In a bold and somewhat controversial move, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is pushing ahead with its deer relocation project, despite a devastating mortality rate among the initial batch of deer introduced to the Kenai Peninsula last fall. This decision has sparked a debate about the ethics and efficacy of such wildlife management practices, especially given the significant financial investment involved.
The Relocation Effort
The state's first attempt in 40 years to relocate deer and establish a new population began with a group of 19 Sitka black-tailed deer transported from an island near Kodiak. However, the outcome was grim, with at least 13 deer perishing, and another presumed dead. Only five deer, two does and three bucks, are known to have survived.
Despite this high mortality rate, the state is planning to relocate an additional 15-20 deer this fall, primarily does, to bolster the remaining population. The goal, according to Fish and Game Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang, is to provide hunting opportunities and food security for Alaskans.
Critics Speak Out
Critics, including Cooper Freeman from the Center for Biological Diversity, argue that this program is a waste of public funds. They point out that with such a low survival rate, the deer population will take decades to reach a point where hunting is feasible, if at all. Freeman's group obtained internal documents revealing an even higher mortality rate, with four deer dying during transportation due to prolonged sedation.
The department's own update acknowledges various causes of death among the relocated deer, including drowning, coyote attacks, disease, and hypothermia. One doe even swam to a nearby island and survived there for two months.
Justification and Optimism
Fish and Game maintains that the habitat is suitable for the deer and attributes the high mortality to the severity of last winter's weather. Cynthia Wardlow, Southcentral regional supervisor for the Division of Wildlife Conservation, believes that the deer were in good condition and not malnourished. She expresses optimism that adding more deer to the population will lead to successful breeding and self-sustainability, provided the upcoming winter is milder.
A Mixed Track Record
Relocating animals to establish new populations is not a new concept in Alaska. Previous efforts have had mixed success, with some deer populations thriving in places like Prince William Sound, Kodiak, and Yakutat, while others have struggled. The idea of transporting deer to the southern Kenai Peninsula has been considered since the 1970s, but it's never been attempted due to the lack of a large, permanent deer population in the area.
The Cost Factor
The financial aspect of this project is a significant concern for critics. Freeman argues that Fish and Game, like many other state departments, is already resource-constrained and should not be spending money on programs with limited potential benefits. The estimated cost of establishing a permanent deer population on the Kenai Peninsula is between $2 million and $3 million, according to the 2023 scoping report. However, Wardlow states that expenses have been reduced, and the project has so far cost $460,000.
A Question of Priorities
The deer relocation project is seen by some as part of a pattern under the Dunleavy administration of prioritizing wildlife management programs that cater to a small group of hunters. Freeman's organization supports game relocation efforts when they aim to reintroduce native species to their original ranges, such as musk oxen and wood bison in Western Alaska. However, they oppose creating new populations in areas where they historically haven't thrived, solely to meet human desires for hunting or wildlife viewing.
Conclusion
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game's decision to continue with the deer relocation project, despite the high mortality rate, raises important questions about the balance between wildlife management, ethical considerations, and the efficient use of public funds. As the state moves forward with its plans, the success or failure of this initiative will undoubtedly shape future discussions and decisions regarding similar wildlife management strategies.
