Game Transplants in Alaska, Technical Bulletin #4, Second Edition

was sufficiently thorough and accurate. In the meanwhile, that introduction, like others, has provided new hunting and viewing opportunities for Alaskans and visitors alike. While the Revillagigedo introduction met the department’s standards, a subsequent proposal to introduce mountain goats to Prince of Wales Island was rejected by the department after an ecological assessment determined there was insufficient wintering and escape habitat to support a viable population of goats on that island. We need to be ready to support wildlife transplants where they are appropriate and reject them where they are not. As you read this publication, I hope you will reflect both on the positive aspects and inherent risks associated with transplants. It remains my hope that introductions and reintroductions of wildlife in Alaska, undertaken with appropriate care, will provide positive benefits to the species, to Alaskans, and to all who visit our state. I hope too that the information presented in this new edition of Game Transplants of Alaska will help biologists and others steer a course to positive results from any future wildlife transplant operations. —Doug Larsen, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation September 2009 ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION ............................................................................. viii ACKNOWlEDGMENTS .........................................................................................................x EXECuTIVE SuMMARY...................................................................................................... xi INTRODuCTION .....................................................................................................................1 AlASKA TRANSPlANT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................5 BIG GAME TRANSPlANTS ...................................................................................................9 Sitka Black-tailed Deer ........................................................................................................9 Mountain Goat ...................................................................................................................16 Elk ......................................................................................................................................33 Bison ..................................................................................................................................44 Muskox ..............................................................................................................................55 Moose.................................................................................................................................69 Caribou...............................................................................................................................80 Dall Sheep ..........................................................................................................................96 FuRBEARERS AND SMAll GAME ...................................................................................99 Fox .....................................................................................................................................99 Muskrat ............................................................................................................................102 Beaver ..............................................................................................................................103 Marten ..............................................................................................................................104 Mink .................................................................................................................................106 Sea Otter...........................................................................................................................106 Raccoon............................................................................................................................110 Red Squirrel .....................................................................................................................111 Marmot.............................................................................................................................111 Ground Squirrel ...............................................................................................................112 Wolf..................................................................................................................................112 Hare and Rabbit ...............................................................................................................112 European Wild Hog..........................................................................................................114 GAME BIRD TRANSPlANTS ............................................................................................119 Pheasant and Chukar Partridge ........................................................................................119 Canada Goose ..................................................................................................................121 Native Game Birds...........................................................................................................125 CONCluSION ......................................................................................................................133 APPENDIX A: TERRITORIAl STATuTES .......................................................................135 APPENDIX B: TRANSPlANT POlICY ............................................................................137 APPENDIX C: CHRONOlOGY OF TRANSPlANTS ......................................................141 APPENDIX D: PHARMACEuTICAlS..............................................................................149 vi GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: tAble oF Contents , list oF F iGures List of figures Figure 1. Approximate locations of all game transplant efforts in Alaska ..........................xx Figure 2. Approximate locations of big game transplant efforts in Alaska ...........................8 Figure 3. The deer catching team of 19-year-old Ike Hanlon and his dog Tuffy with 4 captured deer on the Sitka dock, ca. 1924 ...........................................................9 Figure 4. Young mountain goats on the roof of a building at Goddard Hot Springs on Baranof Island in 1928, 5 years after a transplant ...........................................16 Figure 5. A captured mountain goat is held in Martin Goresen’s basement in Seward prior to transplant on Kodiak Island in 1952. .......................................................19 Figure 6. A helicopter is used to transport a mountain goat in a sling from Misty Fjords to a staging area on the way to Revillagigedo Island during the 1983 transplant. ...22 Figure 7. Sedated goats were kept cool at this staging area during the Mt. Juneau transplant operation in 1989. ................................................................................25 Figure 8. A sedated goat lies in a net awaiting helicopter transport during the Deer Mountain transplant in 1991. .......................................................................27 Figure 9. A sedated goat is retrieved after darting during the Deer Mountain transplant in 1991. ................................................................................................28 Figure 10. Young elk on Kruzof Island in 1928 ....................................................................33 Figure 11. A mountain goat in a crate is prepared for transport to Oregon as part of an exchange of goats for Roosevelt elk in 1987. .......................................................37 Figure 12. A truck carrying elk is unloaded from a landing craft on Etolin Island ...............38 Figure 13. Plains bison arrive in Alaska from Montana in 1928. ..........................................44 Figure 14. A cow that had collapsed and then been revived upon arrival in Alaska in 1928 chases one man up a tree while another backs off. ...............................................45 Figure 15. A bull of the Delta plains bison herd in September 2008 .....................................46 Figure 16. A Delta bison is run through a chute for transport loading and introduction elsewhere in Alaska, perhaps as part of the Chitina area transplant in 1962. .......48 Figure 17. Three wood bison cows and a calf at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center near Portage, Alaska .............................................................................................50 Figure 18. Yukon Flats, Minto Flats, and lower Innoko/Yukon River study areas have been found suitable for wood bison transplant. ............................................................51 Figure 19. ADF&G veterinarian Dr. Kimberlee Beckmen draws a blood sample for disease testing from a wood bison at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center ...............52 Figure 20. An immobilized muskox is lashed to a sled in preparation for the trip to an airstrip on Nunivak Island. ...................................................................................57 Figure 21. For the 1969 muskox transplant, yearlings were rounded up using snowmachines and lariats. ....................................................................................58 ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov vii tabLes Table 1. Islands from which transplanted foxes were eliminated by personnel of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and u.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services, as of 2007. .............................................................................101 Table 2. Numbers of sea otters transplanted in/from Alaska, 1955–1972 .......................109 Table 3. Releases of snowshoe hare and European rabbit in Alaska ................................113 Table 4. Pheasant transplants in Alaska ............................................................................120 Table 5. Native game bird transplants in Alaska.............................................................. 127 Table C1. Big game transplant efforts in Alaska, in chronological order ...........................141 Table C2. Big game transplant efforts in Alaska, by species ..............................................145 Table D1. Modern information for pharmaceuticals identified in this report .....................149 Figure 22. Muskoxen are released from crates at Feather River, Seward Peninsula. Crates are arranged in a crescent to encourage muskoxen to form a herd on release. ....63 Figure 23. Crates containing muskoxen are unloaded from a cargo plane at Port Clarence in 1981. .................................................................................................................64 Figure 24. A recalcitrant muskox at Port Clarence in 1981 ...................................................65 Figure 25. Hollis Henrichs feeds moose calves that are being raised for the Copper River Delta transplant. ....................................................................................................69 Figure 26. Moose calves are held in a truck in Cordova, ca. early 1950s. ............................70 Figure 27. Moose calves are reared in 1958 at lena Point for transplant to Berners Bay.....72 Figure 28. Moose calves are coaxed ashore at Berners Bay in1960......................................73 Figure 29. A calf moose is coaxed to the lCM landing craft during the Chickamin River transplant operation in 1963. ................................................................................75 Figure 30. Kenai Air helicopter pilots Monty Haugh and larry Rogers secure crates holding blindfolded caribou prior to transport in 1986. .......................................87 Figure 31. A captured caribou is transported in a sling to a staging area on the Alaska Peninsula in 1988..................................................................................................91 Figure 32. Sedated caribou in cargo nets are transported inside a single-engine otter aircraft from the Alaska Peninsula to the Nushagak Peninsula in 1988. ..............92 Figure 33. Approximate locations of furbearer and small game transplant efforts ...............98 Figure 34. Approximate locations of game bird transplant efforts in Alaska ......................118 Figure 35. A border collie and its handler capture an Aleutian Canada goose ....................123 Figure 36. An Evermann’s rock ptarmigan is stalked with a noose pole on Attu Island in 2006. ...............................................................................................................130 viii GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: preFACe to the seConD eDition PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION Game Transplants in Alaska by Burris and McKnight (1973) has been one of the most widely used ADF&G publications for 35 years, if not by the general public, then certainly by wildlife professionals. Nearly every wildlife biologist in Alaska has a dog-eared, worn, original or photocopied version on an office shelf that they refer to periodically for reasons related to their job or for just plain interesting reading on a major topic in the history of Alaska wildlife management. Its usefulness and popularity arose because it drew together information from an abundance of sources both common and rare to produce a comprehensive record. Readers needed go no further than Game Transplants in Alaska to get the complete account of the rich and varied history of wildlife transplants in Alaska. In the years since its publication, game transplants have continued in Alaska and an increasing number of current and former ADF&G wildlife professionals have lamented the lack of a similar comprehensive account of the recent transplant activity. Only Franzman (1988) attempted to comprehensively update the transplant record after Burris and McKnight. Although most of the subsequent transplants have been documented to some extent, not all accounts are easily found. Some useful information pertaining to the transplants was not written down or remains unpublished in agency files. This edition follows the example of the first by pulling together information from a plethora of published agency reports, unpublished memos and data files, personal recollections, popular periodicals, and historical sources in an effort to continue the complete picture of Alaska’s transplant history as well as provide an account of how the introduced populations have fared since they were transplanted. In so doing, I kept most of the original text from the first Game Transplants in Alaska. I made minor changes in their text to clarify locations, and to update the status of transplanted populations which in 1973 may have seemed to be failures or successes but which over time have turned around for good or ill. In a very few cases, accounts of early transplants have been changed or expanded based on additional information unearthed or published since. One example is information on fox transplants to Alaska islands, which has been given a great boost by Bailey (1993). I elaborated on some early transplant stories, particularly if some of the circumstances or techniques employed in the operation were unique or unusual, such as the capture techniques used by private citizens supplying animals for deer and goat transplants in territorial days. As in the original, I have defined transplants as actions whose primary goal is to introduce animals to a new area or augment an existing wildlife population. In the 1980s ADF&G began using more frequently the practice of moving nuisance animals mainly from urban settings to remote areas to reduce human–wildlife conflicts and minimize defense of life and property killings of animals. In addition, some recent predator–prey management projects took a nonlethal approach to predator control by moving bears and wolves to redress the predator– prey balance of an area. Although these could be considered animal transplants, they are not included in this report because the primary goal was something other than populating a ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov ix landscape with a particular species. I also have not included information on transplants that were proposed but never conducted because I was uncertain that any list of such proposals would be comprehensive. For the more recent transplants, this edition provides details on capture, transport, and holding techniques when they could be found. These are provided not only as reference for future operations but to demonstrate the variety and ingenuity practiced by wildlife professionals and private citizens dealing with safely subduing, transporting, and releasing wildlife, and to shed light on the mundane but real problems of logistics, including the high costs of most transplant operations. A major task in preparing this edition was updating the status of transplant populations. As mentioned earlier, some supposed successes have not endured and some “failures” have found new life. Even the most successful transplants are subject to the same population fluctuations that native populations experience. Some populations have had a more dynamic history than others and seemed to warrant a more detailed accounting. Also, when game is transplanted to areas of marginal or limited habitat, maintaining a thriving population over the long term often raises more complex management issues and requires more effort from wildlife managers than do naturally stocked populations. For that reason, I have included highlights of the management history of some of the transplanted populations. On the other hand, if a transplanted population presents no difficult management issues and is in place for decades or more, it is not unusual for department management reports to cease special mention of it. In such cases I relied on the local knowledge and expertise of current ADF&G area wildlife biologists for information on the status of those populations. I hope readers will find this second edition of Game Transplants in Alaska as useful and informative as the first edition has been. —T. W. Paul 2009 References – Preface bAiley, e. p. 1993. Introduction of foxes to Alaskan islands – History, effects on avifauna, and eradication. united States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Resource Publication 193. Washington, D.C. 55pp. burris , o. e. AnD D. e. mCkniGht . 1973. Game Transplants in Alaska. Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 4. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. 57pp. F rAnzmAn , A. W. 1988. Review of Alaskan translocations in Translocations of wild animals. l. Nielsen and R. D. Brown editors. Humane Society Inc. and Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute. x GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: ACknoWleGments ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) current and former staff wildlife biologists and technicians contributed information and/or photographs for this report and reviewed and offered comments on sections of it. They include: Neil Barten, laVern Beier, Peter Bente, Kent Bovee, lem Butler, Dave Crowley, John Crye, Jim Dau, Gino Del Frate, Jerry Deppa, Rod Flynn, Tony Gorn, loyal Johnson, Tony Kavalok, Mark Kirchhoff, Matt Kirchhoff, Doug larsen, Beth lenart, Rich lowell, Thomas McDonough, Phil Mooney, Doreen Parker- McNeill, Phillip Perry, Boyd Porter, Dan Rosenberg, Tom Rothe, Roger Seavoy, Ted Spraker, Nick Steen, Ken Taylor, larry Van Daele, Kevin White, Jim Woolington, and E. l. (Butch) Young. Riley Woodford, Information Officer for ADF&G’s Division of Wildlife Conservation (DWC), helped prepare photographs. Patti Harper, Publications Specialist for DWC, provided layout and editorial assistance; Sally Timp, ADF&G Cartographer, created the maps of transplant efforts; and Wildlife Veterinarian Kimberlee Beckmen provided information about current usage of some pharmacueticals mentioned in this report. u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff biologists Andy Aderman, Vernon Byrd, Angela Doroff, and Steve Ebbert and former National Park Service biologist Greg Streveler also contributed information and reviewed sections of the report. Margaret and Walt Dangle and Willis Osbakken, all of Sitka, kindly gave permission to use family photographs. Bob Medinger, curator of the Sitka Historical Museum, took time out of a busy day to find and copy a photograph from the museum’s collection. Steve Shrum of Ketchikan provided photos. Former ADF&G Director of Wildlife Conservation and ADF&G Deputy Commissioner Wayne Regelin reviewed the final manuscript and provided suggestions for its improvement. Finally, former ADF&G Director of Wildlife Conservation Matt Robus initiated the project to update Game Transplants in Alaska, and current Director Doug larsen and former Deputy Director, now Wildlife Scientist, Kim Titus continued to support it and offer valuable advice and guidance for its completion. ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides documentation of efforts to transplant game animals in Alaska, updating an original report on transplants written by Burris and McKnight (1973). It is intended primarily for wildlife management professionals, though others may find it of interest. It covers only transplant operations attempted, not those merely proposed. The report groups transplant operations primarily by type of animal, for instance, big game, furbearer, or game bird, and then by species. More than 30 species have been transplanted in Alaska, though not all efforts have resulted in continuing populations. In each section’s description of the transplant history, the report touches on the challenges involved in transplanting animals and some of the lessons learned over the years. Over more than 100 years of transplant history, various techniques have been used to capture animals, to transport them, and to monitor the status of transplanted populations. This report describes some of those techniques. It also presents the results of attempted transplants, including which have been successful and which have failed, and which have had unintended consequences. It illustrates the need for care- ful consideration of effects on ecology, wildlife health, and other concerns when contemplating transplants. Wildlife professionals may be able to use the informa- tion in this report to better assess whether proposed transplants should occur, to better ensure the health of animals during transplant operations, to anticipate and mitigate possible impacts of transplant- ing animals, and to better assess the success of transplant projects. As described throughout the report, individuals working on transplant projects had to exercise ingenuity to figure out how to capture, transport, and release animals from one place to another. Biologists often relied on assistance from local residents and businesses to obtain, care for, and transport animals. Techniques