Notable quotes on listing of polar bears as threatened
Published Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!
The U.S. Interior Department on Wednesday announced it was listing the polar bear as a threatened species because of the disappearance of Arctic sea ice caused by global warming.
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said the listing was based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. The proposed ESA special 4(d) rule is open for a 60 day public comment period.
The decision raised concerns among state lawmakers that it could hamper oil and natural gas activity on the North Slope. Here are statements from Alaska's congressional delegation, local officials and environmental organizations about the listing:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska
Related Audio
Sen. Lisa Murkowski on polar bear listing
“I can’t express how extremely disappointed I am that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has chosen to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. I believe it is grossly premature, even with qualifications, to recommend this action based on highly variable climate change models and projected impacts of loss of summer sea ice on a currently healthy population.
“I am concerned that a threatened listing could have serious ramifications for the State of Alaska and the development of all of our natural resources. I certainly don’t believe a threatened listing should affect the construction of an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, or of any other oil and gas projects, since there is zero evidence that any such project has harmed bear populations in the least. Clearly we want to promote the use of clean-burning natural gas to reduce carbon emissions.”
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska
Related Audio
Sen. Ted Stevens on polar bear listing
“I am disappointed and disturbed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to weaken the Endangered Species Act by listing the polar bear as threatened despite the steady increase in the species’ population. Scientists have observed that there are now three times as many polar bears in the Arctic than there were in the 1970s.
“Never before has a species been listed as endangered or threatened while occupying its entire geographic range.
“This decision was made without any research demonstrating dangerously low population levels in polar bears, but rather on speculation regarding how ice levels will affect Arctic wildlife. Worse yet, today’s decision cannot and will not do anything to reverse sea ice decline.
“Instead, this action by the Fish and Wildlife Service sets a dangerous precedent with far-reaching social and economic ramifications. It opens the door for many other Arctic species to be listed, which would severely hamper Alaska’s ability to tap its vast natural resources. Reinterpreting the Endangered Species Act in this way is an unequivocal victory for extreme environmentalists who want to block all development in our state."
U.S.Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, ranking member of House Natural Resources Committee:
“This decision represents an assault on sound science and common sense. It is hard to fully blame the Secretary for this decision, which seriously threatens the economy and freedoms of Alaskans and all Americans. He has been compelled to make a premature decision by a Clinton-appointed federal judge in Oakland, Calif., who is presiding over a lawsuit brought by radical environmental groups.
“However, with this decision, Secretary Kempthorne has determined that opportunities to continue to explore and drill in Alaska will not be impacted, and neither will resource and economic development opportunities for Alaskans and Alaska Natives. He is seeking to administer the listing in the most practical and sound manner as possible.
“Unfortunately, my fear is that radical environmental groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity, will file numerous frivolous lawsuits to stop development and traditional activities the Alaska Natives have conducted for thousands of years.”
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin:
Related Audio
Gov. Sarah Palin on polar bear listing
“We offer the substantial expertise of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to assist in the protection of polar bears, and in minimizing negative impacts on the people of Alaska and on important activities elsewhere in the country.
“Alaskans take our public trust responsibilities for our resources very seriously, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the federal agencies to address the conservation needs of these magnificent animals.
"We will continue to take the steps necessary to ensure that polar bears continue to thrive for generations to come.”
North Slope Borough Mayor Edward S. Itta:
“I appreciate the Secretary of the Interior’s efforts to thoroughly review the latest science and to incorporate local concerns in the process. I agree that the government needs to take action to slow the melting of the polar ice cap. Unfortunately, this is not an effective action.
“My fear is that this will lull many Americans into believing that now we’re protecting the bears. The problem is that polar bears are not endangered by human activity in the Arctic, and the ESA listing only restricts activities up here. So it quite possibly will interfere with our Inupiat subsistence hunting and fishing, which does not get at the problem but does impact us.”
Itta said he will work with federal agencies to limit impacts on North Slope residents and their traditional subsistence activities, “but the Endangered Species Act is a very big hammer, and it could easily land on us even if the agencies don’t want it to.”
Cindy Shogun, executive director, Alaska Wilderness League
“While we don’t yet know the implications of this decision, we are glad to see that Secretary Kempthorne is finally taking steps to protect this imperiled species. However, the most important steps are yet to come. We now ask that all oil and gas related activities in prime polar bear habitat – the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas – be suspended until the Department of Interior can guarantee vital protections for the polar bear.
“The truth of the matter is that the polar bear won’t survive just because we are acknowledging that it is threatened. What matters for the bear is that quick, effective and significant steps are taken to protect its Arctic habitat. That means keeping oil and gas activities away from the imperiled bear. (The Department of Interior’s) Minerals Management Service itself has said that there is a 40 percent chance of a large oil spill likely to result from the latest lease sale in the Chukchi Sea, and there are currently no oil recovery technologies that work in the icy conditions that exist there.”
Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity
“This decision is a watershed event because it has forced the Bush administration to acknowledge global warming's brutal impacts. It’s not too late to save the polar bear, and we'll keep fighting to ensure that the polar bear gets the help it needs through the full protections of the Endangered Species Act. The administration's attempts to reduce protection to the polar bear from greenhouse gas emissions are illegal and won't hold up in court.”
Andrew Wetzler, director of the Endangered Species Project at Natural Resources Defense Council:
"The polar bear is already on thin ice. Protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is a major step forward, but the Bush Administration has proposed using loopholes in the law to allow the greatest threat to the polar bear--global warming pollution--to continue unabated.
“If the key threats to the polar bear are not addressed soon, zoos will be the only place our grandchildren will be able to see a polar bear.”
Melanie Duchin, global warming campaigner for Greenpeace USA in Alaska:
“The administration's inclusion of this language exempts the impact of global warming on the polar bear and would gut any protections the ruling would have provided.
“Global warming threatens polar bears with extinction, so to exempt global warming pollution from the formula for protecting the species violates the spirit and intent of the ESA.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
It will be interesting to see how the environmental groups use this to curtail hunting and/or natural resource development on the North Slope and elsewhere.
Under an incoming McCain or Obama administration, my bet is that they will be very successful.
The real question is who will be truly "endangered" 5 years from now: Polar Bears......or Alaska's people.
This is an unacceptablemove by our government. Better start packing my bags we are going to have to move out of Alaska.
What's unacceptable is that the mayor of the North Slope thinks the government should do something about the melting ice. What exactly should they do?? Make ice and haul it in?
I can't stand this craddle to the grave mentality where people think the government should take care of this and that.
TundraRebellion, my guess is that 5 years from now (as we are sitting in our cold, dark homes in the dead of an Alaskan winter)environmentalists expect us to be warmed (in our hearts) by the fact that we will have 'saved' an animal from extinction by global warming. Huh? What stupidity!
Wait a minute, has anyone told China yet? Oh well, I'm sure they will be more than willing to help save the polar bear, too! All they need to do is stop consuming and manufacturing and burning massive amounts of fossil fuels and essentially bring a halt to their booming economy. The joke's on us!!!
The one thing that is paramount appears to be beyond the capacity of our politicians to voice. Namely, that villages need the right to shoot nuisance polar bears. Relocation does not work since they are great navigators and will return time and time again to known sources of food. Just recently, for instance, a polar bear was shot in Fort Yukon, because he went there in search of human food. To protect them means that Alaskans will no longer have the right to manage their own wildlife. If the citizens are to be the owners of the state's resources they should object to this interference from outside. This is nothing less than a takeover by the feds again. And last time they tried to divide our people by making subsistence hunting a racial issue instead of a regional management issue. Tony Knowles had many faults, but this is one issue he saw clearly and I applaud him for his efforts. The feds want to say that Alaska is inept and incapable of managing our own resources, whether they be alive or fossilized. And our current delegation, in years past, allowed the feds to abrogate our statehood act by agreeing to a 50-50 split instead of the 90-10 used to entice us into statehood. Not to mention that they are collectively (except for Lisa) facing possible prison terms. So I am finding it difficult to imagine just who will speak up for us? Even our governor whom I respect and admire, has just issued a statement which puts us immediately subordinate to the powers that be 6000 miles away. I think the battle may already be lost, but there are some of us who will feel a real sense of loss at watching justice thwarted once again here. If we really want to assert our rights to resource development in a responsible fashion it needs to include all our resources and not just those which have a high market value. Maybe I am being idealistic, but then again so were those who decided to invest in the Permanent Fund so we could preserve our options in the future. I am sure they would not have wanted to allow the feds to make a takeover bid (and it is just a bid at this point - nothing has yet been set in legislation) without considering the legal authorities ensconced in the formation of our statehood and the rights due our sovereignty. I don't see anyone with the stature to stand up for us at this point, and I believe this bemoans the decline of our state as a separate entity, as we become homogenized into the ever-increasing federal USA government which seeks to tell us about every aspect of how to live our lives.
