Resource Science: Government, science and bias

Many wildlife issues are controversial: endangered species, spotted owls, wolves, grizzly bears, lynx, wolverines, sage grouse, jumping mice and many others. If you try to graze livestock, cut timber, mine minerals or drill for oil and gas, environmental groups and government agencies often try to stop you by claiming possible impacts on wildlife. Environmental groups have made an industry of stopping natural resource use by suing in court, but government agencies are supposed to manage, not obstruct, resource use and agriculture.

Science should be used to manage wildlife and often it is. State fish and game departments use science to set and enforce hunting seasons and harvest limits, control problem animals and monitor diseases like chronic wasting disease. Unfortunately, government science is sometimes biased and selectively uses science by ignoring or unfairly dismissing science that supports the multiple use of developing natural resources and maintaining wildlife populations.

An example is caribou in the Alaska North Slope oil fields. I wrote about the Central Arctic caribou herd in the northern Alaska Prudhoe Bay and Milne Point oil fields previously (WLJ, July 2019). The herd has varied in numbers and grown overall since the oil fields were built in the 1970s (see the References below). Government biologists reported that caribou avoid the oil field roads and facilities during the calving period in early to mid-June, although this is not always the case.

Several studies show caribou do not avoid roads and facilities during the post-calving period in late June to early August when the calves can follow their mothers. There is abundant evidence and photos of caribou congregating on roads and gravel pads during the post-calving period. However, in 2020, federal biologists used GPS satellite collars on caribou, considered different post-calving time periods, and claimed that caribou avoid roads by 1 to 2 kilometers (0.6 to 1.2 miles) during the post-calving period. These biologists said that the previous studies were inaccurate in finding that caribou do not avoid roads and facilities.

This criticism of the researchers’ work is not warranted for several reasons. First, photos of caribou and published research show definitively that caribou do occur on the oil field roads and facilities. Second, the new research used 56 cow caribou with satellite GPS collars and complicated computer models, while the previous researchers used simple observations from aircraft of 77,833 bull and cow caribou from 1990-95 in the Prudhoe Bay oil field and 25,751 bull and cow caribou from 1991-2001 in the Milne Point oil field.

This included observations of 4,767 caribou on one day in the Milne Point oil field (20% of the cows in the herd) and 13,058 caribou on one day in the Prudhoe Bay oil field (65% of the cows in the herd. In contrast, the 56 cows in the new research represent less than 1% (0.33%) of the cows in the herd. The previous researchers observed a much larger proportion of the caribou herd than did the 2020 study. Common sense, the photos of caribou on roads and facilities and a large proportion of the herd observed in aerial surveys indicate the prior reports that caribou do not avoid the oil field roads and facilities during the post-calving period are accurate.

Third, the 2020 researchers captured caribou with helicopter-mounted net guns to install the GPS collars while the earlier aerial surveys were without capture or harassment of the animals. I think the capture process might have made the caribou afraid of humans and contributed to the finding of avoidance of roads and facilities. Fourth, a recent study supported the first researchers’ results and reported that caribou did not avoid oil field roads and facilities during the post-calving period. Fifth, GPS collars can be a burden that negatively impact female caribou health, reproduction and behavior.

Modern technologies of GPS satellite telemetry and modeling used for a small number of animals provide limited information. The direct observations of large numbers of animals provide better information and should not be dismissed by government scientists as inaccurate.

Does the government science of the 2020 researchers reflect bias, perhaps to restrict future oil and gas development? I don’t know the intentions of the paper’s authors; they probably believe their data are more accurate than the previous. But their criticism of the earlier researchers is biased in the sense that they claim the modern technology with GPS collars and modeling with small numbers of animals is more accurate than the straightforward observation of much larger numbers of animals in the oil fields. I submitted a response to the researchers to three peer-reviewed scientific journals and was rejected by all of them. This supports the insight of the well-known African biologist Allan Savory, that reliance on only science in peer-reviewed publications stifles original thinking and diminishes the quality of science. — Dr. Matt Cronin

(Matt Cronin is a biologist with Northwest Biology and Forestry Company LLC in Bozeman, MT, croninm@aol.com. He was a research professor at the University of Alaska. A full list of references can be found below.)

REFERENCES

The references in bold are cited in the article.

Allan Savory:  Watch: Ecologist Allan Savory exposes consensus science: Peer-reviewed ‘means everybody thought the same therefore they approved it’ – ‘We’re going to kill ourselves because of stupidity’ – Climate Depot

Ballard, W. B., M. A. Cronin, and H. A. Whitlaw. 2000. Caribou and oil fields. Pages 85-104 in J. C. Truett and S. R. Johnson, editors. The natural history of an Arctic oil field, development and the biota. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.

Cameron, R. D., D. J. Reed, J. R. Dau, and W. T. Smith. 1992. Redistribution of calving caribou in response to oil field development on the arctic slope of Alaska. Arctic 45:338–342.

