The latest from the Mat-Su Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting

I attended the Mat-Su Borough Fish and Wildlife Commission (MSBFWC) meeting with the ADF&G Wildlife Division biologists last week as one of only three members of the public who were present. There were a couple of people who also attended via the computer link. Either the timing of the meeting was bad for folks who work, which was probably true, or people don’t care enough about how their wildlife resources are being managed to invest the time to learn what is happening.

Anyway, the commission had submitted fourteen questions to the department prior to the meeting to allow the biologists to answer in writing. These questions were elaborated on during the meeting and served as steppingstones to a more in-depth discussion of the topic. They also served to trigger other questions on related topics.

I had a few questions, but in the established protocol of the meeting, my turn to ask came after all the commission members had a chance to ask questions and further discuss the topic of interest. As in previous meetings with the department, most questions revolved around moose and caribou, with some discussion of Dall sheep. In addition to population status of the animals, there were questions about how some of the sampling procedures were accomplished, especially in low snow years.

There were also questions about predator control programs, most notably in GMUs 13 and 16. Most of the discussion here centered around wolf population control, but the idea of implementing bear predator control in GMU 16 under specific conditions was brought up. This is a topic which is a hot button item with many in the public who fail to understand that once management of a specific population (i.e. moose, through hunting) in an area begins, it is important to monitor and manage other species’ populations (i.e. wolves) to maintain a proper ratio of animals for a healthy ecosystem.

Questions were asked about what the Borough and/or its citizens could do to aid the department in management strategies, and what are some of the common problems biologists hear from the public, which are areas of concern.

Some of the answers given on what can be done to improve management options include, among other things, providing and improving habitat quality. Things like prescribed burns, browse/vegetation crushing, or clearing mature forests to reset plant succession to an earlier stage in development will provide new plant growth which will benefit not only moose and grouse but also small animals and non-game species as well.

Another option includes building roads designed to accommodate animal crossings with under or over passes for the animals to reduce vehicle/animal collisions. This would benefit not only the animals but also serve as a public safety function for the public. With the human population in the Mat-Su Valley growing every year along with the construction of homes and business buildings, resulting in lost habitat for the animals, good management of moose populations is presenting a challenge to the ADF&G biologists.

Some positive outlooks on moose numbers, based on the most recent survey data the department has, indicate that moose numbers in GMU 14A are slightly ahead of the minimum population estimate and are showing a healthy ratio of bull/cow numbers and calf/cow estimates. Unit 14B moose numbers are not as good but are still in a “close to normal” range.

GMU 16A moose population numbers are in the population objective range, but the bull/cow and calf/cow ranges are slightly lower than Unit 14 numbers. Unit 16B is the worst of the bunch, with a below minimum population objective and the lowest calf/cow ration of the four subunits mentioned.

Bear predation on moose is primarily during the calving season, with predation accounting for as high as 90% of the calf mortality each spring. This was why the earlier mentioned question of potential bear predator control in GMU 16 was discussed.

The Nelchina caribou herd is looking “promising,” but is still way below the population objective range (estimates of around 14,000 animals currently; population objective of around 30,000 animals). As a result, no state hunting opportunity will be available during the 2026/27 hunting season. The department is exploring the possibility of a limited, bull-only hunting season for the 2027 season.

Dall sheep numbers statewide are dismal at best. Over the last couple of decades, hunter numbers have declined to half of what they were in 2000, with the harvest number of sheep also half of what it was in 2000.

Let’s hope this trend doesn’t continue.