Beluga aids science — Students help with necropsy of whale found off Nikiski

By Naomi Klouda

Photo courtesy of Dr. Debbie Boege-Tobin. From left, Mark Tanski, Anthony Davis, Dr. Debbie Boege-Tobin, Dr. Kathy Burek-Huntington, Nicole Abeln, Jennifer Anderson and Rachael Rooney stand with a beluga the group will necropsy, as it arrives in Homer.

Homer Tribune

An adult beluga whale male found floating in Cook Inlet on Oct. 4 by the crew aboard the M/V Perseverance is the third dead whale found this summer.

The Cook Inlet Spill Prevention Response tug was underway in Nikiski Bay when Charlie Parish and his crew found it.

“They were in between rig runs, in the course of a day’s work they travel to the platforms to drop off supplies,” said Mike Watson, CISPRI operations manager. “It was simply floating, they saw it and looked it over. It didn’t appear to be dead very long.”

Parish reported the beluga death to the National Marine Fisheries Service stranding network.

“They asked us if we would be willing to recover the whale. The boat has a crane and a large work deck on back, so they were able to load it aboard and brought it to the OSK dock in Nikiski,” Watson said.

Barbara Mahoney, the assistant stranding coordinator for NMFS, called for a necropsy. Kachemak Bay Campus assistant professor of biology Debbie Boege-Tobin and her class were able to drive to Nikiski beach to assist the veterinarian pathologist Kathy Burek-Huntington in the necropsy.

“We were lucky enough that CISPRI reported the whale, and lucky still again that they had the equipment and skills to put it on their deck,” Mahoney said.

If the crew hadn’t brought the beluga to shore, it would have floated the rough Cook Inlet currents until perhaps eventually getting beached. By then, it would be too far decomposed to be useful to the studies looking into what is stressing the endangered Cook Inlet beluga pod.

The Cook Inlet whales, identified as a genetically isolated stock, were listed as endangered in 2008. Their population was estimated to be as many as 1,300 in the late 1970s. Harvest of the whales was stopped in 1995, but their population has continued to decline. The NMFS’s population estimate in June 2011 was 284, down from the June 2010 estimate of 340. The decline has slowed, but the population still has not begun to grow, despite having the added protections — in designation of critical habitat area, for example — that an endangered listing entails.

“We’re looking for causes of death, and overall health of the whales,” Mahoney said.

Whale of a memory — Beluga calf experience lives on for rescuers

By Jenny Neyman

Photos courtesy of Indy Walton. Commercial fishermen rescue a newborn beluga calf found beached on South Naknek Beach in Bristol Bay this summer. From left are Don Ward, Tiffinie Helmer, Indy Walton, Shannon Ford and Curt Nelson.

Redoubt Reporter

Growing up commercial fishing in Alaska, you’re bound to have some memorable experiences with wildlife. For Indy Walton, of Soldotna, and Shannon Ford, of Seattle — owners of neighboring fishing sites in Bristol Bay — it takes something truly spectacular to top what they’ve already seen.

Ford started helping at her family’s fish camp on the south beach of the Naknek River when she was 9, and now runs the fourth-generation family set-net site. She’s had ravens nest on her cabin’s front porch, seen walruses in the wild and rescued an abandoned seal pup.

“At that point that was the coolest thing — to be able to hold a baby seal. Alaska has got a lot of great stuff,” she said.

Walton started at the family’s set-net site in Bristol Bay when he was a kid. Since he was 12 he spent his summers fishing with his uncle and grandfather at their set-net site in Alitak Bay on Kodiak, and went back to fishing in Bristol Bay after he got married to his wife, Stephanie, in 1993.

A lifetime of fishing nets a lifetime of notable wildlife encounters — foxes eating off your table, trying to deter brown bears from ransacking fish camp with a combination of rock-throwing and noisemaking with foghorns and M80s, a 300-pound salmon shark surfacing right next to your feet cooling in the water, freeing porpoises tangled in a net and having them cavort alongside your boat for a half hour afterward, and playing fetch with a herd of deer on the beach in Kodiak.

