Section 5.92.124. Intensive Management Plans VIII.

	(a)  Plans established. Intensive management plans for the following areas are established in this section:  
		(1) Unit 21 (E) Predation Control Area;  
		(2) Unit 24 (B) Predation Control Area.  
	(b)  Unit 21(E) Predation Control Area. The Unit 21(E) Predation Control Area is established and includes all of Unit 21(E), encompassing approximately 7,995 square miles; this predation control program does not apply within National Wildlife Refuge Lands unless approved by the federal agencies; notwithstanding any other provision in this title, and based on the following information contained in this section, the commissioner or the commissioner's designee may conduct a wolf population reduction or wolf population regulation program in the Unit 21(E) Predation Control Area:  
		(1) the discussion of wildlife population and human use information is as follows:  
			(A) a GASH (Grayling-Anvik-Shageluk-Holy Cross) moose management area (MMA) is established within the Unit 21(E) Predation Control Area; the MMA encompasses approximately 2,617 square miles, adjacent to the village of Grayling and surrounding the villages of Anvik, Shageluk, and Holy Cross; the purpose of the MMA is to focus intensive management activities, including predation control and habitat management, in a relatively small area near villages where moose are most accessible to hunters, rather than spread this effort over the entire game management unit; wolf control will be conducted only within the MMA; the department has the discretion to adjust the size and shape of the MMA to include up to 40 percent (approximately 3,700 square miles) of Unit 21(E) in order to meet the objectives of this plan;  
			(B) prey population information is as follows:  
				(i) local residents and other hunters have reported a decline in the Unit 21(E) moose population since the mid 1990s and are concerned that additional declines may occur; however, there are few data available on the number of moose before 2000 for comparison; population estimation surveys were conducted in March 2000 and 2005 and February 2009 in a 5,070 square mile moose survey area (MSA); estimates at the 90 percent confidence level without sightability correction factors were 5,151, plus or minus 13 percent (1 moose per square mile), 4,673, plus or minus 17 percent (0.9 moose per square  mile) and 6,218, plus or minus 17 percent (1.2 moose per square mile), respectively; because the ranges of these estimates overlap, they likely do not indicate a detectable change in the moose population between 2000 and 2009; extrapolating the February 2009 estimate to all of Unit 21(E) resulted in an estimated observable moose population size of 6,205 - 8,747;  
				(ii) the intensive management moose population objective established by the board for Unit 21(E) is 9,000 - 11,000 moose;   
				(iii) the objective for observable moose within the MSA is a minimum of 5,070 moose, as estimated from aerial surveys and not corrected for sightability; achieving this objective will contribute to achieving the Unit 21(E) intensive management population objective;   
				(iv) the intensive management moose harvest objective established  by the board for Unit 21(E) is 550 - 1,100 moose;  
				(v) the moose harvest objective within the MSA is a minimum of 203 moose (four percent of 5,070) during each regulatory year; achieving this objective will contribute to achieving the Unit 21(E) intensive management harvest objective;  
				(vi) composition surveys conducted during November 1987 - 1998 and 2007 - 2008 in the Holy Cross area indicated that bull-to-cow ratios and calf-to-cow ratios were at or above 25 - 30 bulls: 100 cows and 30 - 40 calves: 100 cows; November 2009 composition surveys revealed a similarly high bull-to-cow ratio, but a lower calf-to-cow ratio of 18 calves: 100 cows.  
