reviews aspects of the theory that are most pertinent to questions about predator control, particularly in Alaska, and discusses their implications for predator management and control in Alaska. Major theoretical results are presented in italics and are followed by a brief discussion of their implications for management.

Predator and prey populations can either oscillate wildly or persist at relatively stable levels (May 1981).

Theoretical models show that persistence of predators and prey at relatively stable levels (or equilibria) is likely only when prey populations are resource-limited and the prey have a refuge where they are safe from predation. Although the issue of population stability might seem like a topic of theoretical more than immediate practical concern, whether or not a predator-prey system is naturally prone to large fluctuations matters a great deal. In particular, if Alaskan caribou or moose populations naturally fluctuate wildly, the desires of hunters for stable prey populations and reliable harvests year after year might be contrary to natural population dynamics and an inordinate amount of human intervention might be required to achieve stable harvest levels.

The removal of predators from a plant-herbivore-predator interaction system can either stabilize or destabilize herbivore population dynamics (May 1991).

Predator control is in effect a predator-removal experiment. In addition to the direct results of such a manipulation (fewer wolves or bears), dramatic alterations in the character of prey population dynamics can be triggered. Models indicate that predator removal can destabilize or stabilize herbivore population dynamics or have no effect whatever. The result depends subtly on the rate at which the environmental carrying capacity for the herbivores changes relative to the rate at which predator populations change (Crawley 1983). If vegetation changes rapidly and predators exert their effects during substantial vegetation changes, the presence of predators typically stabilizes prey populations. In other words, long-lived (relative to the speed at which plant resources available to herbivores change) and starvation-tolerant or generalist predators can stabilize numbers of their prey. If wolves in Alaska act in this manner, even though the removal of wolves might yield more prey over the short run, substantial reductions in wolves could increase rather than decrease fluctuations in moose and caribou numbers over a long time span.

FRONT MATTER (R1-R16)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (1-13)

1 INTRODUCTION (14-26)

2 PREDATOR CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT: PAST AND PRESENT (27-34)

3 ALASKA'S PEOPLE, BIOMES, AND WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN (35-81)

4 PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTIONS (82-89)

5 WOLF AND BEAR MANAGEMENT: EXPERIMENTS AND EVALUATIONS (90-133)

6 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF PREDATOR CONTROL (134-173)

7 DECISION-MAKING (174-181)

8 CONCLUSIONS (182-194)

APPENDIX A: LETTER FROM GOVERNOR TONY KNOWLES REQUESTING STUDY (195-197)

APPENDIX B: BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON COMMITTEE MEMBERS (198-201)

APPENDIX C: WOLVES AND CARIBOU IN GMU 20 (202-207)