employed have included: lassoing, netting, trapping, snaring, darting with immobilizing drugs, using trained dogs to drive animals to captors, using snow machines and helicopters to approach animals for darting and capture, and rearing animals in captivity prior to release. Biologists have had to design and construct special holding pens, containers, and methods of transport to safely ship animals. Many transplanted animals were Caribou from the Nelchina herd are loaded on a helicopter in preparation for transplant to the Kenai Peninsula in 1986. Photo by Ted Spraker xii GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: exeCutive summAry moved hundreds or thousands of miles using boats, trucks, landing crafts, trains, military and commercial aircraft, and more unorthodox methods such as mail trucks and police vehicles. Two illustrations of such transplant ingenuity include the successful transport of sea otters to Southeast Alaska in 1968 and 1969 aboard a Grumman Goose aircraft in individual bathtub- like kennels, and sedated mountain goats transported to the Kenai Peninsula in pickup trucks on beds of crushed ice under burlap. Biologists have often worked in unique situations with unpredictable results. Subduing wild animals for capture with and without drugs is a dangerous undertaking. Drugs intended to immobilize and calm animals have sometimes killed them. In 1923, during the first effort to capture goats for transplants, in Tracy Arm, more than half of the goats originally sighted and driven toward capture locations died in falls from cliffs or in transport to Baranof Island. Sixty-eight percent of caribou calves initially captured from the Nelchina caribou herd and transported to Adak Island died. After high mortality with Dall sheep in transplant attempts to Kodiak, biologists recommended no further sheep transplants be attempted until adequate capture techniques were perfected. Although all deaths were regretted, biologists learned more each time about how to safely use immobilizing drugs not only in transplant operations but for other wildlife management purposes as well. Mortality in transplant operations has been significantly reduced over time. The most recent transplants of caribou (Nushagak Peninsula, 1988), mountain goat (Revillagigedo Island, 1991), and ruffed grouse (Kenai Peninsula, mid 1990s) suffered mortality rates of only 10%, 12%, and 2.5%, respectively. The introduction of new wildlife populations affects the existing wildlife and habitat of an area. Alaska bird populations are still recovering from the devastating effects of fox transplants. Wildlife managers must keep a watchful eye on preventing the spread of exotic species like elk to other areas, and on preventing introduced populations without natural checks from destroying local environments and compromising indigenous populations of wildlife. Wildlife managers have responded to the lessons of earlier transplants by instituting new policies and practices to protect the health of wildlife and the environment. Project managers must now meet new strict standards. Recent transplant operations have seen less mortality and fewer ecological complications than some earlier transplants. Transplant Policies Wildlife management policies surrounding transplant of game animals have changed dramatically over the years. Prior to statehood, transplant operations in Alaska were focused on providing animals for local populations to hunt or trap and included few safeguards. Since statehood, new standards have been developed, culminating most recently with adoption in July 1995 of the current transplant policy of the State of Alaska’s Department of Fish and Game. The policy recognizes that wildlife transplants may be valuable tools for introducing, supplementing, establishing, or reestablishing wildlife populations, but also details important concerns related to transplants and sets out a protocol for evaluating benefits and risks. The protocol is necessary to prevent the ecological destruction and other negative consequences that resulted from some earlier transplants, including, for instance, the devastation of bird ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov xiii populations on some Aleutian islands following introductions of foxes. Among other things, the policy prohibits introduction of nonindigenous species to Alaska. In Alaska the objectives of game transplants have fallen into one or more of the following 10 categories: 1) providing increased recreational hunting opportunities; 2) providing additional food supply; 3) providing economic gain; 4) reestablishing a species; 5) restoring a species to its previous range; 6) speeding the recovery of depleted populations; 7) preserving threatened or endangered species; 8) mitigating development impacts; 9) augmenting populations of previous transplants; and 10) creating better opportunities to view wildlife. Big Game Transplants From 1916 through 1991 there were 43 successful and unsuccessful attempts to transplant one or another of 9 different big game animals in Alaska—deer, mountain goat, elk, plains bison, muskoxen, moose, caribou, and Dall sheep. Every major region of Alaska—Southeast, Southcentral, Southwest, Northwest, Interior, North Slope—has had at least one transplant effort. Kodiak and nearby islands have been the site for transplant efforts involving a number of different species, including deer, elk, mountain goats, moose, and Dall sheep. One big game transplant project is currently underway, the reintroduction of extirpated wood bison to Interior Alaska. Sitka black-tailed deer. Residents of communities in Prince William Sound (PWS) and in the Kodiak Archipelago now harvest thousands of deer each year from populations that grew from transplants of small numbers of Sitka black-tailed deer from Southeast Alaska during 1916–1923 (PWS), and 1924 and 1930 (Kodiak Archipelago). These transplanted populations faced special environmental challenges and population fluctuations but have persisted and expanded. A transplant to islands near Yakutat in 1934 established a small but persistent population that has expanded in the early 2000s. Transplants to Homer Spit (1923) and the lynn Canal mainland (1951–1956) were total failures. Efforts to transplant deer to Glacier Bay (1920) and Sullivan Island in lynn Canal (early 1950s), though successful, failed to produce significant populations. Mountain goats. Mountain goat transplants in Alaska began in 1923 when 18 animals were moved to A mountain goat is transported in a sling from Misty Fjords to a staging area on the way to Revillagigedo Island during a 1983 transplant to the Swan Lake area. Photo by Kent Bovee xiv GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: exeCutive summAry Baranof Island from Tracy Arm, both areas in Southeast Alaska. The goat population grew and expanded its range and became by 2004 one of sufficient longevity to be considered a population with a history of customary and traditional use by the Federal Subsistence Board. Persistent efforts that began with studies in 1948 to establish mountain goats on Kodiak Island were successful. By 2004 the islandwide population estimate was 1,560 goats and by 2006 managers began looking at providing increased hunting opportunities to limit the population to a level at which habitat quality can be maintained. Goat transplants were conducted to reestablish or bolster populations on Mt. Juneau, above Juneau in Southeast Alaska, and on Cecil Rhode Mountain, above the community of Cooper landing on the Kenai Peninsula. Both areas now have goat populations, though it is unclear if the Mt. Juneau goats resulted from the transplant or from goats moving in from surrounding areas. Transplants to two areas on Revillagigedo Island near Ketchikan have been successful in establishing mountain goat populations in previously unoccupied range. An attempt to establish goats on Chichagof Island failed. Roosevelt Elk. Roosevelt elk transplanted from Washington state to Afognak Island in 1929 resulted in a huntable population, though several early efforts to transplant elk to Southeast Alaska failed. In one instance, 8 human-conditioned elk calves released on Gravina Island in 1962 became a nuisance and were all shot by a homesteader in 1963. In 1985, a new attempt began to introduce elk to Southeast Alaska and they were even- tually introduced on Etolin Island. They have since become established on Zarembo and other nearby islands as well. Despite the success of this transplant in providing new big game hunting in the area, agency managers have been uneasy about establishing elk in the region. In 1993, biologists’ concerns about the effect of elk on native Sitka black-tailed deer populations through competition for food and disease transmission contributed to failure of legislation that proposed moving elk to other areas of Southeast Alaska. Managers continue to try to prevent the spread of the elk to other parts of the region. Plains Bison. Alaska’s Plains bison populations stem from an initial transplant of 22 animals from the National Bison Range at Moise, Montana to what is now Delta Junction in 1928 and 1930. The Delta herd, from which all other Alaska plains bison herds originated, was obtained from the Range before introgression of cattle genes into that herd. Thus, Alaska plains bison Young elk on Kruzof Island in 1928 Photo courtesy of the Sitka Historical Museum ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov xv herds are among the relatively small number of herds of genetically pure plains bison. Other Alaska herds include the Copper River herd, established in 1950, the Chitina herd, established in 1962 from the Copper River herd, and the Farewell herd, which resulted from 2 separate transplants in 1965 and 1968. Successful management of the habitat and range of the Delta bison transplant has become a complicated and expensive undertaking. But the 1928 transplant ultimately produced a stable population that has been a source for 3 other bison transplants in Alaska, and that has sustained a popular hunt for 40 years. Wood Bison reintroduction. Wood bison once roamed throughout Interior Alaska for thousands of years but were extirpated at least 100 years ago by a combination of hunt- ing and changes in habitat. Over 4,000 wood bison lived in Canada in 2007, where they were listed as a threatened species. By 2008, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game had spent nearly 15 years investigating and eventually championing a proposal to reintroduce wood bison to the state. ADF&G is con- vinced restoring wood bison to Alaska would increase the worldwide population of the species, contributing to wildlife conservation and ecosystem restoration. Wood bison have been imported to Alaska from Elk Island National Park in Canada and were being held in 2009 at the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center near Portage, Alaska, for disease testing and observation before transportation to release sites. Three study areas have been identified as suitable for wood bison and of those the Minto Flats area was being considered in 2009 as the initial site for restoration. Permits must be obtained from the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any release. Muskox. The last of Alaska’s original muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) were killed about 1850– 1860. Efforts to reestablish them go back as far as 1927. The first muskox to be transplanted to Alaska came from Greenland; 31 were released on Nunivak Island in 1936. Since 1965 the herd has generally ranged between 435 and 700 animals, and has supported a