				(vii) based on available data, habitat is probably not a factor limiting moose population growth in Unit 21(E); a browse survey conducted during spring 2006 indicated that moose were removing 21 percent of current annual biomass, which is a moderate level along the gradient of removal observed in Interior moose populations; seven aerial surveys conducted during spring 2000 - 2009 have shown an average twinning rate of 31 percent (range: 16 - 50 percent), which suggests habitat is not presently limiting productivity in moose;  
				(viii) if the moose population declines below 1.0 observable moose per square mile, total estimated mortality would likely be high relative to the size of the moose population; information gained from studies on moose in Unit 19(D) East and other areas of this state, and observations by local residents suggest that wolves would be a limiting factor for moose in Unit 21(E); research from Unit 19(D) East also indicates that black and brown bear predation could be a factor that contributes to calf moose mortality, and bears may be limiting the moose population in Unit 21(E);  
				(ix) the harvestable surplus in Unit 21(E) is 248 - 350 moose based on a conservative harvest rate of four percent of the total estimated population;  
				(x) the estimated observable moose population in Unit 21(E) is lower than the intensive management population objective; the number of animals that can be removed from the Unit 21(E) moose population on an annual basis without preventing growth of the population or altering the composition of the population in a biologically unacceptable manner is less than the harvest objective established for the population in 5 AAC 92.108;  
				(xi) the 2009 estimate of 1.2 observable moose per square mile within the Unit 21(E) MSA is considered to be slightly higher than the range of densities associated with low density dynamic equilibrium moose populations that are predator limited; a decline in moose numbers would result in the population moving into the low density dynamic equilibrium state; once in that state, the moose in Unit 21(E) are likely to persist at lower density with little expectation of increase unless a wolf control program is conducted; results from moose mortality studies, and predator and prey studies, conducted throughout this state and similar areas in Canada indicate that reducing the number of wolves in Unit 21(E) can reasonably be expected to increase the survival of yearling and older moose; wolf control activities within the MMA can reasonably be expected to increase moose densities in that and surrounding areas and increase the number of moose that can be harvested;  
			(C) human use information for the prey population is as follows:   
				(i) the board identified moose in Unit 21(E) as important for providing high levels of harvest for human consumptive use in accordance with AS 16.05.255(e) - (g);  
				(ii) estimated average annual moose harvest by all resident hunters in Unit 21(E) was 311 moose between 1996 and 2005; this estimate was based on all available harvest data, including harvest ticket reports, division of subsistence household surveys, and other subsistence research; the average nonresident harvest between 2000 and 2004 was 30 moose;  
				(iii) according to harvest ticket reports, the number of moose harvested in Unit 21(E) declined from an average of 182 moose annually during the 1998 - 2002 seasons to 124 moose during the 2003 - 2008 seasons; most of this decline can be attributed to a decrease in non-local harvest; since the early 2000s, this change includes a reduction in the number of hunters from Unit 18 who travel upriver to hunt moose in Unit 21(E) because moose have become more abundant in Unit 18;  
				(iv) in a March 2002 report to the board, the division of subsistence estimated the average annual harvest of moose by residents of Unit 21(E) during the 1996 - 1999 seasons was 226 moose; division of subsistence household surveys indicated harvest by residents of Unit 21(E) during 2002, 2003, and 2004 seasons was 133, 118, and 94 moose respectively; harvest was unusually low in 2004 due to low water and to forest fires that burned from summer until the fall moose hunting season; in recent years annual harvest has included approximately 20 - 25 cows;  
				(v) the amount necessary for subsistence established by the board for Unit 21 is 600 - 800 moose;   
