U.S. Delays Polar Bear Listing Decision

Source: National Geographic

John Roach
for National Geographic News

January 7, 2008

The U.S. government today postponed a final decision on whether to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

The delay stems from a backlog of work, not scientific uncertainty or a pending lease sale for oil and gas development in polar bear habitat, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said during a telephone press briefing.

The service said it will miss its original Wednesday deadline but plans to make a formal recommendation within 30 days. No firm decision date was set, however.

Evaluation of a suite of reports from the U.S. Geological Survey that concluded two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could go extinct by 2050 prompted the delay, the service said.

The studies were completed last September, but in response, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reopened and extended a public comment period on the findings.

Evaluation of the new science and the comments it generated is still going on, Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said during the briefing.

“While we do not like missing time lines that are called for under the act, it is far more important to us to get a right answer and have it explained properly to the public,” he said. “So we’ll be needing to take some extra time here to finish that up.”

Scott Bergen is a landscape ecologist with the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society and a contributing author to the U.S. Geological Survey polar bear studies. He said he is disappointed with the delay.

“At least with the scientific team I was involved with, it was pretty clear, especially with the polar bear population that exists in Alaska, that they are in danger,” he said. “I’m hoping this delay is temporary and only 30 days.”

Lawsuit and Suspicions

A coalition of environmental groups said today they will file a lawsuit notice Wednesday to enforce the deadline. The groups are suspicious the delay is political, not scientific.

For example, the U.S. Mineral Management Service announced last week that it will hold a final lease sale for oil and gas development in the Chukchi Sea off the northwestern Alaskan coast, which is polar bear habitat. The sale is slated to happen on February 6.

“It’s very suspicious,” said Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead author of the 2005 petition to list the polar bear.

“It’s our experience that when listing decisions get delayed in Washington, D.C., it’s always a bad thing, because Washington, D.C., is where the political interference happens,” she added.

Fish and Wildlife director Hall said the lease sale has no bearing on the delay and added that any action related to the lease sale would still have to comply with the Endangered Species Act and other environmental regulations.

Scientific Certainty

In addition, Hall noted, there is no strong scientific uncertainty regarding the U.S. Geological Survey findings that two-thirds of polar bears face a risk of extinction by 2050.

“It’s just unfortunately one of those times I’ll have to tell you we’ll have to miss a deadline in order to provide the quality and product that we believe needs to be provided,” he said.

Alaska Governor Sara Palin wrote in a January 5 op-ed for the New York Times that “there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future—the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act.”

The Center for Biological Diversity’s Siegel said all science has a degree of uncertainty but that uncertainty is very low for the polar bear.

Polar bears eat mostly seals and other fatty marine animals that they hunt from sea ice. The bears prefer to hunt from ice that hangs over shallow continental shelf waters, which contain more prey than deeper waters offshore.

But summer sea ice in the polar bears’ Arctic habitat is shrinking and retreating farther and farther from the coastline, which crimps the bears’ ability to forage efficiently. Some bears are starving to death.

Scientists believe human-caused global warming is contributing to the decline in sea ice habitat.

Saving polar bears, therefore, requires human action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, Siegel noted. But taking such action is a political decision.

“We know what we have to do to save polar bears,” she said. “We just have to start doing it.”

Chukchi approved for development

Canadian Press:

The federal Minerals Management Service gave final approval Wednesday for oil and natural gas development off Alaska’s northwest shore, drawing condemnation from environmental groups worried about the area’s wildlife, including polar bears. Read more

Alaska takes seriously its job of protecting polar bears

By GOV. SARAH PALIN

It’s that time of year when the entire world will see animated holiday images of cute, cuddly polar bears smiling and dancing — and pitching cold soft drinks on TV and movie screens.

That’s the closest most Americans will ever get to a polar bear.

To steal a line from one of the commercials, it’s not “the real thing.”

It’s unfortunate, because polar bears are magnificent animals, not cartoon characters. They are worthy of our utmost efforts to conserve them and their Arctic habitat.

For Alaska, that means recognizing that while climate change is a serious concern for everyone on the planet, it is not the only issue surrounding polar bears.

To help ensure that polar bears are around for centuries to come, Alaska has engaged in research and worked closely with the federal government to protect them. This includes enacting a ban on most hunting — only Alaska Native subsistence families can hunt polar bears — and taking habitat protection measures such as set-asides around known denning areas to prevent bear harassment.

We are also participating in international efforts aimed at conserving polar bears worldwide.

The state takes very seriously its job of protecting polar bears and their habitat and is well aware of the problems caused by climate change.

But we know it will take more than protecting what we have — it means learning what we don’t know. Which is why state biologists are studying the health of polar bear populations and their habitat.

As a result of these efforts, polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. Despite what some may wish you to believe, the polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been stable for 20 years.

I strongly believe that listing the bears under the Endangered Species Act is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.

Despite emotional arguments to the contrary, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act. And there is no evidence that polar bears are being mismanaged through existing international agreements and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.

We’re not against protecting species under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska has supported listings of other species, such as the Aleutian Canada goose. The law worked as it should — the species was near extinction, and a recovery plan resulted in goose recovery and delisting under the act.

Listing the goose — then taking the bird off the list — was based on science. However, the possible listing of a currently healthy species such as the polar bear is based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. The listing is simply not justified.

What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven impacts of climate change.

The group asking for the polar bear listing recently disclosed that its goal is to force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases. Such limits should be adopted through an open process where environmental issues are weighed against economic and social needs, and where scientists debate and present information that policymakers need to make the best decisions. But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues.

There is little doubt that the world’s climate is warming. I established a Cabinet-level task force to address the effects of climate change in Alaska, charging the task force with developing recommendations to deal with the effects of climate change.

Climate change is a serious issue. I urge all Alaskans to become involved by offering comments and suggestions to the task force for constructive action by the state. Listing the polar bear as threatened is the wrong way to get to the right answer.

---

Sarah Palin is governor of Alaska.

Printed in The New York Times, The Seattle Post Intelligencer and International Herald Tribune

 

Governor Palin Responds to New Climate and Polar Bear Studies

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin responded to nine new reports on climate and polar bears released by the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) in support of a petition to list polar bears under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The State’s review of these reports by a wide range of scientists found nothing new to change the State’s previous conclusion. There is insufficient information to justify a listing of the polar bear as threatened under the ESA at this time.

The State says the new USGS reports show no evidence that polar bear populations across their world-wide range are unhealthy. There is evidence that polar bears are currently well-managed and have dramatically increased over 30 years through international agreements and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The State recognizes that a recent warming trend in portions of the Arctic is occurring, but the causes and effects are more diverse, complex and scientifically debated than is recognized in the USGS reports. As a result, the link between projected warming and the polar bear population in 50 years is highly speculative and questionable. Polar bears survived prior warming periods greater than the current one. The State notes that numerous respected scientists around the world question the forecasting methodologies used to project impacts to polar bears.

“The listing of a currently healthy species based entirely on highly speculative and uncertain climate and ice modeling and equally uncertain and speculative modeling of possible impacts on a species would be unprecedented,” Governor Palin stated in a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne.

The State believes that conservation goals could be better met through increased research and monitoring on climate change and polar bears. Listing polar bears under ESA could actually harm many of the existing and highly successful polar bear conservation measures under several international agreements and treaties. Listing could also result in the loss of other options that are useful in assuring continued viability of the species.

“As a trustee of this resource, Alaska stands ready to assist you through this important decision,” Governor Palin reminded Secretary Kempthorne. “We share the goal of maintaining a healthy and well-managed polar bear population.” On the Web:

New Polar Bear Findings - 9 recent studies
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar%5Fbears/

Source: SitNews

Polar bear worries unproven, expert says

Last Updated: Monday, May 15, 2006 | 3:44 PM ET
CBC News
Polar bears are becoming the poster-species for “doomsday prophets” of climate change, even though groups pushing for higher protection for the animals don’t have the evidence to prove their case, Nunavut’s manager of wildlife says.

“It makes a great story because it is simple and intuitive,” Dr. Mitch Taylor wrote in a 12-page document for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s review of the animal’s status. “However, the reality is much more complex.”

The USFWS review follows a petition from the Centre for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and other groups, who want polar bears upgraded to “threatened” on the U.S. Endangered Species list.

The groups say the animals’ population is suffering because of climate change, development and contaminants.

While Taylor said it’s expected that climate change will affect all species worldwide, that shouldn’t mean governments should rush to list every one as “threatened”.

Delving into the patterns of polar bear eating habits, ice floe loss, population densities and other issues, Taylor downplays the overall impact of climate change.

“No evidence was presented by the proponents and no evidence exists that suggests that both bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions,” he said. “Polar bears have persisted through many similar climate cycles.”

He said no one is suggesting that climate change isn’t affecting some polar bear populations, but noted there are 20 polar bear populations in the world and each one should be considered independently.

“The references listed [in his document] suggest that each polar bear population is unique with respect to seasonal cycles, sea ice conditions, prey base, summer-retreat areas, and fidelity,” he wrote.

“The 20 existing populations of polar bears are not all identical to the two populations that constitute the majority of the examples in the petition.

Taylor says many of the groups filing the petition have a long history of opposing hunting.

He said Canada has one of the best management systems for polar bears in the world, allowing Inuit to hunt in a sustainable manner and generating $3.5 million in Canada through sport hunts and the sale of hides.

“At present, the polar bear is one of the best-managed of the large Arctic mammals,” Taylor said. “If all the Arctic nations continue to abide by the terms and intent of the Polar Bear Agreement, the future of polar bears is secure.”

Taylor noted the estimated number of bears on the Boothia Peninsula, 1,300 kilometres west of Iqaluit, has actually increased to 1,500 animals from 900. He said environmental groups don’t seem to want to take information like that into consideration when pressing their case.

“Life may be good, but good news about polar bear populations does not seem to be welcomed by the Centre for Biological Diversity,” he said.

« Previous Page