Cronin, M. A., S. C. Amstrup, G. M. Durner, L. E. Noel, and W. B. Ballard. 1998. Caribou distribution relative to oil field infrastructure in the Prudhoe Bay oil field, Alaska. Arctic 51:85-93.

Cronin, M.A. 2019, 2021. Wildlife, War, and God. Liberty Hill Publishing, Maitland, Florida.

Cronin 2019. Caribou and Alaska oil fields. Western Livestock Journal. https://www.wlj.net/opinion/resource_science/resource-science-alaska-oil-fields-and-wildlife/article_75abe910-a4d7-11e9-870c-f703f8d2e261.html

Haskell, S. P., and W. B. Ballard. 2007. Modeling the western Arctic caribou herd during a positive growth phase: potential effects of wolves and radiocollars. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:619–627.

Haskell, S. P., R. M. Nielson, W. B. Ballard, M. A. Cronin, and T. L. McDonald. 2006. Dynamic responses of calving caribou to oilfields in northern Alaska. Arctic 59:179-190.

Johnson, H. E., T. S. Golden, L. G. Adams, D. D. Gustine, and E. A. Lenart. 2020. Caribou use of habitat near energy development in Arctic Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 83:401-412.

Noel, L. E., R. H. Pollard, W. B. Ballard, and M. A. Cronin. 1998. Activity and use of active gravel pads and tundra by caribou, Rangifer tarandus granti, within the Prudhoe Bay oil field, Alaska. Canadian Field Naturalist 112:400-409.

Noel, L. E., K. R. Parker, and M. A. Cronin. 2004. Caribou distribution near an oilfield road on Alaska’s North Slope, 1978-2001. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:757-771.

Noel, L. E., K. R. Parker, and M. A. Cronin. 2006. Response to Joly et al. (2006), A Reevaluation of Caribou Distribution Near an Oilfield Road on Alaska’s North Slope. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(3):870-873.

Pollard, R. H., W. B. Ballard, L. E. Noel, and M. A. Cronin. 1996a. Summer distribution of caribou in the area of the Prudhoe Bay oil field, Alaska, 1990-1994. Canadian Field Naturalist 110:659-674.

Pollard, R. H., W. B. Ballard, L. E. Noel, and M. A. Cronin. 1996b. Parasitic insect abundance and microclimate of gravel pads and tundra within the Prudhoe Bay oil field, Alaska in relation to use by caribou. Canadian Field Naturalist 110:649-658.

Prichard, A. K., B. E. Lawhead, E. A. Lenart, and J. H. Welch. 2020. Caribou Distribution and Movements in a Northern Alaska Oilfield. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:1483–1499.

Prichard, A. K., J. H. Welch, and B. E. Lawhead. 2022. The Effect of Traffic Levels on the Distribution and Behaviour of Calving Caribou in an Arctic Oilfield. Arctic 75:1-19.

Rasiulis, A. L., M. Festa-Blanchet, S. Couturier, and S. D. Cote. 2014. The Effect of Radio-Collar Weight on Survival of Migratory Caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management. 78:953-956.

Calculations of the percent of the cows in the Central Arctic herd observed in three studies. These are not exact numbers, but are estimates showing the relative percentages of the herd surveyed in three studies.

1. Johnson et al. (2020) used GPS data for 56 cows from 2015, 2016, and 2017. There were herd censuses in 2016 and 2017. The average number of caribou in the herd for 2016 and 2017 was 25,340. The sex ratio of the Central Arctic herd in 2019 was 50 bulls per 100 cows, so cows comprise 0.67 of the herd.

0.67×25,340 = 16,977 cows in the herd. 56 cows/16,977 = 0.0033 = 0.33% of cows in the herd were surveyed by Johnson et al.

2. Noel et al (2004) surveyed caribou of both sexes in the Milne Point oil field in 1990 to 2001. Herd censuses were done in 1991, 1992, 1995, 1997, and 2000. The average number of caribou in the herd for these years was 23,857. Using the sex ratio of 0.67 cows:

0.67×23,857 = 15,984 cows in the herd.

 4,767 caribou were observed on one day in this study.

4,767×0.67 = 3,194 cows were observed on one day.

3,194/15,984 cows in the herd = 0.20 = 20% of cows in the herd were surveyed on one day by Noel et al. (2004).

3. Cronin et al. (1998) surveyed caribou of both sexes in the Prudhoe Bay oil field in 1990 to 1995. Herd censuses were done in 1991, 1992, and 1995. The average number of caribou in the herd for these years was 20,196. Using the sex ratio of 0.67 cows:

0.67×20,196 = 13,531 cows in the herd.

13,058 caribou were observed on one day in this study.

13,058×0.67 = 8,749 cows were observed on one day.

8,749/13,531 cows in the herd = 0.65 = 65% of cows in the herd were surveyed on one day by Cronin et al. (1998).