				(vi) the intensive management harvest objective in Unit 21(E) is  550 - 1,100 moose; the current harvestable surplus of 248 - 350 moose is well below this objective; as the moose population increases and more harvest can be allowed, a greater portion of the unmet demand for moose in Unit 21(E) can be satisfied; based on management experience gained in Unit 19(D) East and other areas of the state, an increase in the moose population is expected if the wolf population is reduced substantially; a reduction in the number of wolves would result in a higher rate of increase in the number of moose available for harvest; although the most pronounced effect is expected to be within the MMA, it is reasonable to expect some lesser degree of increase in the moose population in the area immediately surrounding the MMA because of a reduction in wolf predation; if the moose population were to decline without a wolf predation control program in place, there is a low probability that a further decline in the moose population could be prevented and recovery initiated to meet harvest demands including local subsistence needs;  
			(D) predator population information is as follows:  
				(i) the relevant predator population is all wolves within Unit 21(E); the pre-control wolf population in Unit 21(E) was estimated for fall 2008 using a partial survey in March 2009 conducted in 3,600 square miles, combined with observations made during the February 2009 moose survey, sealing records, and anecdotal observations; these data were extrapolated to all of Unit 21(E), and resulted in an estimate of 146 - 156 wolves or approximately 18 - 20 wolves per 1,000 square miles; in areas with limited human developments such as Unit 21(E), habitat is not considered a significant factor in limiting wolf populations, and it is presumed that numbers of wolves are limited mainly by prey availability; there is no evidence of disease or any other naturally occurring factors that would cause wolf mortality to be higher than normally expected;  
				(ii) using the February 2009 moose population estimate and fall 2008 wolf population estimates, the moose-to-wolf ratio in Unit 21(E) is between 40:1 and 60:1;  
				(iii) studies in this state and elsewhere have repeatedly concluded that large reductions are required to affect wolf population levels and to reduce predation by wolves on their prey; research indicates a temporary reduction of about 60 - 80 percent of the pre-control wolf population may be necessary to achieve prey population objectives; once the wolf population has been reduced to the population control objective, annual reductions of less than 60 percent will likely regulate the wolf population at the control objective until prey population objectives are met; the wolf population control objective will achieve the desired reduction in wolf predation, and also ensure that wolves persist within the predation control area in sufficient numbers so that a long-term sustainable harvest is maintained;  
				(iv) the primary objective of the Unit 21(E) wolf predation control plan is to increase the moose population and, therefore, the number of moose available for harvest on an annual and sustainable basis within the area of concentrated harvest by reducing wolf numbers and wolf predation on moose within the 2,617 square mile MMA to the lowest level possible if necessary; this plan also has a goal to maintain wolves as an important component of the ecosystem within the larger area of Unit 21(E) and to maintain long-term sustainable harvests of both predator and prey populations in accordance with established objectives; the minimum wolf population objective for Unit 21(E) is 29 - 31 wolves, which represents a 80 percent reduction from the pre-control minimum estimated fall wolf population of 146 - 156 (18 - 20 wolves per 1,000 square miles); a minimum 60 percent wolf reduction from pre-control levels will likely achieve the minimum desired reduction in wolf predation, a maximum 80 percent wolf reduction ensures that wolves persist in Unit 21(E) in sufficient numbers so that a long-term harvest of wolves is sustained;  
				(v) the wolf population is expected to decline somewhat if there is a decline in the moose population and reduced availability of prey; this decline could result in the moose and wolf populations in Unit 21(E) entering a low density dynamic equilibrium state in which both predator and prey numbers are likely to stay at low levels indefinitely; if wolf predation control efforts are implemented and the wolf population is reduced according to the wolf population and removal objectives, the wolf population will be maintained through ongoing control efforts and hunter and trapper harvests at a minimum of 29 - 31 wolves for several years, but once the moose population increases and wolf control efforts are suspended, research and case history indicate the wolf population will increase, with an increase in long-term sustainable harvest, through a combination of wolf immigration and higher wolf reproductive rate in response to the increased prey base;   
			(E) the human use information for the predator population is as follows:  
				(i) average annual reported harvest of wolves by hunters and trappers during the 2003 - 2008 seasons was 17 wolves; well below levels required to significantly reduce the population;  
