Beluga habitat designation, imagine an alternative

By Karla Dutton

This week marks the end of the official comment period for the beluga critical habitat designation. And over the past few weeks and months we’ve all heard some pretty scary assertions about what this decision will mean for Alaska. It is only understandable that emotions fray and charged comments fly when people feel their lives may be impacted by the simple stroke of a pen in a far away city.
But imagine the alternative; imagine a day when beluga sightings in Cook Inlet, already increasingly rare, cease to be. There will be no ceremony to mark the sad day that these creatures stopped living among us, no announcement, no headline. This gradual change, should it come to pass, will not evoke the sense of heated outrage that the beluga critical habitat debate has. But rather, it will be marked by a quiet sadness and sense of loss because things are not as they used to be. And the question will be asked, aloud or not: Why didn’t we do something when we had the chance?
This is our chance.
Some people may wonder, “What is the cost of action?” So, to put the impact of the critical habitat decision into perspective, know that according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, out of 17,052 projects that have been evaluated because of critical habitat designations nationwide, less than one percent have had to be altered.
This figure won’t do much to dispel the protests of people who oppose this decision simply on principle. There are some who would have the federal government withdraw in all its dealings with Alaska (money for earmarks notwithstanding). But for everyone else who is legitimately concerned about the practical impact of a critical habitat designation, this simple but powerful percentage should outweigh all the scare-mongering rhetoric we’ve read on the opinion pages of late. And above all else, people should know that if your business venture or personal pastime does not require federal funding or approval, the critical habitat designation will likely have absolutely no effect on your activities. So wherever this at times ugly debate may take us, those facts remain true and fundamental to the issue. And to suppose otherwise serves no one.
By protecting the belugas’ habitat from unnecessary and irreversible damage we not only ensure a healthy beluga population, but also a healthy Cook Inlet where other treasured species, including salmon, can thrive. Surely, we all have a common interest in that goal.

Karla Dutton is Alaska program director for Defenders of Wildlife.

Subscribe via RSS

Subscribe via email