Well looks like Alaskan Natives have to do something. Like use the polar bears as fuel to heat there homes. Since where no the only ones that have polar bears but environmentalists get all I rate if there gone. Like I said before let them go hug one and comfort them. Then let then take two adults into there home since their so considered. There wild animals and "wild" goes with some risk. I remember all "Indians" where considered to be "wild" also. Where where then you?
They might have forgot that they are predators that prey on seals and fish so I remember the seals where once endangered then we should have got rid of the polar bears. See the circle. While gas is over $4.00 in an oil producing state that's just sad. Californian's and environmentalist have to where there swimsuits up here for a winter then ask them if they'd like to try a polar bear coat on.
There is good news tho all the polar bear pelts have no just skyrocketed in value! Polar bear meat well be more valuable the Oil of course dried smoked then vacuum sealed. I can see one ounce of Polar Bear Jerky being worth more then gas prices. It'll be worth $10 per ounce smoked jerky. Don't believe me sell some on E-bay. Then sell a pelt you've been saving. You'll see a renewable financial resource thank you environmentalist where's my gun!!!! Then get ready to ship it anywhere to on E-bay under polar bear!
The Governor's comments are weak. Is she pandering to the Green-side to shore up her numbers?
Too bad she is more interested in her popularity, than fighting for Alaska's economic future.
But what should one expect from an ex-TV journalist.
This just goes to show how weak our representatives have become next to the radical environmentals.
I am waiting for the anti-gun lobby to hook up with the radical environmentalists, then man will drop down on the food chain.
Thanks again to all the WEAK represenatives from Alaska.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
Where can I get one of those spiffy polar bear costumes?
It is amazing to believe that listing the polar bear as an endangered species will automatically create more pack ice for them to live on. Figure that one out???? It is just another way for the environmentalists to lock up any chance of drilling for more oil or natural gas in ANWR. What will this do for our gas pipeline? Yes, pack ice is diminishing but listing the polar bear as an endangered species is not the answer. We are pole-vaulting over mouse turds.
What rejectionists like nightshade and tundrarebellion should understand is that this ruling was the result of sound science, the application of our legal political system, and that it was a peer-reviewed decision.
To make that easier for you both to understand - that means it was done according to the established laws of our country. Period.
And that's the American way.
Listing the PB was the absolute right decision, and curtailing hunting might certainly become the next necessary step to ensure the long-term conservation of the species; unfortunately, some 'Yosemite Sam' type yokels still won't understand that ensuring a sustainable population balance is necessary to keep all Arctic ecosystems in check.
Reduction in a pinnicle predator species has a trickle-down effect on all other animals in the food-cycle.
That's something that Alaskan politicians like Murkowski and Young (and many readers on this thread, apparently) simply don't comprehend. If only enough Alaskans would be smart enough to elect intelligent, far-thinking (and arguably, the better educated Democrat) politicians, it wouldn't be necessary to have non-Alaskans push decisions like this from out-of-state.
Put down your guns and apply some cerebral energy to this issue, otherwise you'll simply be providing the kind of offspring that my kids can point at when they use the adjectives 'regressive redneck'.
That, or save us the irritation and just move out of this state.
VikingFour you are too smart and classy for us yokels. Maybe those'Yosemite Sam' type yokels who work here and create wealth should move out and leave it to you more educated. But then who would pay your salaries? Oh I know the yokels who work out side. The fact is that you educated elite can't work through the legislative process so you turn to the courts to force your will on us regressive rednecks.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.