				(ii) the human population in Unit 21(E) is concentrated along the lower Yukon and Innoko River corridors; the region's weather is influenced by coastal conditions and warm spells in the winter will often melt snow and make travel and tracking conditions poor; in addition, the low price of wolf pelts and high cost of fuel make it difficult for local residents to harvest a high number of wolves throughout the unit;  
		(2) the predator and prey population levels and population objectives, and the basis for those objectives, is as follows:  
			(A) the most recent (2009) estimate for the observable moose population in the Unit 21(E) predation control area is 6,205 - 8,747 moose; the intensive management population objective for Unit 21(E) is 9,000 - 11,000 moose; intensive management objectives were based on historic information about moose numbers, habitat limitations, sustainable harvest levels, and human use;   
			(B) the pre-control estimated minimum wolf population in Unit 21(E) was 146 - 156 wolves in fall 2008; studies in this state and elsewhere have repeatedly concluded that large, annual reductions of wolves are required to diminish wolf population levels and predation by wolves on their prey; consistent with scientific studies and department experience, the objective of this plan is to substantially reduce wolf numbers from pre-control levels if necessary to relieve predation pressure on moose and allow for improved recruitment to the moose population; this plan also has as a goal to maintain wolves as part of the natural ecosystem within the described geographical area in sufficient numbers to maintain a long-term sustainable harvest; to achieve the desired reduction in wolf predation, but ensure that wolves persist within the plan area and long-term harvest of wolves is sustained, the wolf population in Unit 21(E) will be reduced to no fewer than 29 wolves;  
			(C) the primary objective of the Unit 21(E) wolf predation control plan is to reduce wolf numbers and wolf predation on moose within the 2,617 square mile MMA, if necessary to the lowest level possible; this plan also has a goal to maintain wolves as part of the ecosystem within Unit 21(E) and to maintain a long-term sustainable wolf harvest; the minimum wolf population objective for Unit 21(E) is 29 - 31 wolves, which represents an 80 percent reduction from the pre-control minimum estimated fall wolf population of 146 - 156 (18 - 20 wolves per 1,000 square miles); a minimum 60 percent wolf reduction from precontrol levels will achieve the minimum desired reduction in wolf predation; a maximum 80 percent wolf reduction ensures that wolves persist in Unit 21(E);   
		(3) justifications for the predator control implementation plan are as follows:  
			(A) the observable moose population size for Unit 21(E) was estimated at 6,205 - 8,747 moose in February 2009, with 6218 moose, plus or minus 17 percent (1.2 moose per square mile), in the MSA; the harvestable surplus of moose is 248 - 350, based on a conservative harvest rate of four percent of the estimated moose population; if there were a decline below 1.0 observable moose per square mile the intensive management population objective of 9,000 - 11,000 moose and harvest objective of 550 - 1,100 may not be met; local residents and other hunters reported a decline in the moose population before 2000 and are concerned that additional declines may occur, making it increasingly difficult to achieve objectives; declines in the moose population occur because mortality exceeds recruitment into the population; wolf predation is an important cause of moose mortality; in this state and Canada where moose are the primary prey of wolves, studies documented kill rates ranging from four to seven moose per wolf per winter;   
			(B) a proactive approach is needed to allow for a timely response to any additional decline in the Unit 21(E) moose population; reducing wolf numbers through a wolf predation control program, combined with reduction in moose harvest, is the approach most likely to succeed in a recovery of the moose population if an additional decline occurs; wolf harvest through hunting and trapping efforts has not resulted in lowering the wolf population sufficiently to allow the moose population to grow;  
			(C) presently known alternatives to predator control for reducing the number of predators are ineffective, impractical, or uneconomical in the Unit 21(E) situation; hunting and trapping conducted under authority of ordinary hunting and trapping seasons and bag limits is not an effective reduction technique in sparsely populated areas such as Unit 21(E); the numbers of hunters and trappers are relatively low and educational programs to stimulate interest and improve skills in taking wolves have so far been unsuccessful in increasing the harvest of wolves; the inherent wariness of wolves, difficult access, and relatively poor pelt prices also explain low harvest rates; application of the most common sterilization techniques, including surgery, implants, or inoculation, are not effective reduction techniques because they