Alaska’s government is once again stuck in court while a fast-moving wildlife decision—whether to kill bears to protect caribou—hangs on a judge’s clock.
Quick Take
- An Alaska judge is weighing an emergency request to halt a spring 2026 bear cull tied to the struggling Mulchatna Caribou Herd.
- Courts previously ruled Alaska’s predator-control program unconstitutional under the state’s “sustained yield” requirement and for inadequate public process.
- The state argues predator control is time-sensitive during calving season and “too important” to delay for Western Alaska subsistence hunters.
- Conservation plaintiffs say the “revived” program repeats the same legal defects and risks unsustainable impacts on bears.
Emergency Injunction Puts Spring Bear Cull on Hold
Judge Adolf Zeman heard arguments May 5, 2026, on an emergency injunction request that could stop Alaska’s planned spring predator-control operation in the Mulchatna Caribou Herd region. The Alaska Wildlife Alliance asked the court to block the cull, while the Alaska Department of Fish and Game defended the program as urgent for calf survival during calving season. Zeman acknowledged the tight timeline and said he would rule as soon as possible.
The state has not announced a firm start date for the 2026 operation, reflecting the legal uncertainty surrounding it. That uncertainty matters because the program targets the very window when managers believe predation is most consequential: spring, when newborn calves are vulnerable. Until Zeman rules, the program remains in limbo—another example of a major public policy decision being effectively paused by litigation and court scheduling rather than resolved through a durable political agreement.
What the State Says the Program Is For—and What It Has Done So Far
Alaska’s predator-control rationale centers on the Mulchatna Caribou Herd’s long decline since the 1990s and the food-security stakes for Western Alaska subsistence hunters, many of them Indigenous. The Department of Fish and Game has identified bear and wolf predation as a key factor suppressing calf survival and argues that removing predators can help the herd rebound. From spring 2023 through 2025, the program removed 186 brown bears, five black bears, and 20 wolves.
Supporters view that scale of intervention as a targeted tool aimed at restoring a renewable resource that directly feeds families. The department has also argued the program has already helped the herd recover, though the research provided does not include detailed population figures showing the size of any rebound or how much predator control versus other factors contributed. That missing data is central to the legal dispute, because sustained-yield management requires more than intentions—it demands evidence and process.
Why Alaska Courts Have Repeatedly Blocked the Cull
The legal problem for the state is that it has already lost in court over this policy. In March 2025, Superior Court Judge Andrew Guidi ruled the program unconstitutional, citing Alaska’s sustained-yield provision and finding the state failed to adequately assess impacts on bear populations, along with problems involving public notice and participation. In May 2025, Superior Court Judge Christina Rankin issued a restraining order and described the program as “legally void,” rejecting the state’s emergency authorization arguments.
Those rulings raise a deeper issue that resonates well beyond wildlife management: when agencies push forward on high-stakes programs without satisfying constitutional and procedural requirements, they invite years of costly litigation and public distrust. Conservatives often argue that government should be limited, transparent, and accountable; Alaska’s sustained-yield clause functions as a built-in restraint on agency discretion. If courts keep finding the same defects, the state’s approach risks looking like governance by workaround rather than governance by law.
A “Revived” Program, the Same Constitutional Fight
After the earlier defeats, the Alaska Board of Game approved a “revived” predator-control program in July 2025, claiming it addressed the constitutional problems identified by the courts. The Alaska Wildlife Alliance disputes that claim and, through attorney Michelle Sinnott, argued the state has “reinstated the exact same predator control program” that was struck down. The group also argues the revised plan still fails to adequately consider bear population data and repeats earlier violations.
The state’s counterargument is practical and political: Fish and Game says the program is too important to Western Alaska subsistence hunters to delay, especially with the calving season clock running. But courts typically do not treat urgency as a substitute for constitutional compliance, and Rankin previously rejected emergency authorization reasoning. The outcome now depends on whether Zeman sees meaningful changes in the revised plan—or a repackaging likely to trigger yet another injunction and another lost season.
Subsistence, Conservation, and the Federal-State Tangle
The program’s geographic footprint adds another layer of complexity. It covers about 40,000 square miles of state land east of Togiak National Wildlife Refuge and west of Katmai National Park and Preserve, and bears in the region can use protected federal lands. That reality pulls the National Park Service into the wider conversation about how predator impacts are managed across jurisdictional boundaries. The research does not specify a federal enforcement action, but it does flag ongoing coordination and authority concerns.
Alaska Bear Cull Now Faces Emergency Court Halthttps://t.co/j3ro9lOLXj
— RedState (@RedState) May 8, 2026
For the public, the fight can feel like a familiar American pattern: two competing goods—wildlife conservation and human food security—end up settled through lawsuits and emergency motions. Many voters on the right and left are already skeptical that government institutions serve ordinary people efficiently; Alaska’s repeated legal resets reinforce that frustration. If the state wants durable legitimacy, it will likely need stronger public process and clearer biological support rather than another time-sensitive push.
Sources:
Judge considers request to halt controversial bear cull
Judge says Alaska bear-killing program remains void despite emergency authorization
