The other day news came out that Alaska officials have
petitioned the federal government to have humpback whales removed from the
endangered species list. This was just the latest in a series of attacks on
various wildlife populations, including the state's own scientists. A quick
search turned up the following state actions attempting to remove protections
for wildlife in the state in order of open more areas to resource exploitation.
Here are just a few of them, beginning with the wild humans:
About three years ago Alaska biologists were removed from at
least one federal science committee because the state had instructed employees
representing Alaska that they were to only follow state policy, not the science
involved. Rightly the federal science panel refused to seat the Alaska representatives which now leaves Alaska out of serious
discussions involving wildlife management in a variety of areas that are
important to the state.
Just a few days ago the Alaska Dispatch reported state Fish
and Game officials wiped out an entire wolf pack in the area of the
Yukon-Charlie Rivers National Preserve. This is a continuation of long-running
state policy to remove wolves to protect more popular game species, despite the
admonition that the Yukon-Charlie preserve was to be maintained as close to its
natural environment as possible. Wolves that inhabit Denali National Park, the state's prime tourist attraction, have been killed in the name of management just outside the park perimeter.
Federal and state authorities have identified a significant population
decline for Beluga whales in Cook Inlet. That population has been declared a distinct sub-group of Belugas and received some critical habitat protections. The state has
continuously fought this distinction to avoid having to meet control standards
on economic developments in the Inlet relative to the whales. However a federal judge has ruled the
federal government violated three statutes designed to protect the whales in
order to allow oil and gas exploration in Cook Inlet. The Cook Inlet population
is on the federal endangered species list. As a matter of fact, it was the beluga issue that prompted the state to silence our own biologists, forcing them to follow policy instead of science.
When the federal Interior Department proposed designating
areas of Alaska's Arctic coastal plain critical habitat for polar bears, the
state objected strenuously and eventually sued, complaining the designation would threaten the oil
industry and the general economy. This issue becomes attached to the federal
climate-change discussion which the state also continues to deny fearing
additional regulation on industry. Polar bears depend on Arctic ice for hunting
and survival and as the polar ice cap shrinks, they are losing critical
habitat on the ice and moving ashore in greater numbers.
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has continually attacked the
Environmental Protection Agency in attempts to diminish its regulatory authority.
A game preserve near Anchorage has raised a small herd of
wood bison, which are much larger than the plains bison most people are familiar with.
The idea has been to release them into their former habitat in western Alaska.
But the state continues to hold up the release because there is no provision in
the program to allow hunting which one state official warns would allow
protective federal regulations that would hinder development in the areas where
they are released.
A Delaware company is attempting to strip mine 32 square
miles in the Chuitna River drainage on the west side of Cook Inlet south of
Anchorage. In addition to the massive strip mine, the project includes destroying 11 miles of a critical salmon
spawning stream. Like the potentially disastrous Pebble project which if allowed could destroy major portions of the rich Bristol Bay red salmon run, the state
has remained fairly quiet about the project, which usually means quietly
working to make it happen. The governor promised in his election campaign there
would be no favoring one resource over another, but this comes from a former employee
of Conoco Phillips, which for mineral extraction including petroleum makes him
immediately suspect. Any
opposition to either project has come from groups of citizens. At least that
was until recently when that darned old EPA stepped in.
Granted these are short descriptions of complicated issues
and more is to be learned about each one of them, and about other wildlife issues not mentioned. What the list points out is
just how dedicated Alaska's state government is to ensuring a healthy
future for the wildlife under its jurisdiction. What the list shows is that the
state isn't, in fact it is determined to shut down any protection for wildlife
it can, to the extreme of actually suing the federal government to prevent
controls. It actually did sue the federal government over the polar bear
designation.
Taken individually, any one of these can escape notice over time except for those people directly concerned, but when collected in one place they make a convincing argument that the state government is doing anything it can to suppress wildlife populations in favor of monied interests.
Each issue will be decided on its own merits, but the number of issues in all of which the state took a stand against protecting wildlife leaves little doubt where state officials' priorities lie. On the weight of evidence it seems to be a designed attack on wildlife protection, partially hiding an agenda for uninhibited development which often to gain favor and mask the downside is couched in terms of that favorite come-on politicians use to gain support for any issue – "jobs." And with the threat of either losing jobs or the promise of many new jobs, those state officials get the general population to support a position that is very much the opposite of one of the reasons we all came to Alaska, notably our wildlife as part of the grand mystique of the north. Or, and this might be worse: It could be just a knee-jerk reaction to any federal attempt at any regulation at all or to any attempt to protect wildlife whatsoever.
At a time in history when wildlife needs more protection than ever, here on the last frontier we just don't give a damn about no stinking animals, unless it is our precious moose. We will kill wolves and even bears to protect those moose. Anything else is fair game, so to speak.
Taken individually, any one of these can escape notice over time except for those people directly concerned, but when collected in one place they make a convincing argument that the state government is doing anything it can to suppress wildlife populations in favor of monied interests.
Each issue will be decided on its own merits, but the number of issues in all of which the state took a stand against protecting wildlife leaves little doubt where state officials' priorities lie. On the weight of evidence it seems to be a designed attack on wildlife protection, partially hiding an agenda for uninhibited development which often to gain favor and mask the downside is couched in terms of that favorite come-on politicians use to gain support for any issue – "jobs." And with the threat of either losing jobs or the promise of many new jobs, those state officials get the general population to support a position that is very much the opposite of one of the reasons we all came to Alaska, notably our wildlife as part of the grand mystique of the north. Or, and this might be worse: It could be just a knee-jerk reaction to any federal attempt at any regulation at all or to any attempt to protect wildlife whatsoever.
At a time in history when wildlife needs more protection than ever, here on the last frontier we just don't give a damn about no stinking animals, unless it is our precious moose. We will kill wolves and even bears to protect those moose. Anything else is fair game, so to speak.
Just a side note: Do you think people don't plumb the Internet looking for what is said abut them? This the first post in which I mentioned Conoco Phillips. Within an hour after it was posted, there was the first hit ever from Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Coincidence? There are no coincidences.
Listing from Revolver Maps web tracker:
Listing from Revolver Maps web tracker:
Alaskan wildlife does not belong to the state. Their only role should be as protectors. That's it. Thank you for advocating for those who cannot.
ReplyDelete