Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Prevent Release of Wood Bison into the Wild

KTUU-TV
updated 2 hours 13 minutes ago 2011-04-08T15:15:33


Fear of federal land grabbing could make it more difficult for the Alaska to restore wood bison to a habitat near the Lower Innoko River.

Representative Alan Dick, R-Stony River, sponsored the bill that would require legislative approval before the bison can be moved from Portage to the Interior. Earlier this week, he warned fellow legislators that the bison will bring trouble.

"I think the potential long term consequences can be devastating," Rep. Dick told Channel 2. He said he initially supported the idea of having wood bison near his community, but then changed his mind. "I don't think the state needs this problem."

Dick opposes the release for fear that the federal government would use the animals as an excuse to lock up more land. "When did the federal government ever pass up the opportunity to lock up Alaska? The answer is that I know of, never, and I don't think that they'll pass up this opportunity at all either," Rep. Dick told said.

"I want them on the headwaters of the Stony [River] but they're 'Trojan' bison and I believe once we let them in the door, there's no way to stop the problem that they can cause."

In 2006, the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center partnered with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to reintroduce the now endangered species. Nearly 90 wood bison makes up the only herd in the U.S. The herd is in captivity and being cared for at the AWCC in Portage but the state hopes to release the animals in the Interior.

"The thought is to let these animals go back into the wild so they can procreate and get off the extinction list," said Mike Miller, President of AWCC.

Miller accuses Rep. Dick of creating unnecessary hysteria. "It just seems like these people that are ultra-paranoid or afraid of federal conspiracies," said Miller.

The state has said it will not move the herd until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and locals negotiate an exemption to the Endangered Species Act and lower the bison's designation from "endangered" to "threatened."

With the end of the legislative session quickly approaching, Rep. Dick does not seem optimistic that his bill will make it through. The state's plan is to release the wood bison herd into the wild, next year.

"This project can't be like the Susitna Dam project or the Capitol move where you put it on the shelf and then all of a sudden take it off and talk about it because these are living, breathing reproducing animals," said Miller.

Contact Lori Tipton at ltipton@ktuu.com

The Alaska Legislators have a lot of explaining to do this year. They have passed very few bills. This one would be number 3 or 4...no joke.

Trying to see into the future and claim the Feds would not allow mining etc. due to an introduced species is really stretching it. The AK chapter of SCI was working very hard to get reintroduction of Woods Bison form the maybe stage to reality.

Other species have been introduced: musk ox, elk and they have not been used as a political foil.

Maybe there is something to a man's name!

Cheers,

AKMatt

Hmmm...frankly I'm not sure why we would want to spend the money to reintroduce a species that died off in Alaska over 100 years ago. Doesn't fish and game have research to do on our current resident species?

For example, I spent a couple hours talking with a biologist in King Salmon a few years ago. Guess how much money he has in his annual budget to take care of bears on the Alaska Peninsula?

$5,000.00...Yes, that's five thousand dollars. Doesn't seem like enough money to me to make sure our resident bears are properly managed.

How about black bears? I'm told zero dollars are spent on black bear research. Wouldn't our scarce dollars be better spent doing research on our resident species who didn't die off?

quote:

The state has said it will not move the herd until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and locals negotiate an exemption to the Endangered Species Act and lower the bison's designation from "endangered" to "threatened."

Above is the key phrase in the article to my mind. The politicians are helping to play a game whereby a larger group is putting pressure (and rightly so!) on the USFWS to list Wood Bison as "threatened". USFWS does not at all want to do this because then it means that they would have little or no cause to restrict importation of Canadian sport hunted Wood Bison....something they have been dragging their feet on approving for years now. I suspect there is some big time political wrangling going on between Dick, SCI, John Jackson (and maybe AWCC too) collectively pressuring against USFWS on this one.

A decade and a half of that herd growing at 15-20% per year and it'll be some great hunting up there!

quote:

Posted 22 April 2011 18:06 Hide Post
Hmmm...frankly I'm not sure why we would want to spend the money to reintroduce a species that died off in Alaska over 100 years ago. Doesn't fish and game have research to do on our current resident species?

Well SEP,

I would say that you must have forgotten that the muskox was extinct in Alaska and it was reintroduced. Now there are huntable numbers, a muskox herd in the United States and people out in the villages are benefitting from guiding, transporting, etc. I will have to ask you, "Why did we want to reintroduce those nasty animals?"

I would also point out that we had not had bison in our state as they also were EXTINCT. Now we have one of 2 or 3 free ranging herds in the country. That is a big deal for us hunters. This is a big money maker for the state when it comes to draw permits revenue. It is also the most coveted tag in the draw process. Again, "Why would we want to manipulate wild animals in such a manner and in an area where they had roamed thousands of years ago?"

As far as the state not providing money for research or studies, they do not place a premium on science in the Governor's office. That has nothing to do with the introduction of woods bison.

The fact is there is nothing wrong with reintroducing a species as long as these animals do not compete with other native animals for the same food nor will there be any interspecies breeding.

This has been turned into a political prop and nothing more.

Matt

Was it the Indians down Ft Yukon or somewhere here in the interior didn't want Bison released on their lands (there were plans to release them too) due to the fact they were doing some Gas & oil development and didn't want it stopped by the feds over these very same concerns. I guess the bucks oil would bring in was way more important than fresh meat or wood bison reintroduction; do you blame them after all the fed craziness up here?

I'm thinking the issue is the federally introduced species and its federal management, much like the federally introduced wolf into the western lower 48 and the problems associated as perceived by those western lower 48 states.

I'd guess the state legislator in question would love to have the bison in his district but without the possible onerous management issues associated with zealous usfws roughly headquartered thousands of miles away in Maryland/ Virginia.

To the issue of the budget regarding the brown bear management in unit 9, I'm guessing $5k annually buys a reasonable survey via supercub and if hunter take remains at management goals, trophy size remains acceptable, anecdotal information continues to be positive then there is little else that needs attention. Those living in the region could speak to the matter from an informed standpoint and I cannot, but that is my guess. I wonder if commercial and sport fishing biologists in the region have more sway over bear populations than game biologists do. If theres plenty of habitat and plenty of food,.............?

Matt,

There is no doubt muskox hunting brings some money to Alaska. I don't know if nonresidents can hunt bison in Alaska or not so that one might be a moot point. Never looked into that. I know farmers in Delta aren't too happy about the bison.

To be fair about the issue, we would need to see a cost benefit analysis between the money muskox hunting brings to Alaska vs the overhead costs to maintain the herds. Ditto for the other reintroduced species...to include crop and property damage to farmers in Delta. Then we would see which has the most economic benefit to the state. Random numbers stating hunting brings X dollars to Alaska annually doesn't paint the full picture.

Scott,

According to the biologist, $5k isn't enough to properly manage brown bears on the Peninsula. If were gonna manage our game animals using science, I'd like to see us do so properly with apppropriate funding for the species. I would argue we aren't doing that right now across the board.

This has bothered me to the point I've been thinking about ways in which I could "grant" money to biologists on an annual basis to fund research they believe is needed for different species. My concern with this is in the case of Peninsula Bears the bureaucrats will tell the biologist he isn't getting any funding this year cause he received a $10k grant for bear research. I've gotta find a way around that bureaucracy so the money actually helps and isn't squandered by some bureaucrat to pay the light bill in a Fish and Game office in Anchorage.