Part II
Wildlife and Wildlife Managers
AS ALEUTIAN FUR CATCHES SHRANK IN THE 1790S, RUSSIANS EXTENDED THE RANGE of their trade to the Alaskan mainland. Americans and the British arrived shortly after Cook’s 1778 visit and aggressively sought furs both on land and at sea. The quasi-governmental Russian-American Company could not control or compete against American whalers, who operated at will in Russian waters. Hudson’s Bay Company, long arm of Russia’s rival the British Empire, established a trading presence in Southeast Alaska by the 1830s. It moved west from the Mackenzie River Valley and in 1847 set up a post at Fort Yukon in Russian-claimed Alaska. Vulnerable to potential hegemonic moves by the British and Americans and realizing modest fur profits, the Russians concluded that they had no viable future in Alaska. Not wanting the British on their eastern border, they resolved to sell the territory to the United States.
The United States assumed jurisdiction over all of Alaska claimed by Russia, even though the Russians had controlled very little of it. It set aside the question of Native claims for future consideration. It placed the land under military rule, but traders, gold seekers, and other exploiters carried on almost unsupervised. After the opening of salmon canneries in 1878 and the Juneau gold strike of 1880 the non-Native population swelled, generating an obvious need for law and order. The 1884 Organic Act made Alaska an administrative district overseen by an appointed governor. It permitted mining claims by whites on lands not occupied or claimed by Natives.
From the beginning, a strained relationship existed between the non-Native elements and the federal government. Settlers demanded more services, autonomy, and control over resources, accusing the government of obstructing progress and favoring salmon canning companies and other outside corporate interests. The salmon industry, for its part, did long-term biological damage to runs of salmon. Federal officials looked upon Alaskans as unprepared for self-government and irresponsible in their treatment of natural resources. They viewed the resources as belonging to the nation, not just to white settlers or Alaska Natives.
While gold rush dramas played themselves out, events in the States had been building for decades toward state and federal wildlife protection. An ornithology office within the Department of Agriculture evolved into the Bureau of Biological Survey and ultimately the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service. It gained power and responsibility through the Lacey Act of 1900, bird and mammal conservation laws, and the assembling of a complex of wildlife refuges. Well before the turn of the century Alaskan wildlife issues caught the attention of federal officials and their allies in private conservation groups. Natural resource abuses in the States, and laws attempting to curb them, echoed in federal policy toward Alaska. Unlike the other territories where the damage had largely occurred prior to federal protective action, Alaska offered the nation a chance to take a preemptive stand against wholesale loss of Nature.
During the gold rushes of 1880–1910 the rising non-Native population intensified the pressure on game mammals. Commercial slaughter for meat, hides, and antlers progressed into a booming industry, depleting several species of mammals in the early years of the 20th Century. At the urging of federal officials, the Boone and Crockett Club, and other conservation groups, Congress enacted laws between 1900 and 1925 in an effort to curb the abuses. A similar series of laws attempted to stop the overexploitation of salmon. Distance from Washington and prevailing attitudes of local citizens and fortune seekers obstructed law enforcement.
When Alaska gained territorial status and a legislature in 1912, the federal government retained jurisdiction over natural resources through the appointed governor and natural resource agencies. But the legislature mirrored local antagonism toward federal wildlife management jurisdiction and policies, especially protection of the grizzly bear and oversight of commercial salmon fishing. And neither the territorial nor the federal government permitted the Natives much say in natural resource policies.
Alaska’s naturalist-wildlife managers spent time in Alaska varying from months to years; some worked in the territory and others out of Washington. Three directors of the Bureau of Biological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service belonged to their ranks. All loved wild Alaska, or aspects of it, and committed themselves to its defense. They incorporated the values of the Progressive Era conservation movement that guided federal wildlife management. Like the private naturalists, their brands of conservation ranged from utilitarian to moderately preservationist. Most approved of predator control, and some endorsed species translocations or other projects of dubious ecological or economic wisdom. They participated in the writing of wildlife protection laws and worked to gain public support. Traveling by dogsled and boat and later by bush plane, they came to know the country and people, building respect for conservation and guarding fisheries and land mammals. A few, notably Bob Marshall, Olaus and Margaret Murie, and Ira Gabrielson, bestowed lasting gifts in the preservation of large tracts of land as parks and reserves. They assisted and built upon the endeavors of the early private naturalists to complete a vital phase in the development of conservation in Alaska.
Government biologists, through their work on lands and wildlife, reinforced the values of species sustainability for consumptive use (utilitarian conservation). To some extent, as in the Arctic National Wildlife Range, they advocated ecosystem preservation and nonconsumptive use. Ecological science led some to oppose aggressive predator control. Bob Marshall and the Muries forthrightly articulated nonconsumptive use values. All respected and furthered the application of science as a means to sound management. In retirement and sometimes during government service, several mobilized the public through writing or political action. Their efforts sowed seeds of modern environmentalism in both the States and Alaska.