In the 29 Jan 09 edition of the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, we read an Op-Ed piece by columnist Tim Mowry, criticizing the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's hasty "jump[ing of the] gun" in bringing Wood Bison into Alaska for possible introduction into the Yukon Flats before all the Endangered Species Act "i's were dotted and t's were crossed." (Currently, 53 Canadian Wood Bison are captive in Portage, Alaska, awaiting transplantation. -- http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080709/0414211.html )
What is the Wood Bison? It is a distinctly larger northern subspecies of Bison bison whose original range included the boreal forests of Alaska, in addition to the areas in Canada where populations of this bison still persist. Something around 3000 Wood Bison still remain on the planet, anywhere. Wild, native populations of Wood Bison lived in Alaska for 400,000 years until their disappearance within the last 100 to 200 years. Estimates suggest that there were once as many as 200,000 Wood Bison in North America. Native elders in Interior Alaska and northwestern Canada have described how bison were hunted as an important source of food and materials, suggesting their recent historical presence in Alaska, as well as Canada.
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=143
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_Bison
The "bureaucratic boondoggle" cited in Tim Mowry's article has to do with (surprise!) a perceived conflict in the presence of released Wood Bison populations with oil and gas exploration in the Minto Flats area and the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. It appears that the staff of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't necessarily agree with the scientific evidence that the Wood Bison disappearance from Alaska was caused by human activity.
Several thoughts come to mind, regarding the matter.
Whether or not the disappearance of the Wood Bison from Alaska was caused entirely by human activity seems hardly relevant to returning a threatened or endangered species to a land where they once persisted over the course of four-tenths of a million years. This is a time span crossing a known record of several profound climatic changes. (If nothing else, there is something very suggestive in that bit of information which hints at the role of humans in the Alaskan extinction of these magnificent animals, particularly in the light of the fact that a lot of ideal Wood Bison habitat remains in the areas under consideration for their release.) One wonders how much of the F&W energy behind resisting Alaska's plan to re-create wild herds of Wood Bison arises from an eight-year-long effort on the part of the former Bush Administration to 'change the culture' of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Mowry seems sympathetic in his article to the plight of potential oil and gas exploration in affected areas. The Alaska Native Corporation Doyon Limited plans to explore for gas in the Nenana Basin, on the edge of the potential release area. Is this an example of a corporation thinking like a corporation, no matter its ultimate origin? Perhaps. Also, perhaps, we might think a bit more long term, here. Long after our present era of oil and gas exploration, and long after any era of regional oil and gas production (and related creation of "jobz"), our chief concern as human beings will lie elsewhere. In the long term, whether or not we have viable Wood Bison populations throughout interior Alaska will matter a great deal more than whether or not we Explored for Oil and Gas (note the respectful capitalization) under the ground where these populations are able to live.
The interest (and decision to move toward) transplanting Wood Bison populations in Alaska predated Governor Sarah Palin's rise to national prominence by her selection to be Senator John McCain's running mate for the presidency. Just months ago, everything seemed just fine with the Wood Bison release program. How much of the renewed attention to the impact of Wood Bison upon oil and gas exploration arises out of a changed set of Palin priorities? About this, we can't probably do more than speculate, but the question is suggestive. Alaska's political climate remains very much pro-oil-and-gas, pro-carbon. It is easy to see why, when 70-85% of Alaska's economic base (and the popular Permanent Fund Dividend) derives directly from the North Slope/TAPS oil production system, now some 19 years past peak. Anyone wishing to remain at the forefront of political attention could hardly do so without standing up for oil and gas exploration within Alaska, and by implication, nationally.
Let's not forget that our future, springing out of a global Peak Oil and a soon-to-be Peak Gas present moment, no matter what we do, simply cannot be expected to include high rates of fossil fuel exploitation. Caring for the future of this northern land, and its environment, through efforts such as the Wood Bison restoration project makes at least as much sense as exploring for new oil and gas reserves. Anyone weighing the trade-offs in releasing populations of Wood Bison into the wild needs to understand this.