“They really liked this Frisbee, I don’t know why. So we’d take this Frisbee and throw it down the beach and they would all take off and chase down this Frisbee. And they’d all get around it in a circle and sniff it. Then I’d walk down there and they’d kind of move out of the way — they’d get skittish if you got close to them. Then I’d grab the Frisbee and throw it the other way and the whole herd — with fawns and does — would run down and chase it,” Walton said.

When rescuing a baby seal and playing fetch with deer are your benchmarks for interesting experiences, it takes something truly memorable to top it. Just such an incident occurred this summer, when Ford, Walton and their crews helped rescue a beached newborn beluga whale.

“I’ve been privileged to have a lot of really great animal experiences over my life, but that one, by far, I can’t imagine that being topped. To be able to be that close and be part of something like that, I will definitely never forget that little whale,” Ford said.

Beluga dead at river mouth — Juvenile whale entangled in educational fishery set net

By Jenny Neyman

Photos courtesy of LGL Alaska Research Associates, MMPA/ESA research permit No. 14210. Tamara McGuire, wildlife biologist with LGL Alaska Research Associates, has been documenting beluga whales in Upper Cook Inlet as part of a photo identification project. The project has been extended to the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Seen here are examples of some of McGuire’s beluga identification photos from the project.

Redoubt Reporter

Though an updated Cook Inlet beluga whale population survey isn’t going to be conducted until early June, there is one recently confirmed change to the 2011 population number, when a subadult beluga was caught in the Kenaitze Indian Tribe’s educational fishery set gillnet near the mouth of the Kenai River on May 7.

“We were deeply saddened. This was not an intentional harvest,” said Sasha Lindgren, cultural director for the Kenaitze Indian Tribe.

The whale was found the evening of May 7 in the tribe’s educational fishery net, about a mile south of the mouth of the Kenai off Cannery Road.

Lindgren said that the crew running the net was on the beach, noticed the whale and called authorities.

“We’re not exactly sure what happened, if the beluga was dead and got caught. It looks like it was dead and just it rolled up into the net with the surf action, so we’re thinking it was dead or had no strength, because normally they go right through a net,” she said.

Barbara Mahoney, with the National Marine Fisheries Service out of Anchorage, said the

Photos courtesy of LGL Alaska Research Associates, MMPA/ESA research permit No. 14210

cause of death wasn’t immediately clear. Representatives from the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward collected the whale May 8 and performed an autopsy.

“The cause of death is not known at this time, but tissue samples have been sent out for analysis,” Mahoney said. She said that it could take weeks for the necropsy samples to come back.

Beluga sightings spark 80 years of memories

By Naomi Klouda

Homer Tribune

“Since I ran every day, I saw the belugas regularly. They were usually diving for fish. I ran along the beach below the bluff where I lived and the belugas would swim along next to me at high tide. And they would be singing while I ran. They liked to play, so they would keep pace with me for a short period of time, maybe 10 minutes, and then swim on. I remember thinking it was cool when I saw them.” — Unidentified interview

Beluga stories abound, and so does mystery on the whales’ basic habits — until a newly released report filled in many details. Cook Inlet beluga whales steered clear of the southern waters beyond Kachemak Bay, where orca whales pose a threat.

A single beluga was seen swimming with porpoises in 2006 off the Glacier Spit. It was seen again in Halibut Cove. That was one of the last live beluga sightings in the bay, said Janet Klein, a historian who conducted interviews compiled in “An Oral History of Habitat Use by Cook Inlet Belugas in Waters of the Kenai Peninsula Borough.” Authors, including Klein, were Ian M. Dutton, Karen J. Cain, Ricky Deel, Rebekka Federer, Hillary LeBail and Joseph Hunt. The report is now available to the public through libraries, but will not be sold in stores.

“We were really going back in time because we were trying to ascertain habitat use and population distribution,” Klein said. “The more recent memories were not the main part of discussion, but we did record them. There have been few and far between. We were looking for historic information.”

Beluga issue nets large reply — Critical habitat testimony stretches into the thousands

By Naomi Klouda

Homer Tribune

The testimony on whether or not to designate most of Cook Inlet as beluga habitat is now in, with some 91,668 responses to the public comment period that ended March 3.