require immobilization of individual predators, which is extremely expensive in remote areas; relocation of wolves is impractical because it is expensive and it is very difficult to find publicly acceptable places for relocated wolves; habitat manipulation is ineffective because it may improve the birth rate of moose in certain circumstances, but it is poor survival, not poor birth rate that keeps moose populations low in rural areas of Interior Alaska; supplemental feeding of wolves and bears as an alternative to predator control has improved moose calf survival in two experiments; however, large numbers of moose carcasses are not available for this kind of effort and transporting them to remote areas of this state is not practical; stocking of moose is impractical because of capturing and moving expenses; any of the alternatives to a wolf predation control program are not likely to be effective in achieving the desired level of predator harvest;  
			(D) moose hunting seasons and bag limits have been reduced in Unit 21(E); the February resident season for any moose was closed in 2003 and the nonresident season was shortened and made more restrictive in 2006; if additional declines in the moose population occur, these measures alone are unlikely to allow the moose population to increase;  
			(E) without an effective wolf predation control program, the wolf removal objective cannot be achieved; a timely response to any additional decline in the Unit 21(E) moose population will not be possible, resulting in the population potentially moving into the low density dynamic equilibrium state with little expectation of increase; data from moose mortality and predator-prey studies conducted throughout this state and similar areas in Canada suggest that reducing the number of wolves in Unit 21(E) can reasonably be expected to increase moose survival, particularly for yearlings; reducing wolf predation on moose, in combination with carefully managing harvest, including minimizing cow harvest, can reasonably be expected to initiate an increase of the moose population;   
		(4) the permissible methods and means used to take wolves are as follows:  
			(A) hunting and trapping of wolves by the public in Unit 21(E) during the term of the program will occur as provided in the hunting and trapping regulations set out elsewhere in this title, including use of motorized vehicles as provided in 5 AAC 92.080;  
			(B) following any required findings by the board, the commissioner may issue public aerial shooting permits or public land and shoot permits in Unit 21(E) as a method of wolf removal under AS 16.05.783 when the mid point of any population estimate obtained in the MSA declines below 1.0 observable moose per square mile;  
		(5) the anticipated time frame and schedule for update and reevaluation are as follows:  
			(A) for up to six years beginning on July 1, 2010, the commissioner may reduce the wolf population in Unit 21(E), while maintaining wolves as part of the ecosystem within Unit 21(E) and maintaining a long-term sustainable wolf harvest;  
			(B) annually, the department shall, to the extent practicable, provide to the board at the board's spring board meeting, a report of program activities conducted during the preceding 12 months, including implementation activities, the status of moose and wolf populations, and recommendations for changes, if necessary, to achieve the objectives of the plan;  
		(6) other specifications the board considers necessary are as follows:  
			(A) the commissioner will suspend wolf predation control activities  
				(i) when wolf inventories or accumulated information from wolf control permittees indicate the need to avoid reducing wolf numbers below the minimum population objective of 29 - 31 wolves in Unit 21(E) specified in this subsection;  
				(ii) no later than April 30 in any regulatory year; or  
				(iii) when prey population objectives are attained;  
			(B) the commissioner will annually close wolf hunting and trapping seasons as appropriate to ensure that the minimum wolf population objective for Unit 21(E) is met; or  
			(C) wolf predation control activities will be terminated upon expiration of the period during which the commissioner is authorized to reduce predator numbers in the predation control plan area.  
	(c)  Unit 24(B) Predation Control Area: the Unit 24(B) Predation Control Area is established and consists of those portions of the Koyukuk River drainage within Unit 24(B), encompassing approximately 13,523 square miles; this predation control program does not apply to any National Park Service or National Wildlife Refuge lands unless approved by the federal agencies; notwithstanding any other provisions in this title, and based on the following information contained in this subsection, the commissioner or the commissioner's designee may conduct a wolf population reduction or wolf population regulation program in Unit 24(B):  