substantial annual harvest for hunters. During 1999 through 2005 the average annual harvest was about 90 muskoxen. Muskoxen from the Nunivak herd have been used for successful transplants to Nelson Island (1967), Alaska’s eastern North Slope (1969–1970), Cape Thompson (1977), and the Seward Wood bison were brought to the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center from Canada. ADF&G plans to reintroduce the species to its historic range in Alaska. ©ADF&G. Photo by Bob Sutherland xvi GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: exeCutive summAry Peninsula (1970 and 1981). The Seward Peninsula muskox population grew rapidly; a census in 2005 found 2,387 muskoxen in 173 discrete groups. The muskox population on the North Slope has recently had a rapid decline, and the Cape Thomson herd, although successful in creating a sustainable population, has not thrived. Hunting has helped reduce local resentment toward muskoxen that arose because residents were not consulted prior to muskoxen being moved to their areas. Some residents in transplant areas have also expressed concern about possible competition for habitat with other game animals and trampling of berry picking areas. Cooperative management structures with local leaders have been developed in some areas to manage the herds. With their meat and the warm wool “qiviut” undercoats, muskoxen are beginning to be seen as a valued subsistence species. On the Seward Peninsula, thanks to a relatively extensive road system for a rural Alaska area, wild muskoxen are easily accessible and muskox viewing activity by local residents, tourists, and others is growing. Moose. The first moose (Alces americanus) transplant in Alaska was conducted near Cordova on the Copper River Delta, and is considered one of the most successful game transplants in Alaska. From 1949 to 1957, 24 moose calves obtained from other areas in Southcentral Alaska were released. The area provided good habitat and the population grew and greatly expanded its range. In 1958 and 1960, 22 moose calves were released at Berners Bay near Juneau. They established a small but sustained population that has weathered significant downturns in heavy snow years. During 1957–1959 moose calves were released on Kalgin Island, a small island on the west side of Cook Inlet. Managing to keep the population in balance with the limited island habitat has been a continuing challenge. Other moose transplant efforts, to establish moose populations at Chickamin River northeast of Ketchikan and on Kodiak Island, were unsuccessful. Caribou. Since 1958 caribou have been transplanted to three general areas of the state. Caribou from the Nelchina herd in eastern Alaska were moved to Adak Island in the Aleutians in 1958–1959 and to various places on the Kenai Peninsula in the 1960s and 1980s. Caribou Moose calves are coaxed ashore at Berners Bay, 1960. ©1960 ADF&G ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov xvii from the Northern Alaska Peninsula herd were moved to the Nushagak Peninsula in 1988. Most transplants were successful in establishing herds and have provided at least some hunting opportunity. Hunters have harvested more than 100 caribou from various herds on the Kenai Peninsula in recent years. In other areas success has brought complications, as in the continuing question of what to do to limit the caribou population on remote Adak Island, which has exploded since closure of the Navy base there (the population was estimated at 2,800 in 2005) and which threatens to trample and destroy endemic plant species. The Nushagak herd had spectacular early growth followed by an abrupt contraction. Though it provided hunting opportunity for a number of years, the population of about 550 caribou was too low to support hunting in 2006 and 2007. Dall Sheep. Sheep transplanted from the Kenai National Moose Range to Kodiak Island in the 1960s failed to establish a continuing population. Due to high mortality of sheep during the capture and release operations, it was recommended at that time that no further sheep transplants be attempted until adequate capture techniques were perfected. There have been no additional attempts to transplant sheep in Alaska. Furbearers and Small Game Transplants Furbearer and small game transplants in Alaska have included foxes, beavers, martens, mink, sea otters, raccoons, red and ground squirrels, marmots, wolves, hares and rabbits, and Eur- opean wild hogs. Most of these transplants occurred on coastal islands along the Aleutian Islands, Kodiak Island, Southcentral, and Southeast Alaska. Because early Russian settlers recognized the potential of the Aleutian Islands for raising foxes, transplants of these furbearers were the earliest of game transplants in Alaska. The release of foxes on unoccupied islands continued after purchase of Alaska by the united States, and this practice was extended to several other furbearer species. These transplants, motivated by the high economic value of furs, began to decrease as the fur market declined in the late 1940s. Few of the furbearer transplants made in the 1900s could be considered successful. Many were made to marginal habitats and, even though introductions of the transplanted species were successful, resulting populations were not capable of supporting large harvests or even attract- ing trapping effort. Even in instances where harvestable populations resulted from introductions, for example martens (Martes americana) in Southeast Alaska and beavers on Kodiak Island, declining wild fur markets resulted in only slight utilization of these populations. Not only were many transplants of furbearers failures, but in several instances these introductions were detrimental to the native fauna. For example, depredations by foxes on ground nesting bird populations in the Aleutian Islands have had a tremendous impact on several avian species. The motives underlying past transplants of small game species like hares, rabbits, and squirrels are less evident than those for furbearers, but it is clear that many such introductions were made to provide food for carnivorous furbearers and additional hunting opportunities for local residents. xviii GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: exeCutive summAry Sea otters. In the 1950s and 1960s many attempts were made to reestablish sea otters (Enhydra lutra) on their former ranges in Alaska and elsewhere. Transplants to the Pribilof Islands from the area around Amchitka Island in the Aleutians apparently failed, but transplants to Southeast Alaska and to Canadian and u.S. coastal waters farther south were successful. Surveys in 2002 and 2003 estimated 7,500 sea otters in Southeast Alaska. Sea otter reintroductions have been controversial with some fishermen because shellfish numbers—crabs, clams, and abalone—have declined following the return of sea otters. On the other hand, sea otters have also reduced sea urchin populations, allowing kelp beds to become reestablished in North Pacific coast waters. Healthy kelp forests typically are evidence of greater biological diversity in the marine coast ecosystem. Game Bird Transplants Exotic game birds. None of the numerous attempts to transplant various exotic game bird species into Alaska, such as ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), and chukar partridges (Alectoris graeca), has been successful to date. While occasional sightings occur of individuals that might have resulted from a transplant, there are no significant populations. It is believed they simply couldn’t survive Alaska’s harsh winters. Canada Geese. Transplants of Aleutian Canada geese (Branta canadensis leucopareia) are examples of successful programs undertaken to restore populations of an endangered species. After stocking of foxes on Aleutian Islands began in the 1750s, breeding populations of the geese were extirpated on many islands. In 1967, the species was listed as endangered. The u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others engaged in intensive efforts to help the species recover, including eradicating foxes on some islands and rearing geese for release in captivity because wild populations were too low to provide stock. Transplanted geese helped the population grow to over 40,000 in 2001, the year Aleutian Canada geese were removed from the endangered species list. An effort began in 1973 to introduce a separate subspecies of Canada geese abundant in Southcentral Alaska to Kodiak Island to provide an opportun- ity for hunting. The first effort was not successful. However, in July 1986 more than 200 Vancouver Canada geese (B. c. fulva) captured in South- east Alaska were released on Kodiak Island and on northwest Shuyak Island. In 2006, geese numbers were considered large enough to sustain hunting and a season was opened. Stalking Evermann’s rock ptarmigan on Attu Island in 2006 Photo courtesy Brad Benter ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov xix Grouse. Transplants of spruce and blue grouse (now called dusky grouse) to Kodiak Island were attempted but failed. However, ruffed grouse, indigenous in Alaska north of the Alaska Range, have been successfully transplanted to areas farther south, including the Matanuska Valley in 1988, 1989, and 1990. No harvest records are kept by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, but hunter reports indicate ruffed grouse are regularly taken in the area, and that the grouse may have spread to south of Anchorage and across Cook Inlet. Success of a transplant of ruffed grouse to the Kenai Peninsula during 1995–1997 was still debated in 2007, as populations are not abundant, although the goal of establishing a huntable population seems to have been met. Evermann’s rock ptarmigan. In a successful effort to restore a species to former range, about 75 Evermann’s rock ptarmigan (Lagopus muta evermanni) were transplanted from Attu Island to Agattu Island in the Aleutian Islands during 2003 through 2006. Capture methods included noose poles, carpet snares, decoys, calls, and driving birds into drift nets. The successful transplant was considered an important step in decreasing the risk to the subspecies’ survival and restoring island fauna in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Conclusion Because the majority of game transplants attempted have been made to areas previously lacking similar endemic species, a large proportion of these attempts have resulted in viable populations of the introduced species. Results of many transplants are difficult to assess. In some instances the introduction of only a few animals resulted in tremendous rewards in the form of food and recreational opportunities for the citizens of the state. However, many transplants have generated few benefits for people and some have been detrimental to other species and habitats. It may be that the majority of transplants in the future will be to restore species, to reestablish locally extirpated populations, or to move an endemic species into previously unoccupied ranges. On the other hand, efforts to undo transplants—eradicating transplanted animals that have caused detrimental effects on endemic species—may play a larger role than transplants in future wildlife management in Alaska. xx GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: mAp oF GAme trAnsplAnt eFForts Approximate locations of all game transplant efforts in Alaska figure 1. ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov 1 INTRODUCTION Durward Allen, prefacing his discussion of the history of animal transplants in the classic book Our Wildlife Legacy, suggested that “It is probably human nature to overlook the blessings close to home and to be forever appraising the seemingly greener grass across the fence.” Allen was, of course, referring to man’s ostensibly inborn dissatisfaction with the wild animals already available to him locally and to his compelling desire for additional species for his use or enjoyment. This seemingly unquenchable drive to obtain additional animals has resulted in numerous introductions or transplants of animal species into previously unoccupied areas; some have been successful, others have been unsuccessful or even ecologically disastrous. Many Americans are familiar with the great successes obtained by transplanting ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) from their oriental homelands to North America many years ago. Regardless of the measure used, whether it be recreational opportunities provided, pounds of meat consumed, or aesthetic considerations enhanced, the importation of this species to the New World must be considered a noteworthy success. Introductions of starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and house sparrows (Passer domesticus) into the united States are equally familiar but their results are considered less than beneficial by most. An even more convincing example of an undesirable transplant occurred when the European rabbit (Oryetolagus cuniculus) was introduced into Australia. This species spread rapidly across the continent, requiring monu- mental expenditures of money and effort to control it when through overabundance it became a pest. Still, apparently because of man’s inherent optimism, there has been a tendency to remember the few successes and forget the failures and mistakes. The history of Alaska is replete with a staggering succession of game transplants (Burris 1965). Early in its exploration and settlement the Russians recognized the potential for introducing and harvesting foxes on the many islands comprising the Aleutian Chain (Elkins and Nelson 1954). Fox introductions continued into the 1900s, first by Russians and later by residents of the Territory. The Territorial Government became involved in transplants in 1917 when the Governor of Alaska directed a black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) transplant to Prince William Sound (Elkins and Nelson 1954). This effort was initiated in 1916 by the Cordova Chamber of Commerce. Transplants in Alaska reached their peak in the 1920s. When the Alaska Game Commission was established in 1925, the Territorial legislature quickly moved to promote transplants (Elkins and Nelson 1954). That year it initiated a transplant program, devoting an entire chapter of Territorial law to animal introductions. Transplant projects were enumerated, and the Alaska Game Commission was required to conduct at least one project in each judicial division every two years. These statutes are reproduced in Appendix A. With statehood, these antiquated laws were incorporated into state statutes. unfortunately, this legislative transplant program was based on very little, if any, biological knowledge and scant consideration was given to its feasibility or desirability. Habitat 2 GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: introDuCtion requirements of the species were essentially ignored, and several animals were listed that would serve no useful purpose if they were successfully established. To further complicate the matter, the legislature during the 1930s failed to appropriate funds for the specified transplants. When the Bureau of Biological Survey was absorbed into the Fish and Wildlife Service on 30 June 1940, the latter took over the game transplant activities of the Alaska Game Commission. These activities were later transferred to the newly formed Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. A fairly comprehensive policy on transplants was issued to Fish and Wildlife Service employees in a memorandum to all field stations from Clarence J. Rhode, Regional Director, dated 18 December 1950. The memorandum, in part, stated: Since its origin, the Alaska Game Commission has received numerous suggestions, requests, and demands for stocking, restocking, and introducing a long list of game animals, game birds and fur bearing animals in various parts of Alaska. Additional proposals are being made each year and the matter will not rest. That many of these proposals have merit can be shown in the success of the work in Alaska with the black-tail [sic] deer, elk, bison and hare but the story is not complete without a review of the failures with hare, muskrat, beaver, deer, pheasant, and many others. So far, Alaska has escaped problems such as those of the rabbit in Australia, the muskrat in Holland and the starling in the united States. The Fish and Wildlife Service should take every precaution to avoid questionable recommendations to the Commission on any proposals for stocking, restocking, or introductions. This action was significant in that it was an attempt to establish a program based on the merits of a transplant rather than the politics of the time. In 1959, with the dawn of statehood, Alaska’s transplant program was inherited by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. ultimately the department established a policy similar to but stronger than that of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (now the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). This policy stated: The Department recognizes that transplanting game species for restocking former ranges or stocking vacant habitat may be a useful management tool. Because transplants often have unforeseen detrimental effects, importing and transplanting of game will be generally opposed, but may be approved if substantial public benefit can be shown. Proposed transplants will be reviewed by the Department and must meet the following minimum requirements to be approved: 1) The proposed transplant site must provide sufficient and suitable habitat to support a viable population of the transplanted species, as determined by comprehensive study; 2) Prior study must establish that the introduction of a species will not adversely affect the numbers, health, or utilization of resident species. ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov 3 In 1970, during the second session of the Sixth Alaska legislature, the statutes (Sec 16.25.010) dealing with wildlife stocking of public lands were amended to read as follows: There is adopted a program of stocking lands in the state with valuable game and fur-bearing animals which do not at present occur on those lands. The department is responsible for establishing priorities on the species of animals to be stocked and the area of the stocking. Priorities shall be based on the habitat requirements of the species, the population of native game animals present, and other factors that will effect the successful establishment of the species. Transplants conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) are accomplished primarily under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Prerequisites of the federal government include the justification of all transplants, preparation of an environmental impact statement, and the formulation of cooperative agreements between the agency which controls the land and ADF&G. The Bureau of land Management, u. S. Forest Service, and the u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service are the federal land management agencies primarily involved with the land on which transplants may be made by ADF&G. Early transplant projects in Alaska relied heavily on enlisting private citizens to capture animals, and hold and raise young wildlife until time for release. The government provided some cash incentive for the work but people probably also undertook the work out of enthusiasm for expanding the range and increasing the variety of game animals available for hunting and trapping in the state. They brought an astonishing amount of ingenuity and energy to devising methods of live capture of wild animals. Since statehood, government agencies have had more control over the actual capture and transplant operations but private citizens as volunteers still played major roles in many projects with citizen volunteers contributing manpower, equipment, and money to complete a transplant in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Alaska’s game transplant program has evolved from one based on hope and fancy to one that considers all aspects of the animal species to be transplanted and the potential impact of that species upon native game populations. Acknowledgment of the detrimental effects of some transplants because of their effects on indigenous and endemic species, particularly on islands; the growing skepticism toward transplants within the scientific community; and the lack of formal transplant criteria making it difficult to resist public and political pressure to undertake questionable transplants, led the department to develop a formal transplant policy in the early 1990s. In July 1995 ADF&G adopted a Wildlife Transplant Policy with the twofold purpose of 1) identifying concerns that need to be addressed with proposed transplants and 2) establishing a protocol for systematically evaluating those concerns. A copy of the policy is included in Appendix B. The new policy has substantially increased the hurdles transplant proposals must meet. Twelve transplant criteria were established with the burden of proof on the proposal to meet them. 4 GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: introDuCtion In addition, 4 steps are required before each transplant can be approved by the department’s commissioner. They are: 1) a scoping report, 2) a feasibility assessment, 3) a 30-day public review period and department review by a 4–8 member transplant committee, and 4) a detailed operational plan with budget. The policy describes 7 categories of transplants arranged in order of risk, indicating the department’s predisposition to supporting or opposing them. The policy gives general support to moving indigenous species from one area of the state to another and from other states or countries to Alaska if the species had been extirpated from the area. It promises review and possible support on a case-by-case basis to transplants of indigenous species within the state to new ranges in Alaska, but generally opposes moving animals from other states or countries to fill new range in Alaska because of concerns over disease, parasites, and population genetics. Transplants of any species to islands where they do not naturally occur are generally opposed. Introductions of nonindigenous species to Alaska are prohibited as are transplants of any populations previously exposed to disease or parasites not known to occur in the state. It should be noted that the current policy would likely have precluded or made more difficult a number of historical transplants, such as plains bison to the Interior; foxes to islands; elk to Afognak Island, Etolin Island and other Southeast Alaska locations; caribou to Adak island; mountain goats to Revillagidgedo Island; marten and squirrels to numerous islands; and, the many introductions of exotic game birds, raccoons, muskrats, and domestic rabbits to the state. Because each proposed transplant will be preceded by intensive study to preclude predictably unsuccessful or detrimental introductions, it is likely the future transplant program will be more limited than the past. Some of the state’s excellent game populations have resulted from past transplants, however, and it is the purpose of this report to consolidate all available information on this aspect of Alaska’s relatively brief but interesting wildlife management history. References – Introduction A llen, D. l. 1954. Our wildlife legacy. Funk and Wagnalls, New York. 422pp. burris , o. e. 1965. Game transplants in Alaska. Proceedings 45th Conference Western Association of State Fish and Game Commissions pp. 93–104. elkins , W. A. AnD u. C. nelson. 