May 16, 2025
(Anchorage, AK) – Yesterday, the Department of Law requested an evidentiary hearing to contest the Court's May 12 finding that the State acted in bad faith when it adopted and implemented an emergency regulation to conduct bear removal activities last weekend for the Mulchatna caribou herd.
Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor emphasized the legal and constitutional basis for the bear predator program, stating, "The Department of Fish and Game has always acted within its statutory authority and in accordance with the principles set forth in Alaska’s Constitution. Our actions are fully justified under existing laws and regulations. Importantly, this does not amount to bad faith; we have acted transparently and in compliance with legal obligations. We have strictly adhered to the Court's orders once they were clarified, demonstrating our commitment to lawful and responsible wildlife management."
“As the filing and affidavits show, neither I nor the Department acted in bad faith in authorizing predator control activities to rebuild the Mulchatna Caribou Herd,” said Alaska Department of Fish & Game Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang. “Such accusations are baseless and attack the credibility of the Department. Our predator control program, supported by local users, communities, advisory committees, and the Alaska Federation of Natives, had already shown success with improved calf survival and herd growth. Stopping this effort in its third year puts that progress—and our commitment to rural subsistence users—at risk. We are complying with the newly released order but will pursue legal avenues to restore this program, which is clearly authorized under Alaska’s intensive management statute.”
At a 5-hour hearing on May 6, the Alaska Superior Court did not allow the State to present information on the validity of the emergency regulation, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The Court’s May 7 Order clearly stated that it did not bar the State from predator control activities. The Court also ruled that it did not have the authority to determine whether the Board of Game’s March 27 emergency regulation was validly adopted. On May 9, the State notified the Court and plaintiffs that it intended to begin bear removal activities, as authorized by the regulation and allowed by the Order.
When the Court did issue a temporary restraining order, bear control activities immediately ceased. On May 12, the Court readdressed the very limited record from May 6 to find the State acted in bad faith in adopting the emergency regulation. The State strongly contests this finding. Emergency regulations are adopted under different statutory authority than permanent regulations and are only valid for 120 days. Plaintiffs had not challenged the emergency regulation in the ongoing litigation or by filing a new lawsuit. The Court did not take evidence on the emergency regulation process and did not address the Board of Game’s emergency finding before determining such action was irrational, arbitrary and in bad faith. The State is confident that a full record will refute this finding.
The State's pleadings (attached) ask the Court to hold a hearing to consider information that it has excluded from consideration, such as the legal authority supporting the emergency regulation, the importance of Mulchatna caribou as a subsistence food source, and whether the validity of the emergency regulation was properly before the Court.
# # #
Department Media Contacts: Communications Director Patty Sullivan at patty.sullivan@alaska.gov or (907) 269-6368. Information Officer Sam Curtis at sam.curtis@alaska.gov or (907) 269-6269.