		(1) an Upper Koyukuk Management Area (UKMA) is established within the Unit 24(B) Predation Control Area encompassing approximately 1,360 square miles surrounding the villages of Alatna and Allakaket and bounded to the north at 66_ 52' N. lat., to the east at 152_ 10' W. long., to the south at 66_ 10' N. lat., and to the west at 153_ 45' W. long.; the UKMA does not delineate a moose or wolf population and is not intended to distinguish animals within the UKMA from populations in Unit 24(B); the purpose of the UKMA is to focus wolf control in an area where moose are accessible to hunters, rather than spread this effort over the entire game management unit; wolf control will be conducted only within the UKMA; through the department's permitting authorities, the department has the discretion to adjust the area's size and shape to include up to 20 percent (approximately 2,700 square miles) of Unit 24(B) if necessary;  
		(2) this is an experimental program that will have limited impact on the moose and wolf populations in Unit 24(B); it is designed primarily to reallocate moose from wolves to humans in the UKMA and is expected to make only a small contribution to the intensive management moose harvest objective in Unit 24(B); at the end of the authorized period for removal of wolves, the control program will be terminated;  
		(3) moose and wolf objectives are as follows:  
			(A) the moose intensive management objectives established by the board for Unit 24(B) are for a population of 4,000 - 4,500 moose and an annual harvest of 150 - 250 moose;  
			(B) the moose harvest objective for the UKMA is for an annual harvest of 35 - 40 moose by fall 2017;  
			(C) the wolf population control objective for Unit 24(B) is 100 - 140 wolves; the pre-control wolf population in Unit 24(B) was estimated in fall 2008 at 202 - 284 wolves; a minimum population of 100 wolves is approximately a 50 percent reduction from the pre-control population and will assure that wolves persist as part of the natural ecosystem in Unit 24(B) and assure continued wolf hunting, trapping, and viewing opportunities;   
			(D) the wolf control objective in the UKMA is to reduce wolf numbers to the lowest level possible; in fall 2010, the estimated maximum number of wolves in the UKMA was 25 - 60 wolves;  
		(4) the board's findings concerning populations and human use are as follows:   
			(A) the Unit 24(B) moose population and harvest objectives have not been achieved based on the following:  
				(i) in early winter 2010 the observable moose population size in Unit 24(B) was estimated at 1,800 - 3,400 moose (0.13 - 0.25 moose per square mile), based on extrapolation of population estimates from survey areas in the unit, including all or parts of the UKMA, Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge, and Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve; during regulatory years 2008 - 2009 through 2010 - 2011, estimated annual harvest in Unit 24(B) was 82 - 109 moose;  
				(ii) in early winter 2010, the number of observable moose within the UKMA was estimated at 405 (90 percent confidence interval: plus or minus 96); estimates of annual harvest from the UKMA are not available; however, the division of subsistence household surveys from the villages of Alatna and Allakaket within the UKMA indicated moose harvest during 1997 - 2002 averaged approximately 40 moose per year; the division of wildlife conservation estimated current reported and unreported harvest in Alatna and Allakaket is 15 - 20 moose annually; based on resident testimonials, cost to obtain a moose has increased due to declining moose densities and increasing fuel costs;  
			(B) predation by bears and wolves is an important cause of the failure to achieve moose population and harvest objectives based on the following:   
				(i)  moose surveys in Unit 24(B) during spring 2008 - 2011 indicated high twinning rates (average 57 percent), thus good body condition; fall composition surveys in Unit 24(B) indicated high productivity, with calf-to-cow ratios averaging 44 calves per 100 cows, but cohort survival was low with yearling bulls averaging 11 per 100 cows; these survey data and a predicted calving rate of 80 percent indicate more calves are lost during summer due primarily to bear predation than winter due primarily to wolf predation;   
				(ii)   studies from Interior Alaska have documented bears as the primary source of neonatal moose mortality, whereas wolves are the primary predator of moose greater than 12 months of age; based on radiocollared adults in Units 24(A) and 24(B) in 2008 - 2009, annual adult mortality is approximately 8 - 10 percent;  
