democrats on Capitol Hill were not informed of the strikes until after Mr. Trump had posted about them on social media, according to three people familiar with the matter who would discuss it only on the condition of anonymity. And one high-profile Democrat, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, called the operation grounds for impeachment. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,' Ms. Ocasio-Cortez of New York said in a post on social media. Democrats widely condemned the surprise attack as unconstitutional. But Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was the first on Saturday to say it was grounds for Trump's removal, breaking with party leaders who have avoided talk of impeachment since the president returned to the White House, after two failed attempts to remove him during his first term. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, but in modern times, presidents of both parties have unilaterally carried out attacks on other countries without congressional authorization. It has been decades since Congress voted on whether to authorize military force, and efforts to claw back the legislative branch's war powers have repeatedly stalled. Most of the praise immediately following the operation in Iran came from Republicans, many of whom argued that the bombings would not lead to a ground deployment of American forces in the region. 'To those concerned about U.S. involvement — this isn't a 'forever war' in fact, it's ending one,' Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma, said on social media. Senator Roger Wicker, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, called Mr. Trump's decision to strike in Iran 'deliberate' and 'correct.' 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the Middle East,' Mr. Wicker said in a statement. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, whose unqualified support for Israel has put him at odds with other members of his party, was one of the few Democrats to offer an immediate statement of support. He wrote on social media that the military action 'was the correct move.' 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities,' Mr. Fetterman added. 'I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Other lawmakers, many of them Democrats who had already expressed concerns that the Trump administration was considering sidestepping Congress's constitutional power to declare war, immediately criticized the strikes on the nuclear sites. Image Representative Thomas Massie, center, said the strikes were not constitutional. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times Mr. Trump, 'did not come to Congress to explain his reasons for bombing a sovereign nation and to seek authorization for these strikes,' Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said in a statement. 'These reckless actions are going to put the lives of American service members and American citizens at risk.' Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, who earlier this week introduced a bipartisan resolution that would require congressional approval before U.S. troops could engage in offensive attacks against Iran, wrote on social media that the attack was 'not Constitutional.' Carl Hulse and Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
