The Class Menagerie

David B. Williams is a freelance natural-history writer based in Seattle. He is the author of The Street-Smart Naturalist: Field Notes from Seattle and has written for Smithsonian, Popular Mechanics, National Parks, and The Seattle Times.

For the two days following Roger Kaye's talk, we remain in Fairbanks meeting with scientists, activists, and pro-development representatives who talk to us about wildlife, Native issues, politics, and geology in the refuge. Throughout the talks, one subject dominates: caribou. Depending on which reports you read and who you hear speak, caribou will either thrive or suffer if the refuge is opened to drilling.

On the pro-development side, people observe that the Central Arctic caribou population, which primarily uses the region around the Prudhoe Bay oil fields, has grown more than sevenfold since Prudhoe Bay development began in the mid-1970s. The herd has now reached its highest level ever recorded. Furthermore, the herd benefits from the microclimate of gravel pads and roads. A handout from Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R) office, titled "Arctic Oil: Fact Versus Fiction," contains this line: "There is absolutely no indication that environmentally responsible exploration will harm the 123,000-member Porcupine caribou herd."

Anti-development people, instead, observe that petroleum infrastructure, such as roads, pads, and pipelines, have pushed pregnant caribou and nursing mothers away from preferred habitat. They say the rise in the Central Arctic caribou population is attributable to several years of mild weather, and that in the mid-1990s, the Central Arctic population dropped, mostly because of cumulative effects and high insect numbers. In addition, they cite reports that a small reduction in the number of surviving calves -- less than 5 percent in a single year -- could reduce the size of the herd.

One aspect of the arguments that stands out is who the opponents and proponents cite. When Murkowski's environmental liaison, Chuck Kleeschulte, spoke to the group, he handed out a sheaf of reports and citations on caribou. Of the 17 papers on Kleeschulte's reference list, 16 were written or co-written by one person, Matthew Cronin. In contrast, those opposed to drilling generally cite papers by Raymond Cameron. Who to believe? Some of Cronin's work has been funded by BP Exploration, and he has written many articles on caribou for libertarian and private-property-rights groups. Cameron formerly worked for the Institute of Arctic Biology at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and his work is generally cited more often in the scientific literature.

"It is a hard jump to make from a comparison of the Central Arctic caribou to the Porcupine caribou herd in the 1002," says Patricia Reynolds, a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, getting to the heart of the debate. The Porcupine caribou migrate much farther, 400-plus miles versus 120 miles, and number 123,000 versus 27,000. In addition, the coastal plain section of the refuge, which is the most critical calving and nursing area for the Porcupine caribou, is only 40 miles deep between water and the mountains, as opposed to the Prudhoe Bay area used by the Central Arctic caribou, which is up to 100 miles deep.

Although the comparison may be hard to make, Fran Mauer, a recently retired U.S. FWS wildlife biologist who worked for 21 years in the Arctic Refuge, raises several key points about caribou. The first is that the narrowness of the refuge's coastal plain means that if drilling forces the Porcupine caribou away from the coastal plain, they will be forced into areas of more predators and more insects. Second is that all of the caribou on the North Slope have experienced population growth since the 1970s, most likely due to mild weather, but the Porcupine herd did not grow as fast as others and thus is less resilient. Combine these biological concerns with the large herd size, long-distance migration, and changes in climate, and Mauer concludes that the Porcupine caribou will be negatively affected by drilling in the 1002.

He adds one final point, which may be the most important for this debate. "It's not just the caribou, stupid," says Mauer, whose primary field of research was the Porcupine caribou herd. The refuge is home to 36 species of land mammal, ranging in size from the common shrew (weight equal to a dime) to polar bears, which can peak at 1,700 pounds. Nine marine mammals, including four whale species and three seal species, live in or visit the refuge, in addition to 36 species of fish. Birds make up the largest group, both in terms of numbers and diversity, with 180 migrant and resident species.

Among the most abundant visitors to the refuge are snow geese. Some years, in the fall, up to 300,000 snow geese arrive on the coastal plain to feed on cotton grass and fatten up for their 1,200-mile, nonstop migration to northern Alberta. Mauer observes that the 1002 is the only caribou calving area that overlaps with snow geese. "How much has caribou nutrient enhancement affected this area?" asks Mauer.

Both Mauer and Reynolds also discuss the importance of the 1002 to polar bears, many of which den in the area. A secondary concern is how global warming affects polar bears, which suffer decreased body condition and reproductive performance with earlier breakup of sea ice. Nor are the effects limited to land. Bowhead whales, which are central to the Inupiat way of life, are at risk from offshore drilling and seismic exploration. During the bowhead migration in the summer and fall, the whales will avoid loud sounds coming from 20 or more miles away. Recognition of the potential effects of offshore drilling has contributed to the growing number of Inupiat in Kaktovik who oppose development of the refuge.

After Mauer's talk, which is the final scientific one we hear, I ask some of the students for their thoughts. "I think Mauer's comment is right on," says Ben Brigham, a graduate student in marine affairs with an undergraduate degree in wildlife science. "The caribou issue is so contentious, we have to look at other issues and species as well, and see the cumulative effects. I think that is one of the central points missing from this debate."