In the interest of wildlife conservation, openness in government, and pure common sense, I urge Gov. Bill Walker's recent appointees to lead the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Division of Wildlife Conservation to re-fund the state's world-famous Round Island program. Or, if not, they must explain to the public why this highly successful venture is no longer worth maintaining, in keeping with Gov. Walker's credo of a state government that's truly open to Alaskans.
As I explained in an ADN commentary in August, then-DWC Director Doug Vincent-Lang made the highly controversial—and, truthfully, nonsensical—decision to zero out Round Island's funding, despite overwhelming evidence that this walrus sanctuary deserves—and needs—to be monitored by state personnel, as it has been since the mid-1970s.
The $95,000 or so that Vincent-Lang "saved" is a tiny portion of the division's $47 million budget, yet as former on-site manager Polly Hessing has emphasized, that money provides "tremendous bang for the buck." Unless those now in charge reverse his decision, in 2015 no department staff will be assigned to Round Island for the first time in four decades, a troubling thing to the people who know it best.
This craggy island in Bristol Bay is the biological heart of the Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary, established in 1960 by the Alaska Legislature. Over the years, Round Island has gained widespread recognition as one of the world's outstanding wildlife spectacles. There's no better place in the world to see large groups of walruses. But the real import of Round Island and the state's long presence there has nothing to do with wildlife viewing, but the well-being of the walruses themselves, something that Vincent-Lang either didn't understand (despite overwhelming evidence) or chose to ignore.
It would be a discouraging thing—and certainly not in the best interests of the walrus—if acting DWC Director Bruce Dale and Fish and Game Commissioner Sam Cotten choose not to reverse Vincent-Lang's wrong-headed decision.
I'll add here that I've sent emails to both Dale and Cotten asking about the Round Island program, but after more than a week have not received any response. Nor, that I can learn, have they told anyone else what they intend to do about Round Island. This is worrisome, because time is running short; Joe Meehan, Fish and Game's coordinator for lands and refuges, says a decision must be made by mid-February if Round Island is to be properly staffed this summer.
Those who wish to learn more about Vincent-Lang's exasperating rationale and the reasoned—and widespread—opposition to his decision are encouraged to read my earlier commentary, "Wildlife at risk if Fish and Game bails out of Round Island sanctuary." Here I will emphasize this point: for a variety of reasons—most of them tied to the health of the bull walrus that use Round Island as a summer haulout—every person I contacted who had some management connection to this sanctuary stressed the importance of keeping the program alive. So did the Fish and Game staff that worked under Vincent-Lang. It's also worth mentioning that he stubbornly ignored all the arguments, and evidence, while never making the effort to visit the island and observe its monitoring program firsthand.
Another point crucial to this discussion and the state's presence: all available evidence clearly demonstrates that walruses at terrestrial haulouts are highly sensitive to human disturbances. And there's plenty of proof that given the chance, people will try to get close to unguarded walrus haulouts, whether to view the animals, scavenge for ivory, or kill walruses for their tusks.
Hessing, the on-site manager from 1988 to 1992, emphasizes, "Round Island was established as a sanctuary to protect walruses, not to give people a great visitor experience. If Fish and Game no longer has anyone there, is it properly protecting the walrus as it's required to do?"
Those who've worked at Round Island are also shocked the state might continue a visitor program without any oversight. They question how disturbances to the walruses would be prevented if staff isn't present to explain proper behavior. And what about enforcement when regulations are knowingly violated?
Hessing is especially succinct when considering the possibility of a visitor program without a staff presence: "That," she says, "would be nuts."
Two final points: for those worried about added expenses in a time of fiscal restraint, this is not about increasing DWC funding; it's about wisdom in choosing how an existing budget is allocated. The money never should have been removed from Round Island. Now it needs to be restored. Second, it's critical that Alaskans who understand Round Island's value as a walrus sanctuary and the importance of the decades-long monitoring program contact Dale (bruce.dale@alaska.gov) and Cotten (sam.cotten@alaska.gov) and urge them to once more properly fund the Round Island program. And do so soon, because time is running out.
Anchorage nature writer Bill Sherwonit has written many stories and commentaries about Alaska's wildlife and is the author of more than a dozen books. His newest is "Animal Stories: Encounters with Alaska's Wildlife," published by Alaska Northwest Books.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com