March 3, 2025
Mulchatna Massacre Suit - Opening Statements
What could possibly attract someone to voluntarily go to court and spend and hour and half plus, listening to opening statements?
Well, grizzlies and wolves of course.
Yesterday, was the day of opening statements between the lawyers of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA) versus the Defendants: the State of Alaska who has been killing bears and wolves from helicopters in what is called: The Mulchatna Massacre.
Up to 34 spectators filled the courtroom seats to listen to this presentation. This included: AWA’s President Carol Damberg and her husband, Defenders of Wildlife Representative Christi Heun, nature writer and advocate Bill Sherwonit, Wayne Hall and many others from the environmental community.
The Mulchatna Massacre
In the first year of the state’s killing program: 94 grizzly (brown) bears (including 20 cubs), 5 black bears and 5 wolves were killed.
In 2024, a total of 81 grizzly (brown) bears including 47 females and 34 males. 63 bears were adults. 2 two-year-olds, 11 one-year-old cubs, and 5 cubs born in 2024.
Total numbers of bears killed in the two years of the program was 180 bears (both grizzly and black).
Additionally, 14 wolves were killed in 2024, bringing the total number of wolves killed to 19 between 2023 and 2024.
More information can be found here: The Mulchatna Predator Control Program
The Lawyers for the Alaska Wildlife Alliance and Case
The lawyers representing AWA’s case were Joel Bennett and Joe Geldhof with Joe Geldhof presenting the case and then Joel Bennett rebutting the State’s position.
The State’s lawyer was: Cheryl Brooking with Natalie Webber from Alaska State Fish & Game and Kimberly del Friday Assistant Attorney General
A very brief summary of the topics that AWA’s case discussed were standing, sustainability of bear populations that was not considered by the State, no proper due process, State’s actions were not supported by the State Constitution, State didn’t conduct any bear population or sustainability studies nor did it give any notice that killing bears would be part of an extended predator control (killing) effort in the Mulchatna area.
The State repeatedly attacked AWA’s standing in the case. They attempted to make the claim that no member of AWA was harmed by the actions of the state and therefore AWA had no standing.
What this calls into question is the definition of harm? Does harm come about only when someone has been physically harmed in that specific location? Or, can there be emotional, ethical and moral harms when the state wantonly kills animals with no scientific justification even if a resident never sets foot in that location?
The State repeatedly claimed that there was a high population of bears in the area due to anecdotal claims by nearby residents/hunting guides. Yet, they never stated what constitutes a high population of bears for that area. Nor did they address the subjective and arbitrary nature of what is considered a high population.
What is Considered a High Population of Bears?
Naturally occurring populations in general reflect what the habitat and ecosystem can support. Using McNeil River as an example: in 1989 when I first visited, there were up to 125 bears that were actually counted within five miles of the falls. Would this be considered a high or a normal number of bears for what the salmon run and ecosystem could support at that time?
In the past, McNeil boasted that a visitor could see anywhere from 40-60 bears on the river at any one time during the peak of the salmon run. Would this be considered a high or normal number of bears for this area at that time?
The State’s repeated use of the word “high” without defining what “high” numbers of bears is and how they reached that conclusion is intentionally misleading.
This is done to justify their killing of bears in all age groups without conducting any studies that would justify them.
Nor, did the State give the size of the area involved that this supposed high population of bears resided in?
This is important because bear populations fluctuate depending on what food resources they have available to them and the ecosystem as a whole.
For instance, Denali’s bear population (north of the Alaska Range) is going to be far lower than Katmai’s due to lack of access to salmon and other rich, food sources.
Katmai, Kodiak and Lake Clark’s ecosystems can support far more bears than Denali’s or Gate’s of the Arctic or Arctic Refuge.
So, what is the definition of a high bear population, specifically for the Mulchatna area? The State never mentioned this because they didn’t conduct any bear population studies before they started killing bears.
If you don’t know what the bear population is including population dynamics (ratio of males to females, subadults and cubs) and natural mortality rate then you cannot determine what is a sustainable population and what is not. The state is killing bears in the blind.
And when you are dealing with the slowest reproducing species in North America (grizzlies) it is especially important to treat that species in a conservative manner.
Other Impacts Causing Habitat Changes That Impacts Caribou
Due to global climate change, many of the habitats and vegetation that caribou are dependent upon are being replaced with willows, alders and dwarf birch. Willows will benefit moose but caribou are primarily dependent upon lichens and mosses; especially during the winter.
Everyone who is dependent on caribou for subsistence will eventually have to adapt to this changing dynamic. No amount of killing bears, wolves or any other species can increase for the long term caribou numbers if their habitat can’t support them.
Combine habitat changes with brucellosis and increased icing/heavy snowfall events and dropping caribou numbers should be expected. Dall Sheep are also being severely impacted on a state wide basis due to this climate change reality.
It is ironic that Alaska’s number 1 industry, oil production and the burning of fossil fuels is directly responsible for these changes and decline in caribou and Dall Sheep populations.
Yet, the state does nothing to slow down or shift away from oil production, in fact it wishes to expand it.
Declining caribou and Dall Sheep populations are the tip of the iceberg of the various climate caused changes that are occurring in Alaska now.
The Pretty Rocks landslide in Denali is the just one example of how melting permafrost can negatively impact infrastructure and the extreme expense in attempting to repair it.
See: Pretty Rocks Landslide.
Conclusion
I did record these opening statements and have uploaded them to YouTube to enable anyone to listen to them. The recording lasts for about 1 hour and 11 minutes and you can find it here: Mulchatna Massacre Lawsuit - Opening Statements
Lastly, I had to leave a little early as my parking meter was just about ready to go off. Before I left, the judge stated that he was unlikely to dismiss the case, that he felt that there may be due process issues and that there would be a ruling next week.
All the best.
Bill