			(C) a reduction of wolf predation within the UKMA can reasonably be expected to make progress towards achieving the Unit 24(B) intensive management objectives; modeling of the current moose abundance in the UKMA using estimated abundance of 45 - 55 wolves, 75 black bears, 25 brown bears, 405 (plus or minus 96) moose, and a harvest of 20 moose annually, indicated that moose abundance should slowly increase in response to wolf control that increases calf and yearling moose survival; wolf control alone likely will result in a positive response in moose abundance after five winters of control, including reallocation of some surviving moose to harvest;  
			(D) reducing predation is likely to be effective and feasible utilizing recognized and prudent active management techniques and based on scientific information; based on survey results indicating wolf predation is an important source of mortality, reducing wolves in a small geographic area will likely result in increased moose survival and additional animals available for hunter harvest; harvest data will be collected using harvest ticket or registration permit reports, household surveys, and other reporting mechanisms such as calendars for recording hunting activities; moose population data collection will include abundance, calf-to-cow ratio, and yearling bull-to-cow ratio from population estimation surveys and calf survival and yearling survival from radiocollared moose;  
			(E) reducing predation is likely to be effective given land ownership patterns; the UKMA was selected based on land ownership status (minimizing federal lands), proximity to traditional moose hunting areas for the villages of Allakaket and Alatna (maximizing inclusion of navigable river corridors), and habitat suitability; within the UKMA, 125 square miles (9.2 percent) is federal land (BLM/USFWS), 576 square miles (42.3 percent) is Alaska Native corporation land, 659 square miles (48.4 percent) is state lands;  
		(5) the permissible authorized methods and means used to take wolves are as follows:  
			(A) hunting and trapping of wolves by the public in Unit 24(B) during the term of this program may occur as provided in the hunting and trapping regulations set out elsewhere in this title, including use of motorized vehicles as provided in 5 AAC 92.080;  
			(B) notwithstanding any other provisions in this title, the commissioner may allow department employees to conduct aerial, land and shoot, or ground-based lethal removal of wolves using state-owned, privately-owned, or chartered equipment, including helicopters, under AS 16.05.783;  
			(C) notwithstanding any other provisions in this title, the commissioner may issue public aerial shooting permits or public land and shoot permits using fixed-wing aircraft as a method of wolf removal under AS 16.05.783;   
		(6) the anticipated time frame and schedule for update and reevalutation are as follows:  
			(A) through June 30, 2018, the commissioner may authorize removal of wolves in Unit 24(B);  
			(B) annually, the department shall, to the extent practicable, provide to the board a report of program activities conducted during the preceding 12 months, including implementation activities, the status of the moose and wolf populations, and recommendations for changes, if necessary to achieve the objectives of the plan;  
		(7) the commissioner will review, modify, or suspend program activities when the wolf surveys or accumulated information from department personnel, hunters, trappers, and permittees indicate the need to avoid reducing wolf numbers in Unit 24(B) below the control objective of 100 wolves specified in this subsection.  

Authorities

16.05.255;16.05.270;16.05.783;44.62

Notes

Reference

5 AAC 92.080

Authority

AS 16.05.255 AS 16.05.270 AS 16.05.783 Editor's note: As of Register 203 (October 2012), and acting under AS 44.62. 125(b)(6), the regulations attorney made technical revisions to 5 AAC 92, replacing former 5 AAC 92.125 with smaller sections to facilitate printing of the regulations in the Alaska Administrative Code. As part of those revisions, material formerly set out in 5 AAC 92.125(n) and (r) was relocated to 5 AAC 92.124 without substantive change. The history note and authority citation for 5 AAC 92.124 carry forward the history of, and authority for, former 5 AAC 92.125.

History

Eff. 10/1/93, Register 127; am 8/18/95, Register 135; am 7/1/96, Register 138; add'l am 7/1/96, Register 138; am 7/27/97, Register 143; am 2/22/2000, Register 153; am 7/1/2000, Register 154; am 7/19/2000, Register 155; am 1/3/2001, Register 156; am 7/1/2001, Register 158; am 8/22/2001, Register 159; am 7/26/2003, Register 167; am 7/1/2004, Register 170; am 1/1/2005, Register 172; am 7/1/2005, Register 174; am 1/26/2006, Register 177; am 6/24/2006, Register 178; am 9/1/2006, Register 179; am 7/1/2007, Register 182; am 3/21/2008, Register 186; am 5/20/2008, Register 186; am 5/21/2009, Register 190; am 7/1/2009, Register 190; am 5/16/2010, Register 194; am 7/1/2010, Register 194; add'l am 7/1/2010, Register 194; am 12/15/2010, Register 196; am 1/29/2011, Register 197; am 5/14/2011, Register 198; am 7/1/2011, Register 198; am 3/24/2012, Register 201; am 4/1/2012, Register 201; am 7/1/2012, Register 202

References

5.92;5.92.125;5.92.124