Say your mother weakens. Her heart beats erratically, her breathing grows shallow. She starts to collapse. So you rush her to the hospital, hoping for tests, oxygen and saline drips, maybe even life support.
But the doctor refuses to admit her.
“We can’t treat your mother because we don’t know what’s wrong,” he says. “There’s no point in spending any money until we have a diagnosis.”
This alarming little tale mirrors the reasoning floated last week by Henry Springer, executive director of the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority, regarding the plight of the depleted beluga whales in Cook Inlet near Anchorage.
- May 26 Update
- Bridge PR campaign cancelled, Springer shifted
In an op-ed piece that appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, Springer argues that people know too little about this unique, isolated population to justify protecting them under the Endangered Species Act. (Read a pro-action argument by Audubon Alaska senior scientist John Schoen.)
Springer wrote:
“Accurate, long-term data is needed, and it currently does not exist. … Until it is scientifically established that human activity in Cook Inlet is causing the decline of the belugas, an ESA designation will unnecessarily curtail human activity.”
Springer is a no-nonsense bridge engineer who has previously made on-target comments in public forums. He must know very well that his beluga facts are wrong and reasoning absurd. The white creature in danger here may be far more elephant than whale.
Local belugas are one of the smallest distinct populations of marine mammals on the planet. They have crashed by more than 70% during the past three decades in a decline made worse by overhunting in the early 1990s. Despite a near-shutdown in harvests, the whales continue to slip about 4% per year, and now number only about 300. A status review gives them a one in four chance of going extinct within 100 years.
NOAA Fisheries has proposed listing them as endangered, a designation that would force agencies to mount a biological investigation, identify and protect critical habitat, and generally try to make sure human activity doesn’t stop the whales from rebounding. People have until June 19 to comment.
Given this dire situation, the ESA listing is a no-brainer. If Cook Inlet belugas don’t qualify for protection, no species ever will. One might ask if Springer has ever read the Endangered Species Act, which includes no prerequisite that you first prove humans triggered the problem. Perhaps his editorial is the opening salvo in the bridge group’s $500,000 public relations campaign, aimed at fighting the growing notion that spending $600 million to span Knik Arm goes nowhere fast.
In any case, the sloppy argument invites lampooning. Do you hold off calling the fire department until you “scientifically establish” what sparked the flames? Do you continue fishing a failing run of salmon unless you first “scientifically establish” that overfishing caused the crash?
At the core of the op-ed are misstatements about beluga knowledge. Springer writes:
A scientific database for Cook Inlet belugas, based on long-term information, does not exist. Today, limited scientific information is based on research done between 1976 and 1990. Since then some beluga studies have been undertaken, but on a limited seasonal scale.
Considering the claim that the Cook Inlet belugas are genetically distinct and have been separated for about 10,000 years, it is obvious that we have only a very small and statistically insignificant snapshot about the beluga population.
While scientists might not have 10,000 years of beluga data, it’s ridiculous to call current understanding an “insignificant snapshot.”
Biologists have been studying Cook Inlet belugas in detail since 1994. They have solid information that these whales are faring much worse than comparable salmon-chasing belugas that live in the tidal inlets of Bristol Bay. A team from NOAA Fisheries has spent more than $1.2 million monitoring local belugas during the past five seasons. Springer’s own group sponsored a detailed two-year study of beluga movements in Knik Arm. We know more than enough for an ESA listing.
Tagging a beluga in Cook Inlet near Anchorage
Credit: NMML
Still, it’s true that scientists need much more data. No one can explain why belugas aren’t recovering. The National Marine Mammal Lab in Seattle has proposed about $500,000 worth of beluga studies that have gone unfunded since 2002. People have yet to investigate the impact of shipping, noise, discharges of drilling waste by oil production platforms, pollution and runoff from Anchorage, shoreline development, commercial fishing, changes in beluga habitat or diet, and the age-sex structure of the pods.
Where will the research funding come from if the belugas don’t get listed? Where will federal agencies get the power to ask the tough questions of oil companies, bridge consortiums and the Inlet’s sewage-dumping cities?
This is exactly the point of the Endangered Species Act. Listing the whales frees up federal resources for the very investigation that Springer himself advocates.
But let’s be honest. Arguing that we can’t act to protect belugas without first proving human involvement isn’t legitimate conservation. And it’s not consistent with the terms of the ESA. It’s a ploy aimed at protecting development plans and bridge dreams.
This issue is a test of values for all upper Inlet people. We have a unique population of white whales that live just offshore and no where else on earth. They’re our whales. Isn’t it worth asking some hard questions, tweaking or sacrificing a few projects — and, yes, spending some of our limited tax dollars — if we can help them survive?
