New wildlife research released in October 2024 disputes Alaska’s long‑standing bear‑removal program aimed at boosting the Mulchatna caribou herd . The study finds that poor nutrition, not predation, drives calf mortality , raising questions about the scientific and legal basis of the state’s intensive management strategy.

Nutrition deficits killed 20 of 44 recorded calf deaths

According to a memo by wildlife biologist Todd Rinaldi, necropsies on 29 caribou carcasses revealed that 20 deaths were caused by starvation or dehydration. The calves examined had negligible fat reserves,and roughly a dozen showed zinc, copper and selenium deficiencies compared with claves from other Alaskan herds.

ADF&G’s legal justification appears misaligned with the Intensive Management statute

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) cites the state constitution and the Intensive Management law to defend lethal bear control in the herd’s calving grounds.. However, the law requires “enhancement of prey populations … when feasible using prudent techniques.” The Rinaldi team argues that, because nutrition—not predation—limits calf survival, the prerequisite of feasible enhancement is not met.

Historical herd size spikes were migration‑drven, not growth‑drien

Population records show the Mulchatna herd traditionally hovered between 12,000 and 14,000 animals. A surge to nearly 200,000 in the 1980s coincided with a migration to richer foraging areas, not an intrinsic reproductive boom. A 2025 assessment notes that long‑term averages since 1949 remain far below current targets of 30,000‑80,000 caribou.

Who is misrepresenting the data? ADF&G’s foraging lab director

During a July 2025 Board of Game hearing, Kristin Denryter, director of ADF&G’s Foraging Ecology and Wildlife Nutritional Analysis Lab, claimed there was no evidence that nutrition limited calf survival. The Rinaldi memo directly contradicts her statement, suggesting a misrepresentation of the data by a senior agency official.

Unanswered questions about future management goals

Key uncertainties remain:Will ADF&G revise its population objective now that nutrition, not predation, is identified as the bottleneck? How will the agency address the documented mineral deficiencies without resorting to lethal bear control? And what legal recourse do stakeholders have if the department continues to rely on a constitutional claim that experts say is unfounded?