The comments will be available to the public shortly at the National Marine Fisheries Service Web site, said spokesperson Sheela McLean. It is important to note that the number of responses didn’t calculate how many made repeat testimony. However, the numbers from organizations were noted, with Sierra Club accounting for 43,339 responses. The Natural Resource Development Council — countering the idea of designating Cook Inlet as critical habitat — weighed in with 39,939 responses.

NMFS counted 10 responses from North Star Terminal and Stevedore Co., LLC, which operates the Port of Anchorage, and 219 from postcard mailings. It also received 13 “unknown” letters and received 7,500 from a signature petition.

The NMFS is expecting to issue its decision sometime in October, McLean said.

Here is a sampling of commentary that came from residents in Homer and/or the Kenai Peninsula:

• Roland Maw of the United Cook Inlet Drift Association: “It became apparent to us as an industry that belugas were declining 15 or more years ago. NMFS came to us as a group, and to the set net group, and asked us if we would have some observers on board our vessels and you have the results of that. We had observers to the tune of about 9,000 hours on our vessels and beaches. There were no sightings, no entanglements and certainly no deaths. We have been trying to be proactive, even though our government hasn’t been … This is a difficult problem to work through but we’ll get through it and we’ll be OK.”
• Ken Tarbox, Soldotna: “I worked from 1980 to 2000 for Fish and Game. In that capacity, I flew over Cook Inlet and observed whales. I support the critical habitat designation identified, with a couple of exceptions. One, it is not far enough up the Susitna River. The whales would go much further up the Susitna River than what is designated. Two is the Kenai River. Even recently, since 2000, I’ve seen whales moving two to three miles up from the bridge. I assure you the lower Kenai is still used by belugas. I’ve seen as many as 30 in there in the spring and in the fall. Where we are not seeing them is during the July period when we historically used to see them.”
• Harold Shepherd, director Center for Water Advocacy: “I am here to testify in support of proposed designation of critical habitat for beluga on behalf of our members, which includes native villages and tribal governments in Alaska including the Marine Mammal Council and the Eklutna, Kenaitze, Chickaloon, Ninilchik, Seldovia and Tyonek tribes… Many tribal organizations can be of significant assistance in implementation and support in helping keep the belugas from jeopardy.”
• Beaver Nelson: “I have lived here since 1965. As a commercial fisherman I’ve spent a lot of time in Kachemak Bay and have observed belugas. Up until mid 1980’s there was a group of belugas that would come in every fall. All through October they appeared to feed on smelt (little wiggling clouds you could see in the grass). There would be 40-50 belugas in that area steadily. In mid to late 1980’s the belugas began to disappear. They were gone in a two to three year period to where there just weren’t belugas there anymore. You very rarely saw orcas back then, but in the late 1980’s the orcas became way more common. Even now if you go up in October you will see orcas up there hunting seal. My feeling is belugas are a candy bar for orca. They found a good food source and drove the belugas out of there. It is a risky venture for a beluga to move through there to run a gauntlet of orcas which seem to be increasing in abundance.”

Save the whales. Save the economy. Can we do both?

By Jenny Neyman

Photo courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Redoubt Reporter

The Cook Inlet region is home to the largest congregation of Alaska’s population and supports the many and myriad economic uses that population has developed, and would like to develop, in and around the waterway — shipping, tourism, oil and gas industry activity, transportation, mineral extraction, discharge of effluents, fishing and more.

The inlet also is home to a population of beluga whales that has dwindled to the point of being listed under the Endangered Species Act in October 2008 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service. The endangered listing and subsequent designation of critical habitat encompassing much of Cook Inlet puts in place a level of protection for the whales, so that activity in the inlet won’t harm the existing population or inhibit their recovery.

At the same time, there’s debate over whether that protection is necessary, and concern that it might restrict, if not cripple, economic activity in the inlet. As public meetings are held, a federal comment period is open and the state decides whether it will sue to block the endangered listing and critical habitat designation, that’s the central question stirring up debate — can the whales be saved without endangering the economy?

