main constituency—has a policy explicitly against
predator control. DU notes that funding predator control would take money away from habitat
management, and is “not a responsible use of our
supporters’ contributions.”
Alaska has a different story. The state’s Intensive
Management Law, passed in 1994, endorses lethal
control of predators such as wolves and bears “to
restore the abundance or productivity of identified big
game prey populations” such as caribou, moose, and
sitka deer for human consumptive use. Predator control can include culling by traditional hunting and by
agency actions such as baiting and aerial shooting, as
authorized by the state Board of Game. Science shows
that culling wolf populations can indeed increase
ungulate populations in localized areas (see Alaska
DFG 2009), but “science is only one aspect of the decision making,” says Kim Titus, chief wildlife scientist
of the Division of Wildlife Conservation with the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Because of the
high reproductive rates of wolves, harvest rates may
need to be quite high—up to 50 percent or more—in
order to effectively limit wolf populations (Adams et
al. 2008). That degree of “intensive” lethal control of
predatory mammals for the sake of boosting game for
hunters can prompt protests, and some groups have
also called into question its effectiveness (Defenders
of Wildlife 2008). Regardless of its grounding in science and law, predator control in Alaska gives those
opposed to hunting fodder for debate.
A before-and-after comparison of vegetation along Yellowstone national Park’s Blacktail Deer Creek
shows the difference a predator can make. in the 1990s (left), prior to wolf reintroduction, a large
elk population heavily browsed area vegetation. Shown in 2000 after wolves had returned (right, at a
different time of year), area willows have regrown, likely due to changes in elk behavior or numbers.
Credit: Courtesy of Doug Smith/nPS
A dearth of predators can also throw ecosystems out
of kilter. Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park,
for example, serves as a predator-free refuge for more
than 3,000 elk, which have decimated aspen and
willow stands, leading several conservationists to propose reintroducing wolves to rebalance the ecosystem
(Licht et al. 2010). Overabundant deer populations—
fiercely defended by some hunters—have dramatically
altered ecosystems in Pennsylvania as well. Gary
Alt resigned from his position as deer management
section supervisor for the state’s Game Commission
in 2004 after his efforts to reduce the swollen deer
population were met with antagonistic criticism from
hunters, politicians, and sometimes from colleagues.
“As a profession we often use white-tailed deer
recovery as a huge success story,” says Alt, now an environmental consultant for Normandeau Associates. “I
think that was quite appropriate for the first half of the
20th century. But in the 21st century I think trying to
control the population we brought back is one of the
greatest challenges in wildlife management.”
Exotic Imports and Trophy Hunts
Dealing with invasive non-native species is a challenge
for wildlife professionals throughout North America.
Often introduced as quarry for hunters, exotics may
compete with native species for food and territory and
often cause habitat destruction. Introduced species
can also transmit diseases to native or domestic animals, or vice-versa. “They might bring something with
them or they might get something from here that they
haven’t been exposed to before and become another
reservoir for disease,” says Don Davis with the Center
for Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M University.
Feral hogs, for instance, now found in 23 U.S. states,
can carry swine brucellosis and pseudo rabies, both
zoonotic diseases that can infect humans.
Exotic wildlife is not always under the legal
jurisdiction of state fish and wildlife agencies, and
this restricts their ability to regulate and control
populations. In some states, fish and wildlife agencies promote the hunting of exotics. In fact, trophy
hunts for exotics, a niche element of hunting, has
become a growth industry in some rural areas, where
businesses for the breeding and hunting of exotic
species—often native to Africa—have proliferated.
According to a report by Texas A&M University’s
Agricultural and Food Policy Center, there are about
3,750 exotic breeding and hunting operations in
the U.S. (not including cervid operations), with an
economic impact of roughly $1.3 billion a year. Some
hunters will pay fees ranging from $1,100 to $4,600
for the privilege of hunting exotics such as eland and
oryx on private land, usually within fenced enclo-