1954. Wildlife introductions and transplants in Alaska. Proceedings 5th Alaska Science Conference. 21pp. (mimeo) ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov 5 ALASKA TRANSPLANT OBJECTIVES Game transplants, deliberate efforts by man to remove wild animals from one place and introduce them elsewhere, have been attempted with many goals in mind. These range from merely an aesthetic interest to the desire to obtain a harvestable population. In Alaska the objectives of game transplants have fit into one or more of the following 10 categories: 1) providing increased recreational hunting opportunities; 2) providing additional food supply; 3) providing economic gain; 4) reestablishing a species; 5) restoring a species to its previous range; 6) speeding the recovery of depleted populations; 7) preserving threatened or endangered species; 8) mitigating development impacts; 9) augmenting populations of previous transplants; and 10) creating better opportunities to view wildlife. Examples of Alaska transplants illustrating each category follow. Increasing Recreational Hunting Increasing recreational hunting opportunity probably was the primary objective of most big game animal transplants attempted in Alaska. Excellent examples include elk transplants to Afognak Island, Kruzof Island, Etolin, and Revillagigedo Island; deer transplants to Prince William Sound, Kodiak Island and other areas; mountain goats to Baranof, Kodiak, and Revillagigedo islands; and moose transplants to the Copper River Delta, Berners Bay, and Chickamin River. Providing Additional Food Supply It is difficult to completely separate this category from that of recreational hunting. Although it is doubtful that any transplant of a wild species in Alaska has been conducted for the sole purpose of providing food for humans, nearly all hunters of edible species are in pursuit of meat to some extent. Indeed, wanton waste of game meat is a criminal offense in Alaska, so by law, the end result of a successful hunt must include food. From this standpoint, the previously mentioned elk, deer and moose introductions could also be classified as transplants of food animals. A more recent example is reintroduction of caribou to the Nushagak Peninsula, which was undertaken to provide a subsistence food source for local communities as one of its objectives. Providing Economic Gain This category primarily involves furbearers. Because of the long history of trapping in Alaska, there has been much interest in transplanting furbearers. Furbearers that have been transplanted to various parts of Alaska include foxes, muskrats, beavers, sea otters, and mink. Reestablishing a Species The reintroductions of muskoxen to the North Slope and Seward Peninsula are prime examples of transplants conducted for the purpose of reestablishing a game species. Other transplants in 6 GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: introDuCtion this category are the reintroduction of sea otters to Southeast Alaska waters and the proposed reintroduction of wood bison to Interior Alaska. These transplants, when feasible, are probably more desirable than any other that the Department of Fish and Game might undertake. Restoring a Species to its Previous Range A variation of the previous category, this involves restoring populations in local areas where they have become extirpated or reduced. Examples are the reintroduction of caribou to the Kenai and Nushagak peninsulas, and goose and ptarmigan reintroductions in the Aleutian Islands. Speeding the Recovery of Depleted Populations A few recent examples are the transplants of mountain goats to Cecil Rhode Mountain and Mt. Juneau, and the transplanting of deer to Kupreanof Island. This category of transplant arises from public impatience with natural population cycles. Although populations in the above cases did recover, it is hard to determine if the transplants had a major role in the recovery or if the population increases resulted from natural population growth and range expansion. Of the 3 examples, it is most unlikely, because of the low numbers moved, that the Kupreanof deer transplant was successful in speeding the recovery of deer on the island. Preserving Threatened or Endangered Species The sea otter has at times been placed in this category and its threatened status along the Pacific coast in the 1950s led to a series of transplants to Southeast Alaska and other locations. The importation of plains bison to Alaska in 1928 might also be described as a transplant originally designed to preserve an endangered species. Recent reintroductions of the then endangered Aleutian Canada geese and threatened endemic Evermann’s rock ptarmigan on the Aleutian Islands are also examples of this. Reintroducing wood bison to Alaska would contribute to the species’ conservation as wood bison are classified as threatened on their range in Canada. Mitigating Development Impacts Only one transplant has been undertaken with this as a formally stated partial objective – the moving of mountain goats to Revillagigedo Island from the Quartz Hill mining area on the Southeast mainland in 1983. Transplant as a viable means of project mitigation for goats remains untested, however, as the proposed mining development did not occur. Moving sea otters from Amchitka Island in the Aleutians in advance of proposed nuclear tests there in the late 1960s and early 1970s could also be viewed as a mitigation measure although it was never expressly stated as such. Hundreds of sea otters were removed from harm’s way prior to the tests, which killed a significant number of sea otters and other wildlife at Amchitka. Transplanting wildlife for mitigation reasons may again be proposed as development in Alaska continues. However, the current more stringent state transplant policy and its guidelines may make such transplants difficult to implement. ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov 7 Augmenting Populations of Previous Transplants The muskox transplants to Cape Thompson in 1977 and the Seward Peninsula in 1981, and the Kenai Peninsula caribou transplants in 1985–1986 were follow-ups to earlier transplants in the same areas and at least partially intended to try to insure the success of the previous transplants. All did succeed in boosting introduced populations and extending their ranges in a shorter time than would likely have occurred without the augmentations. Creating Opportunities to View Wildlife Transplanting mountain goats to Mt. Juneau, an area closed to hunting, for the chief purpose of enhancing wildlife viewing is the prime example of this category. Moving mountain goats to Cecil Rhode Mountain on the Kenai Peninsula was also motivated in part to create a viewing opportunity. In order to determine if a transplant has been successful, the resulting established population must be compared to the original objectives of the transplant. For example, if the objective was to transplant a game animal to provide food for humans, the population must reach a level high enough to sustain a substantial harvest. The same measure of success would apply to those transplants designed to provide economic gain through trapping. In either case, the underlying basic criterion of success is the establishment of a population capable of sustaining itself over a long period of time. 8 GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: biG GAme trAnsplAnts Approximate locations of big game transplant efforts in Alaska figure 2. ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov 9 BIG GAME TRANSPLANTS This section documents 43 successful and unsuccessful attempts to transplant big game species in Alaska, as well as information on a pending transplant of wood bison. The section is organized by species in chronological order based on the first transplant attempt for that species. Species included are deer, mountain goat, elk, plains bison, wood bison, muskox, moose, caribou, and Dall sheep. Tables displaying big game transplants in chronological order and by species can be found in Appendix C. sitka bLack - taiLed deer Prince William Sound – 1916 to 1923 In 1916, the Cordova Chamber of Commerce arranged to have black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitchensis) moved from the Sitka area to Hinchinbrook and Hawkins Islands in Prince William Sound (Elkins and Nelson 1954). This was the initial big game transplant in Alaska, and it has proven to be one of the most successful. The effort resulted in the release of 8 deer on these islands. The Territorial Governor’s office, using funds provided by the Territorial Legislature, sponsored a continuation of this project from 1917 through 1923 and an additional 16 deer from the Sitka area were released on the same area during this period. The deer survived and spread throughout the islands of Prince William Sound. A small number migrated to the mainland and established other populations. Brookman (1984) gives an account of how deer were captured in the Sitka area for this transplant and the Ko- diak transplant (see below). Although official records do not elaborate on the Sitka operation, it appears at least some if not all of the deer were captured by William Hanlon and his son Ike, using a simple, creative, but unorthodox method. They trained their dog Tuffy to chase deer into the sea where Ike waited with a small skiff. Ike approached a swimming deer, pulled the rear end of The deer catching team of 19-year-old Ike Hanlon and his figure 3. dog Tuffy with 4 captured deer on the Sitka dock, ca. 1924 Photo by William Hanlon; courtesy of Willis Osbakken 10 GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: biG GAme trAnsplAnts , sitkA blACk - tAileD D eer the deer into the skiff by its tail, wrapped the rear legs with cloth to protect them, tied the legs with rope, then lifted the rest of the deer into the boat and tied its front legs (Fig. 3). upon capture, the deer were shuttled to a larger boat for transport to town and then kept in holding pens in Sitka until transport for all deer was arranged across the Gulf of Alaska to the transplant sites (Brookman 1984). The Hanlons captured at least 30 deer using this method, the same number that were transplanted to Prince William Sound and Kodiak from Sitka during 1923–1924. Sitka black-tailed deer in Prince William Sound are at the extreme northern limit of their range (Cowan 1969). However, the deer on the islands thrive because the maritime-influenced climate results in milder winter conditions on the islands than experienced on the adjacent mainland (Shishido 1986). Nevertheless, periods of high winter mortality have occurred in the late 1940s, mid 1950s, late 1960s, early 1970s (Reynolds 1979), and late 1990s (Crowley 2001). ADF&G biologists devised a snow index in 1980 to track winter severity that over time has been found to accurately follow deer population trends (Nowlin 1997). As in Southeast Alaska, key to continued deer winter survival is maintaining adequate old growth forest canopy to intercept snow, provide shelter, and keep forage unburied and available to deer (Shishido 1986, Reynolds 1979). Highest deer densities occur on the large islands with lower densities on the small islands and on the mainland close to Prince William Sound. Occasional sightings have occurred in units 6A and 6B on the mainland east of Prince William Sound, and, after several mild winters, on the Kenai Peninsula and as far north and west as Anchorage (Crowley 2007). Legal hunting was first permitted in 1935 (Elkins and Nelson 1954). An average of 1,000 to 1,500 deer were harvested annually in the Prince William Sound area before 1978 (Reynolds 1979). Harvests began to increase after 1978 and peaked at 3,000 in 1987. The average estimated harvest in the 1990s was 2,160, ranging from 1,300 to 3,000 deer. Annual reported harvests in the early 2000s averaged 2,500 and ranged from 1,900 to 3,000 deer (Crowley 2007). Glacier Bay – ca. 1920 An undocumented, unofficial, deer transplant apparently occurred in Glacier Bay sometime around 1920, when a small number of deer were released on Willoughby Island, 12 miles inside the entrance to the bay. Hoonah elder William Johnson, Sr. reportedly claimed responsibility for the transplant many years later, stating it was an effort to aid a struggling deer population through a difficult winter (Greg Streveler, former NPS Glacier Bay National Park Research Biologist, personal communication, 2008). The deer were reportedly moved to the island from the Hoonah area in the hold of Johnson’s fishing boat. In 2008 a small number of deer still persisted on Willoughby Island, which has an area of approximately 4 mi2. Homer Spit – 1923 In 1923, 7 deer from the Sitka area were released on the Homer Spit on the Kenai Peninsula (Elkins and Nelson 1954). These animals soon disappeared from this area and the transplant was considered a failure. ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov 11 Kodiak Archipelago – 1924, 1934 In 1924, deer transplant efforts shifted to the Kodiak area when 14 animals were released on long Island (Elkins and Nelson 1954). like the animals for the Prince William Sound release, these deer were obtained from the Sitka area. Two additional deer, from Prince of Wales Island, were released on long Island in 1930. The results of the long Island transplant were not immediately apparent. In a March 1931 report to the legislature, the Alaska Game Commission mentioned that only 3 does and 2 bucks had been seen on Kodiak Island. Because of the apparent failure of deer to move readily from long Island to Kodiak Island, efforts were renewed in 1934 to establish deer on Kodiak Island (Alaska Game Commission 1935). using Federal Emergency Relief funds, deer were captured in the Rocky Pass area near Petersburg. On 15 April, 5 does and 4 bucks were released on Kodiak Island. The techniques used for capturing deer in the Rocky Pass area were similar to those used by the Hanlons in Sitka in 1924. Selected animals were driven from small islands into the water, where they were picked up in small boats and then transferred to the larger patrol vessel Seal. The animals were rubbed dry, placed in wooden crates, and held for shipment. The technique was fairly effective; 9 animals were shipped to Kodiak and 12 to Yakutat Bay. legal hunting on Kodiak Island was initiated in 1953 and 38 bucks were taken that year (Elkins and Nelson 1954). The harvest in 1967 was 1,500 deer and that decade’s average annual kill was about 950 animals. By the late 1960s deer from Kodiak Island had successfully established themselves on adjacent Afognak Island. After a few years of decline due to severe winters in 1968–1969 and 1970–1971, deer numbers in the Kodiak Archipelago grew steadily to an estimated 100,000 by the mid 1980s (Smith 1989). A series of harsh winters occurred again beginning in 1987–1988 (Smith 1991) and the estimated population dropped 50%, reaching a nadir about 1992. Deer numbers increased for several years to near 80,000 but plunged again to an estimated 40,000 after the 1998–1999 winter, the severest on record (Van Daele 2001). Through 2005–2006, subsequent winters were mild to moderate and the 2006 population estimate was 65,000 deer (Van Daele 2007). The dramatic population swings are a consequence of an introduced ungulate using an island habitat whose vegetation evolved in the absence of herbivores (Van Daele 2001). Brown bears prey on deer, but predation does not limit the population. Throughout most of the Kodiak Archipelago, winter forage is not protected by a dense forest canopy as it is in the rest of Alaska’s Sitka black-tailed deer range. As a consequence, the Kodiak population is more vulnerable to severe winter weather and deer winter kill is usually higher there than other parts of Alaska. In this situation hunting is usually compensatory for annual winter mortality and so over the years hunting regulations have generally been liberal. Bag limits since 1970 have ranged from 3 to 7 deer with usually a 5- or 6-month season. Estimated reported harvest since 1987, when a hunter harvest questionnaire was first sent out, has ranged from a high of 13,800 in 1987 to a low of 2,500 in 2000. The 2005 harvest was about 6,600 deer (Van Daele 2007). 12 GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: biG GAme trAnsplAnts , sitkA blACk - tAileD D eer The deer transplant to the Kodiak Archipelago is clearly a success. Although they were put into an area that does not have an ideal climate and lacks adequate winter range, and as a result have suffered large swings in population periodically, the original 25 Sitka black-tailed deer have multiplied into tens of thousands and thrived on the islands, providing a huntable population for over 50 years. Yakutat Bay – 1934 As mentioned in the Kodiak Archipelago section, some of the animals captured at Rocky Pass in Southeast Alaska in 1934 were shipped to Yakutat Bay. On 27 March 1934, 7 does and 5 bucks were released on several small islands near the east shore of the bay (Alaska Game Commission 1935). For decades the population persisted in very small numbers on the islands. Heavy snowfall and abundant wolves and black bears limit deer densities, but the population has supported small harvests over the years. Due to deer declines and almost complete cessation of harvest in the 1970s, the deer season in unit 5 (Yakutat area) was closed in July 1980. By the end of the 1980s, deer had recovered to some degree and the public requested an open season. The Board of Game instituted a limited 1-buck, 1-month season hunt in 1991. Since then, a few deer have been taken most years, including reports of illegal harvest. Estimated harvest from 1991 through 2001 averaged 5 deer a year and was never more than 7. However, during 2002–2005 the harvest jumped to about 30 deer a year. local residents report that deer expanded their range to the mainland and as far inland as the Dangerous River, 20 miles to the east. Deer were routinely seen along the road system near the community of Yakutat as well as the areas adjacent to Highway 10 on the Yakutat Forelands. Prior to 2004 deer were seldom seen on the mainland. A series of mild winters in the early 2000s is probably responsible for deer expanding their range (Barten 2007). Even following the severe winter of 2006–2007 with an unusually deep and persistent snow pack, deer tracks were reported at Dry Bay, about 50 miles east of Yakutat (Neil Barten, ADF&G Juneau Wildlife Biologist, personal communication, 2008). In the past, most deer were taken incidentally by local residents who happened to detect an animal on the beach while they were conducting other activities. But after 2002, the increased abundance of deer and the better chance of success led more hunters to specifically target deer (Barten 2007). This transplant successfully established deer populations with a long-term, albeit tenuous, presence on the Yakutat area islands. The deer have provided opportunistic hunting for Yakutat residents and augment their main subsistence harvests of moose and mountain goats. It was thought for years that there is little potential for this herd to increase because of the extreme climatic conditions and limited habitat. It remains to be seen whether the recent growth in numbers and expansion of deer to the Yakutat Forelands during mild winters is a temporary or permanent development. ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov 13 Lynn Canal – 1951 to 1956 Several unsuccessful attempts were made to establish deer in areas around lynn Canal in Southeast Alaska. This program was conducted by the u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1951 to 1956 with funds provided by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Records of these transplants are somewhat vague, and the operations were evidently not well organized. At least 3 different introductions were made in Taiya Valley near Skagway, in 1951, 1952, and 1956. The minimum number of animals moved was 5 bucks and 8 does. However, the total is uncertain because 4 fawns were held for release at a later date. Documentation of additional releases could not be located. These mainland lynn Canal area transplants were unsuccessful. The deer in the Taiya Valley did not survive to establish a population. Burris and McKnight (1973) state that through the early 1970s reports of deer were fairly common in the vicinity of Haines. However, since then sightings have become very rare and ADF&G has never included Game Management unit 1D (lynn Canal mainland north of Eldred Rock) in deer survey and inventory or management reports. The Sullivan Island transplant was somewhat more successful. Between 1951 and 1954, 8 deer were released on Sullivan Island in lynn Canal by u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel. Again, because of sketchy reporting, it is difficult to obtain exact dates and numbers. Deer were observed on Sullivan during the winter of 1963–1964 (Burris and McKnight 1973) and later. Although deer have never been abundant on the island, hunting was opened at statehood with a 4-deer bag limit as in the rest of Game Management unit 1 (Southeast mainland). Through the late 1990s, a small number of hunters periodically reported harvesting a few deer on Sullivan Island, but although hunter effort continued, no harvest was reported from 2000 through 2003 (Paul and Straugh 1996–2003, Straugh, et. al. 2004). Since 2005 the department has received anecdotal reports of deer sightings and of deer taken by hunters on Sullivan Island. Kupreanof Island – 1979 Severe winters in the late 1960s and early 1970s killed a large percentage of deer in Southeast Alaska. On islands in central Southeast Alaska which have wolves and black bears, predation kept the deer populations depressed throughout the 1970s. In 1979, after deer hunting had been closed for 6 years in Game Management unit 3 (the islands of central Southeast Alaska), the state legislature, hoping to speed deer population recovery, appropriated $50,000 to “rein- troduce” deer to Kupreanof Island and for wolf control in the area. The department had con- ducted an aggressive wolf trapping program during the winters of 1976–1977 and 1977–1978 on Kupreanof, Mitkof, and Kuiu islands with little apparent affect on deer numbers (laVern Beier, ADF&G Wildlife Technician—Southeast Alaska, personal communication, 2007). In response to the legislative appropriation, ADF&G transplanted deer to Kupreanof Island from nearby Admiralty Island where, in the absence of predators, deer populations had recovered. little documentation of this effort exists. In 2 trips to Admiralty during 10 days in early March 1979, ADF&G staff “free-ranged” 10 deer of mixed sex on the beaches of Pybus and Gambier 14 GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: biG GAme trAnsplAnts , sitkA blACk - tAileD D eer bays using tranquilizer dart-guns. In the first trip, a trial to test methods, 2 sedated deer were loaded onto a small landing craft and taken to Kupreanof Island. For the second trip, 8 captured deer were put into a pen on the deck of the ADF&G vessel Steller for transport. During that crossing of Frederick Sound the late winter weather turned nasty and rough seas washed overboard all the straw used for bedding in the deer pen. Surprisingly, the deer were not injured (l. Beier, personal communication, 2007). In all, 10 radiocollared deer were successfully released on the south shore of Portage Bay on Kupreanof Island. Because of the small number of deer involved, it is unlikely the transplant had much impact on the population. Hunting was reopened in most of unit 3 in fall 1980 with a 1-buck bag limit. As the population recovered slowly over the years the bag limit was increased to 2 bucks in 1988 and was still a 2-buck, 4-month-long season in 2008. References – Deer A lAskA GAme Commission. Annual Reports, 1925 to 1937. Juneau. Mimeo. bArten, n. l. 2007. unit 5 deer. Pages 70–75 in P. Harper, editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. brookmAn, sr., A. 1984. “Catching Sitka Deer.” Chapter 7. Pages 30–33 in Sitka Man. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co. Anchorage. Also as “Catching Sitka Deer for Transplanting.” Pages A6–A9. April 1978 issue of Alaska Magazine. burris , o. e. AnD D. e. mCkniGht . 1973. Game Transplants in Alaska. Wildlife Technical Bulletin No. 4. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. 57pp. CoWAn , m. i. 1969. What and where are the mule and black-tailed deer? Pages 335–360 in W. P. Taylor, editor. The deer of North America. Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 668pp. CroWley, D. W. 2001. unit 6 deer management report. Pages 82–92 in M. V. Hicks, editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 1998–30 June 2000. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. ___________. 2005. unit 6 deer management report. Pages 93–108 in C. Brown, editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2002–30 June 2004. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. __________. 2007. unit 6 deer management report. Pages 76–89 in P. Harper, editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. elkins , W. A. AnD u. C. nelson. 1954. Wildlife introductions and transplants in Alaska Proceedings 5th Alaska Science Conference. 21pp. (mimeo) ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov 15 noWlin, r. 1997. unit 6. Pages 58–71 in M.V. Hicks, editor. Management report of survey- inventory activities. Deer. 1 July 1994–30 June 1996. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Projects W-24-3 and W-24-4. Study 2.0. Juneau, Alaska. pAul , t. AnD t. strAuGh . 1996–2003 Annual reports. Deer hunter survey summary statistics. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. reynolDs , J. r. 1979. History and current status of Sitka black-tailed deer in Prince William Sound. Pages 177–183 in O. C. Wallmo and J. W. Schoen, editors. Sitka black-tailed deer: Proceedings of a conference in Juneau, AK. u.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, AK. Region, Juneau, Alaska. Series No. R10-28. 231pp. shishiDo , n. 1986. Seasonal distribution and winter habitat use by Sitka black-tailed deer in the Prince William Sound region, Alaska. M.S. Thesis. university of Alaska Fairbanks. 105pp. smith , r. b. 1989. unit 8. Pages 78–112 in S. O. Morgan, editor. Deer. Annual report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 1989–30 June 1991. Part VI. Volume XIX. Deer. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Progress Report. Project W-23-1. Study 2.0. Juneau, Alaska. ________. 1991. Game management unit 8. Pages 57–68 in S. Abbott, editor. Deer. Survey and inventory management report 1 July 1989–30 June 1991. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Project W-23-4. Study 2.0. Juneau, Alaska. strAuGh , t., p. Converse , AnD k. White. 2004. 2003 Deer hunter survey summary statistics. Southeast Alaska August 2003–January 2004 hunting season. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. vAn DAele, l.J. 2001. unit 8 deer. Pages 98–108 in M. V. Hicks, editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 1998–30 June 2000. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. _________. 2007. unit 8 deer. Pages 90–106 in P. Harper, editor. Deer management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2004–30 June 2006. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska. Mountain goat Baranof Island – 1923 Mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) transplants in Alaska began in 1923 when 18 animals were moved to Baranof Island (Elkins and Nelson, 1954). The original report of this operation is not available, but apparently the program was under the direction of the office of the territorial governor. Animals for this transplant were captured in the vicinity of Tracy Arm on the Southeast Alaska mainland. Huber (1959) describes the capture party as led by Oscar Oberg, a guide from Douglas. When a herd of approximately three dozen goats were sighted near the beach in Tracy Arm, several men went ashore and worked their way above the goats. Dogs were then landed on the beach to drive the goats up the mountain where the waiting men chased them into deep snow to be roped and tied. They were then dragged down to the water. As many as half the goats originally sighted died in falls from cliffs or in transport to Baranof Island (Huber 1959). An article in the Sitka Progress newspaper (1926) noted that 2 of the 18 goats were too small to fend for themselves and so were left at Goddard Hot Springs south of Sitka to be cared for until they were older (Fig. 4). A later article in the Sitka Progress (1927) lamented the poach- ing of one of the newly transplanted goats near Redoubt lake. In August 1930 a trapper from Sitka reported seeing a lone “billy,” but the records do not indicate its exact location (Alaska Game Commission 1931). Success of the transplant was not recognized until 1937 when 41 goats were observed on the island (Alaska Game Commission 1937). By 1950, the Baranof popu- lation was estimated to be 165 goats and in 1970 the population had grown to about 250–275 goats. Since 1970, the popula- tion has grown rapidly and extended its range to the south. In 1982, 506 goats were counted in aerial surveys on Baranof (Johnson 1984) and the population was estimated to be 1,000 in 1991 and 1,350 in 2002. In 2004 an extensive islandwide aerial survey was conduct- ed leading to a population estimate of 1,500 goats or more (Mooney 2006). 16 GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: biG GAme trAnsplAnts , mountAin G oAt Young mountain goats on the roof of a building at Goddard figure 4. Hot Springs on Baranof Island in 1928, 5 years after a transplant Photo by James Gilpatrick, courtesy of Margaret Dangle ADF&G D ivision oF WilDliFe ConservAtion : WWW.WilDliFe.AlAskA.Gov 17 The first goat hunting season was proposed in the Executive Officer’s report to the Alaska Game Commission in 1946, but hunting was not allowed until 1949 (Nelson 1953). Initially, the open season extended from 1 August through 31 December with a bag limit of 2 goats. A total of 11 were taken the first season (Huber 1959). By the early 1970s annual harvests averaged about 20 to 30 animals. The bag limit was reduced to one goat beginning with the 1975 season and in 1976 a registration permit system was initiated for hunting Baranof Island mountain goats. Harvest ranged from 28 to 75 goats during 1976–2005 with 1,026 goats taken in those 30 years. During the 8 years from 1998 through 2005, annual averages were 53 goats harvested by 155 hunters out of 325 who were issued permits. Females averaged 46% of the total harvest during 2003–2005 and in 2006 the department instituted a harvest point system to better manage for a lower female proportion in the harvest (Mooney 2006). Mountain goat range expanded on the island to encompass all the available summer range north of Port Herbert and Snipe Bay by 2005. Because contiguous habitat is limited south of Whale and Gut bays, however, the growth in the numbers of goats in this area will likely be slower than throughout the rest of the island (Mooney 2006). In March 2004, the Federal Subsistence Board issued permits to the Sitka Tribe of Alaska to harvest up to 3 goats each spring for 5 years to obtain goat hair for spinning yarn and weaving ceremonial robes as a cultural and education project. The transplanted goat population had attained sufficient longevity and become such a fixture in the wildlife panoply of Baranof Island that goat hunting was added to the list of customary and traditional subsistence uses. Kodiak Island – 1952 to 1953 The Kodiak Island mountain goat transplant is a fine example of patience and perserverance. The initial transplant proposal came from a variety of sources including sportsmen’s organizations, the Alaska Game Commission and the u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Preliminary studies, funded by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration program, began in 1948 (Nelson 1953). Potential live-trapping locations were investigated throughout goat range in Alaska. Most areas were eliminated from further consideration because of unsuitable terrain. Day Harbor, on the Kenai Peninsula, was finally selected as an adequate trapping site. In September 1949, u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel erected a corral trap on the west side of the river draining Elsworth Glacier. Thus began the first of many attempts to capture goats for the Kodiak Island transplant (Nelson 1953). Because of the rugged terrain the trap could not be constructed on an established goat trail, and its effectiveness was dependent upon finding a bait that would entice the animals into the trap. Various baits, including salt, were used with no success. The corral trap program was eventually abandoned. During this same period, padded steel traps were set along established trails and attempts were made to drive the animals down the trails and into the traps. Many difficulties were encountered. The goats did not drive well, they did not readily step in the traps, and when they finally did, the traps would not hold them. These attempts were soon abandoned as well. 18 GAme trAnsplAnts in AlAskA: biG GAme trAnsplAnts , mountAin G oAt In spite of the difficulties with obtaining animals, public interest in transplanting goats to Kodiak Island remained high. In 1950, permits were offered to anyone who wanted to capture goats, with the stipulation that the federal government would pay for all animals obtained (Nelson 1953). No goats were captured. In 1951, the same offer was made to furnish permits and pay for any goats delivered. Four contracts were issued between the period 1 January and 30 April. Bids varied from $150 per kid to $200 per adult female delivered in good condition. Again, there were no goats taken. Two more permits were issued for May and June 1951 with the same result. Finally, in 1952, Martin Goresen captured 2 mountain goats near Seward using nylon snares (Nelson 1953). Goresen held the animals briefly at his home until the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service was able to take them to Kodiak (Fig. 5). These animals were released in February 1952, at ugak Bay on Kodiak Island. There was only one problem: they were both males. Not to be discouraged, u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel made a new effort in June 1952 (Nelson 1953). Nylon snares and a salmon net were utilized in further unsuccessful attempts. A nanny was shot and great efforts expen