Platform A in Cook Inlet, photo courtesy of XTO Energy

Declining numbers

No one knows for sure how many belugas used to be in Cook Inlet, but it’s clear that there are a lot less now than there used to be. Based on limited surveys done by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, anecdotal references and traditional knowledge from Native beluga hunters, NMFS estimates there were 1,000 to 1,300 belugas in the 1970s. By the time NMFS began comprehensive, systematic aerial surveys for belugas throughout the inlet in 1993, the number was estimated at 653. From just 1994 to 1998 the population decreased by about 50 percent to 347 whales.

NMFS attributes the rapid decline to an increase in Native beluga hunting.

“There has been traditional harvest by subsistence users of Cool Inlet belugas for as long back as anybody cares to go,” said Brad Smith, a field office supervisor for the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act with NMFS, at a presentation Thursday in Kenai.

Before the 1990s, subsistence hunters took a few belugas a year. But during the 1980s and 1990s, more people moved to Southcentral from Native villages in outlying Alaska and took up beluga harvest, Smith said.

“I think they gradually became aware that there were beluga whales available. The harvest levels increased drastically by the early ’90s,” he said.

Subsistence harvest of inlet belugas was regulated in 1998, and just five whales were taken between 1999 and 2008. In 2000, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned to have the whales listed as endangered, but at the time NMFS did not do so because it believed the whale population would rebound at a rate of 2 percent to 6 percent a year once the pressure of hunting was relieved.

That hasn’t happened. The current NMFS analysis is that there’s only a 5 percent probability that the whales’ population is growing at a rate of above 2 percent per year, and a 62 percent or more probability that the population will decline further.

“We expected during that time to see an uptick and see a recovery in the numbers. Unfortunately, we did not,” Smith said. “Subsequent to that we received an additional petition recommending listing under the Endangered Species Act.”

NMFS designed various models to predict the likelihood of inlet beluga whale extinction. They include various factors and variables, such as an updated 2008 population estimate; whales’ biological characteristics — lifespan, age of reproductive maturity, etc.; and possible causes of mortality — predation, mostly by killer whales, and strandings or other unusual mortality events. The scenario NMFS considers to be the most realistic model accounts for an average of one mortality a year due to predation and a 5 percent annual chance of an unusual mortality event (like strandings, ice entrapment or ship strikes) that kills 20 percent of the population. That model predicts a 1 percent chance of extinction in 50 years, 26 percent probability of extinction in 100 years, 70 percent probability of extinction in 300 years and 80 percent probability that the population is declining.

NMFS listed the whales as endangered in October 2008. In December 2010 about 3,000 square miles of Cook Inlet were designated as critical habitat for the belugas. The comment period on the proposed critical habitat has recently been extended to March 3.

State of concern — Alaska may sue to block federal beluga protections

By Jenny Neyman

Redoubt Reporter

As the state of Alaska examines the science and reasoning supporting the National Marine Fishery Service’s listing of Cook Inlet beluga whales as endangered and the designation of a large swath of Cook Inlet as critical habitat for the whales, its initial response is simple — not so fast.

An Alaska Department of Fish and Game representative contends that an endangered listing and critical habitat designation carry the potential for wide-ranging, complex and difficult-to-predict ramifications. That step should only be taken if absolutely necessary and scientifically sound, and state government believes the situation with belugas may not be there yet.

NMFS has determined the population of Cook Inlet belugas to be distinct and endangered. Gov. Sean Parnell’s administration is questioning both decisions.

“The state, when that listing decision was announced, expressed our disappointment. We felt it was a bit premature,” said Douglas Vincent-Lang, special projects coordinator for Fish and Game’s Research and Technical Services division, at a briefing for the Kenai River Special Management Area’s habitat committee on Jan. 11, in Soldotna. “The state filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue over that decision. That doesn’t mean we’re going to sue, but it doesn’t mean we’re not going to sue. … We’re looking very carefully at those two questions. Whether or not they’ve answered them, not so much procedurally, but did they answer them in a scientifically sound manner?”

As Vincent-Lang explained the state’s concerns about the data and research that the NMFS, a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is using, Fish and Game’s position was being questioned, as well. Ken Tarbox, a retired research project leader for Fish and Game’s upper Cook Inlet commercial fisheries division and member of the habitat committee, wanted to know what data and research Fish and Game is using to question NMFS and NOAA.

“The models indicate the population is in a negative growth mode and if you’re saying it’s going in a positive growth mode, I’m wondering where the science is to support that position.” Tarbox said. “I’m not saying there’s not uncertainty, I’m just saying that I can look at NOAA’s science. I’m looking for Fish and Game’s science, and you’re telling me it’s not done yet.”

Proposal looks to protect declining inlet belugas

By Naomi Klouda

Homer Tribune

The National Marine Fisheries Service is currently proposing the designation of 3,016 miles of critical marine habitat for Cook Inlet beluga whale under the Endangered Species Act in both Upper Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay. The deadline for comments from the public on the proposal is Feb 1. 2010.

The matter, though not yet decided, is meant to find a way to protect habitat used traditionally by the Cook Inlet beluga, a genetically distinct group that has dwindled to about 300 members.

The protective designation couldn’t come too soon for Nancy Lord, author of “Beluga Days.” Her book, published in 2004, takes a long look at the challenges to protecting the whale amid economic, cultural and political conflicts dating back to the ’90s.

“This has been a very long time coming,” Lord said. “They are late in doing this. It should have happened years ago.”

Cook InletKeeper Executive Director Bob Shavelson said the time between now and Feb. 1 is simply the commenting period, with a draft proposal for designating habitat coming after that.

“Then, assuming no one sues and gets an injunction, it requires any activity that has a chance to impact that habitat to go through a consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service,” Shavelson said. “It will not shut down economic development. There will be ‘the sky is falling’ rhetoric, but if you look at statistics, nothing could be further from the truth.”

Nationally, only 1/10 of one percent of all projects get stopped because of environmental sensitivity, Shavelson said.

Fishing for beluga data — Borough plans how to spend research money

By Jenny Neyman
Redoubt Reporter

Seven hundred thousand dollars. It’s not a lot of money when it comes to figuring out why Cook Inlet belugas are disappearing, but it would be a lot of money to waste.

That’s the situation the Kenai Peninsula Borough finds itself in with $699,300 approved in the fiscal year 2010 federal budget. The borough is in the early stages of deciding how to put the money to use within the guidelines required, after being surprised to hear about the grant in the first place.

“I really feel this is a trust that’s been provided to us, and we’re going to do our best to uphold it,” said borough Mayor Dave Carey.

Carey said belugas have been a priority for his administration since day one — literally, since the whales were formally listed under the Endangered Species Act on Oct. 21, 2008, a day after he took office on Oct. 20.

Through an agreement with the Tri-Borough Commission — Carey and the mayors of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough — it was decided the Kenai borough would take the lead on the issue. While the state pursued a lawsuit to fight the endangered listing, “instead, we would be promoting the science to provide the information to go forward to mitigate the problems,” Carey said.

Belugas sighted in Kenai River — White whales a rare occurrence in recent years

By Jenny Neyman
Redoubt Reporter

Winter’s grip has left the Kenai River, so the spots of white seen bobbing around the river mouth recently aren’t ice. They’re beluga whales.

The National Marine Fisheries Service office in Anchorage and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game office on Kalifornsky Beach Road both have received reports of beluga sightings in the river mouth over the past week, and river watchers say they’ve seen the whales, too.

Barbara Mahoney, a biologist with the National Marine Fisheries Service, said she heard a report of about 10 whales sighted April 26, and patrons of Kenai Joe’s on the Kenai bluff said they saw about six of them Thursday evening.

Natasha Ala, executive director of the Kenai Visitors and Cultural Center, who grew up on Strawberry Road, said she saw six to 10 belugas, including two calves, in the river mouth April 21 and 22.

She was down at the Kenai Beach at the end of South Spruce Street as the tide was nearing high.

“They were right there at the mouth of the river, right along shore, and they went out to the middle of the river and swam around,” Ala said.

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.

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.