Alaska Will Sue Over Polar Bear Listing - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Bunz · #1 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008

Lets call this one Coolest Governor Ever Part 3.

I support this issue. The constant struggle to not be treated like a colony of the lower 48. Everyone likes to complain and sneer Alaska about pork barrel spending and the oil wealth generated etc etc etc. But want our resources and have a constant say in stuff that has no effect outside of Alaska.
Polar bears are doing just fine, let the state manage them as it should have always been.

Quote:

The State of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday.

She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts.

Palin argued there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.

Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, Palin said.

The announcement drew a strong response from the primary author of the listing petition.

"She's either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming," said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Alaska deserves better."

Siegel said it was unconscionable for Palin to ignore overwhelming evidence of global warming's threat to sea ice, the polar bear's habitat.

"Even the Bush administration can't deny the reality of global warming," she said. "The governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this."

As marine mammals, polar bears are regulated by the federal government, not the state. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne last week made the listing decision and said it was based on three findings.

"First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival. Second, the polar bear's sea-ice habitat has dramatically melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to further recede in the future," he said.

Summer sea ice last year shrank to a record low, about 1.65 million square miles, nearly 40 percent less than the long-term average between 1979 and 2000.

Polar bears rely on sea ice for hunting ringed seals. In recent years, summer sea ice has receded far beyond the relatively shallow, biologically rich waters of the outer continental shelf, giving polar bears less time in prime feeding areas.

The bear's numbers rebounded after the 1970s, but conservation groups contend that was in response to measures taken to stop over-hunting.

Polar bear researchers fear recent effects of the loss of sea ice on Alaska polar bear populations. A 2006 study by the U.S. Geological Survey concluded that far fewer polar bear cubs in the Beaufort Sea were surviving and that adult males weighed less and had smaller skulls than those captured and measured two decades previously -- trends similar to observations in Canada's western Hudson Bay before a population drop.

A U.S. Geological Survey study completed last year as part of the petition process predicted polar bears in Alaska could be wiped out by 2050.

Kempthorne said last week he considered every point Palin made, and rejected them. However, he sought to limit the economic effect of the decision with the inclusion of "administrative guidance" that said the listing would not be used to create back-door climate policy outside the normal system of political accountability. He said that the threat to polar bears did not come from the petroleum industry.

In response, conservation groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council are trying to overturn Kempthorne's administrative actions and seek limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Palin and other state officials called arbitrary a decision to list a healthy species judging by what they deem uncertain modeling of future climate change and unproven long-term impact of any future climate change on the species.

State Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin said it could have wide economic effects.

Americano · #2 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008

The article states polar bears are marine animals, a federal responsibility. Her concern is obviously for oil/gas development interests, not polar bears, so the lawsuit appears to be a special interest vehicle supported by politicians.

erikvv · #3 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

The article states polar bears are marine animals, a federal responsibility. Her concern is obviously for oil/gas development interests, not polar bears, so the lawsuit appears to be a special interest vehicle supported by politicians.

You can look at most issues and find a way to call them "special interests". There are always those who benefit more than others.

Americano · #4 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikvv

You can look at most issues and find a way to call them "special interests". There are always those who benefit more than others.

When politicians use finite natural resources to buy votes there's no other possible outcome.

Bunz · #5 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

The article states polar bears are marine animals, a federal responsibility. Her concern is obviously for oil/gas development interests, not polar bears, so the lawsuit appears to be a special interest vehicle supported by politicians.

The reason the push for statehood happened in Alaska, was to have more of a say in managing the state's resources including its wildlife. When it comes to federal management of polar bears, that is something that would otherwise be managed by the state.
Polar bear numbers are higher now than in the last 30 years apparently, and the science that has justified this listing is questionable. You may be under the impression it is only an effort to protect oil and gas, but it is really about state sovereignty. But at the very least, you should point out that listing it as threatened is a special interest move in the first place.

Americano · #6 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunz

The reason the push for statehood happened in Alaska, was to have more of a say in managing the state's resources including its wildlife. When it comes to federal management of polar bears, that is something that would otherwise be managed by the state.
Polar bear numbers are higher now than in the last 30 years apparently, and the science that has justified this listing is questionable. You may be under the impression it is only an effort to protect oil and gas, but it is really about state sovereignty. But at the very least, you should point out that listing it as threatened is a special interest move in the first place.

As polar bears are also native to Canada I wouldn't think a US state would have much clout in their overall management as it can't sign mutual agreements. I'd think hunters and energy interests would drool over state control. I was in Wyoming a couple of times during the '80s oil boom there and watched rig workers shooting deer from platforms and leaving them for the coyotes. States are not the best judges of environmental management.

Bunz · #7 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

As polar bears are also native to Canada I wouldn't think a US state would have much clout in their overall management as it can't sign mutual agreements. I'd think hunters and energy interests would drool over state control. I was in Wyoming a couple of times during the '80s oil boom there and watched rig workers shooting deer from platforms and leaving them for the coyotes. States are not the best judges of environmental management.

A few things, there are polar bears in Canada as you point out, and in Russia. Alaska is the only place in the United States where they live. Alaska already has strict protections on them. Including more or less no hunting them. One can sport hunt for the Nanuuq in Canada and Russia. We have no jurisdiction over thier management of them.

But also, your mutual agreement notion is not quite true. There are existing "treaties" when it comes to commercial fishing salmon that spawn in rivers that empty into the ocean in Alaska, but whose headwaters are in Canada. The Yukon and Stikine Rivers are existing examples of this working quite well.

The Feds acted in a heavy handed way on this one. Short of ending global warming tomorrow, those bears are the best protected bears on the planet.

Tautog · #8 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008

When I first heard about the polar bear being added to the threatened species list, , all I could think of was that it was a political move, I didn't even really think about how it may impact Alaska's oil industry. It seems rediculas to put an animal on the endangered list because of what might happen in the future, especially if it has a negative impact on a states economy. Hopefully the lawsuit is a success.

Bunz · #9 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tautog

When I first heard about the polar bear being added to the threatened species list, , all I could think of was that it was a political move, I didn't even really think about how it may impact Alaska's oil industry. It seems rediculas to put an animal on the endangered list because of what might happen in the future, especially if it has a negative impact on a states economy. Hopefully the lawsuit is a success.

It will have an impact on the O/G industry for sure, and causing further raise in prices.
As for the listing, the is the first one that was listed due to global climate change. I am up in the air on that issue to this point. But the management tools in place have worked very effectively, increasing poppulations over the last 30 years. The issue here is sea ice, and sea ice cant be fixed by man at this point. Habitat destruction through timber and mineral extraction and urban sprawl I can understand. The other big issue is poaching for other threatened species. Poaching is absolutely minimal .

Keep in mind that most Alaskans enjoy knowing there are polar bears in Alaska and they are protected more in America than any other place they live. The current methods put in place have proven to be adequate in dealing with the direct threats on the species that man has considerable say over.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode