In a plot twist that feels like something out of a courtroom drama written by a park ranger with a flair for the theatrical, an Alaskan moose may soon need its own legal counsel. Animal rights group Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) has filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, claiming that the state’s policy of allowing the killing of predators like bears and wolves to increase moose and caribou populations is less about ecology and more about serving up convenient hunting targets.
The lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of the wild animals themselves, takes aim at what it describes as “intensive management” practices under Alaska law. This involves reducing predators in order to artificially inflate populations of more huntable ungulates, which in this case means moose and caribou. In the wild, this might be called dinner. In court, it is called a potential violation of the Alaska Constitution’s mandate to manage public resources for the public interest. Turns out the wolves were not invited to vote on whether they found the term “resource” flattering.
“Alaska’s constitution does not permit the state to prioritize one group’s interest in moose and caribou at the expense of other uses and values,” said ALDF in the lawsuit, presumably while a distant raven cawed in agreement. The plaintiffs argue this practice benefits a narrow group, namely hunters, while degrading ecosystems and ignoring other Alaskans who might prefer watching wildlife not get eradicated like they are in a reality show where only the antlered survive.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, not traditionally known for issuing Shakespearean soliloquies, declined to comment on the lawsuit. However, their previous public documents support predator control methods as a matter of wildlife management science and subsistence needs, which can loosely be translated as “the bears are eating all the moose again.”
This legal gambit to represent animals as plaintiffs is part of a broader effort by rights groups to expand legal personhood or at the very least legal consideration to nonhuman creatures. The courts, generally more comfortable with humans suing humans over things like property lines and defamation than over who gets to eat whom in the forest, will now have to wade into the awkward terrain of deciding whether a grizzly bear has standing or is just standing there.
Legal experts have noted that while such lawsuits often make headlines, they face an uphill battle in court because traditional legal systems regard animals as property, not parties. Still, the very filing of the case may push public agencies to reconsider policies that reduce complex ecosystems to a game of Mammal Whac-A-Mole.
And so, as Alaska’s legal system prepares to ask whether a wolf can have its day in court, public attention turns once more to the age-old question of whether our wilderness needs more balance or just better lawyers.
The moose remains unavailable for comment, rumored to be consulting with a very discreet badger.