Guest editorial: Joint effort needed to study belugas now, before it’s too late

Should belugas be protected as an endangered species? This is really several questions in one:

Do belugas warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act? Definitely. The population has little chance of long-term survival unless its size can be increased and kept above 1,000 whales.

Wouldn’t the problem disappear as soon as the last beluga dies? Wouldn’t we save a fortune and years of trouble by covertly killing all the remaining belugas? No! That’s like saying the way to way to cure liver disease is by cutting out your liver. That kind of “cure” can be worse than the disease.

Don't fall for the myth that ecological disruptions lack economic and social consequences. Perhaps the best-known marine example is impacts to commercial fishing when sea otter numbers crashed along the central Pacific coast. Without their predation on sea urchins, the urchins did so much damage to kelp forests that fish dependent on these forests crashed. A “balance” between predator and prey numbers is vital to the health of an ecosystem.

Hasn’t the decline in belugas actually helped fishermen? We don’t know. Granted, belugas compete with salmon for herring prey; and belugas eat salmon. But whether those losses outweigh benefits provided by belugas is still impossible to say. Ecological impacts of changing beluga numbers are largely unknown, despite decades of requests by biologists for funding to study this.

Failure of governments to provide adequate support hasn’t made the problem go away; it’s just gotten worse and more expensive to cure. Had we been working on this full steam for the past two decades, we’d have solid answers in hand and have been able to innovate minimal-cost technologies for keeping human impacts within tolerable limits.

Unfortunately, local and state governments waited to the 11th hour and their feet are still dragging. With every passing month, chances of success fall and potential costs rise.

Would the benefits of protection outweigh the costs? Cost-benefit ratios vary from person to person, and community to community, depending on who reaps the benefits vs. who pays the costs. Some costs could be felt very quickly, for instance if beluga protection were to preclude mining coal on the western side of Cook Inlet or require installation of more thorough treatment of sewage and other effluents from Anchorage. However, until we know a lot more about how our activities impact belugas, we will have little basis for identifying needed protections, much less for evaluating their costs.

It’s time to pull our collective heads out of the sand and quickly ramp up studies of beluga ecology and of how we humans impact them. The sooner we have this information, the more effectively and efficiently we can identify and implement protective measures that meet beluga needs with minimal economic and social impact.

What steps should we take? Identify legal requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other relevant statutes, court decisions and agency regulations.

We all know what a nightmare government red tape can be. This is partly a consequence of antiquated methods of educating ourselves about legalities. Invaluable aid has been provided by uploading legal information onto the Web where it is accessible to search engines. But even with that assistance, some laws, like the Marine Mammal Protection Act, are so convoluted that major sections defy logical analysis – a job I once attempted as an employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Reading statutory law is just a first step. We also need to review case law and agency regulations. Some “laws” need to be clarified and/or made more user-friendly. It’s not enough to have the information available. You’ll never find the information you need unless you know enough to ask the right questions and how to interpret the answers. So-called “expert systems” employing artificial intelligence — way beyond that in search engines — could be of great assistance, and save folks a fortune in legal fees.

Business functions best in a climate where legal gray areas are minimized as much as possible so that we can anticipate with fair reliability which of our actions would be judged legal vs. illegal (as well as which conservation measures would be effective vs. ineffective). This may require being very proactive, perhaps in revising the MMPA.

For each municipality, business or other entity to tackle these challenges individually would be intolerably expensive. A far cheaper alternative is to do much of it collectively. For example, the Kenai Peninsula Borough might solicit donations from local industries and small businesses as matching funds for federal and state grants. Think of it as an economic stimulus package for Southcentral Alaska.

Every million dollars saved is another million dollars earned — tax free.

Dr. Stephen Stringham earned his master of science degree at the University of Alaska studying moose, and his doctorate degree studying bears. He is the author of five books on Alaska’s wildlife.

Cook Inlet beluga numbers flatline — Decision on endangered listing due this month

By Naomi Klouda
Homer Tribune

The beluga whale population in Cook Inlet remains troubled, with numbers hovering at about 375 members of a genetically distinct group that formerly numbered at about 1,300.

In response, marine mammal experts and conservation groups have renewed their calls for the Bush administration to immediately list the Cook Inlet beluga whale as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

John Schoen, senior scientist at Audubon-Alaska, said he’s expecting a decision after Oct. 20.

“At that point, the National Marine Fisheries Service could rule whether the beluga in Cook Inlet should be listed as threatened or endangered.”

An endangered or threatened status would put three advantageous factors to work for the beluga, Schoen said.

NMFS would be required to do a recovery plan and spell out exactly what research and monitoring would be involved. The agency would be required to develop a recovery plan.

“The second factor is that if critical habitat is defined, then any activity will require consultation with NMFS, and the third issue is that being listed will bring more money for research and monitoring,” Schoen said.

Only the science and protections offered by the endangered status would provide a safety net to help this group of beluga escape extinction, stated marine mammal scientist Craig Matkin of the North Gulf Oceanic Society, in a press release.

Cook Inlet is the most heavily used waterway in Alaska. It is the route for major shipping freight coming into Anchorage and communities beyond. Oil rigs and spills have stressed the waterway, Schoen said.

“It’s no one cause, but an accumulation of activities with all the things going on in Cook Inlet,” he said.

Other factors threatening beluga whales are not manmade problems, but stress that can put the population in danger, such as strandings in Turnagain Arm.

“Any kind of a natural catastrophe, like a killer whale predation or a stranding, plus all the human-caused issues, can push the beluga population to the brink,” he said.

After conservation groups petitioned to list the population as endangered, NMFS had one year to determine whether to do so. NMFS extended that deadline six months (until Oct. 20) at the request of Gov. Sarah Palin’s administration, which claimed the 2007 survey data showed an upward increase in the population. That, therefore, made the listing unwarranted. NMFS’s recent survey results demonstrate there is no upward population trend.

Beluga concentrate in the Susitna and Chickaloon Flats during the summer. Up to 90 percent of them can be in those places, making it “habitat we would want to be very cautious of,” Schoen said.

Beluga populations in the Bristol Bay and the Beauford Sea are healthy, but the Cook Inlet mammals remain distinct from them and geographically isolated. If more protections aren’t put in place, scientists are concerned it won’t take long for the beluga to become extinct in Cook Inlet.

The aerial surveys were taken June 3-12 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries service scientists, where the belugas had congregated by the Susitna and Little Susitna Rivers, Knik Arm and Chickaloon Bay. They also took photographs and video. After examining the images, and from the manual count, observers said the population estimate remained the same as last year — about 375.

Alaska Native groups have been allowed to hunt the whales under co-management agreements with NOAA’s Fisheries Service, with restrictions on how many can be taken. Between 1999 and 2007, hunters took five beluga whales for subsistence, down from 308 in 1995 and 1998. There was no subsistence hunt for belugas in 2008.

Schoen said he expects there will be opposition to listing Cook Inlet beluga whales as endangered by Gov. Palin, similar to her administration’s actions against the polar bear listing. The effort to deny the need for an ESA listing, “is part of a larger trend in Alaska government to overrule science that contradicts political ideology,” Schoen said.

Schoen said that listing belugas as endangered won’t stop industry along Cook Inlet.

“But it takes a good look at that activity and tries to mitigate harm. It most certainly won’t stop all economic development in Cook Inlet,” Schoen said.

The organizations listed as petitioning to place the beluga as endangered are: Cook Inletkeeper, Alaska Center for the Environment, the National Audubon Society, the Kachemak Bay Conservation Society and the Natural Resource Defense Council, among others.