Now that the polar bear is about to receive over 128 million acres of critical habitat designation, the state of Alaska is taking legal action to challenge the decision.
Following the announcement that threatened polar bears are set to receive over 128 million acres of critical habitat designation, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell and Attorney General Dan Sullivan responded by taking legal action against federal protection of polar bears.
Echoing the previous administration’s anti-environment, anti-wildlife policies, Gov. Parnell said via ktva.com that designating critical habitat would impede “resource development” (i.e., exploratory oil drilling) in Alaska.
Currently, some are attempting to improperly use the Endangered Species Act to shut down resource development.
And Sullivan fears that critical habitat designation for the polar bear will turn Alaska into “the world’s largest zoo”, while referring to climate change as a “legal theory”.
The long term ramifications, we believe of this legal theory gaining wide spread acceptance could potentially preclude resource developments and economic throughout much of our state. In essence, making Alaska the world’s largest zoo with no additional benefit to our wildlife.
While the polar bear received listing as threatened species in May 2008, the species is still up against a Bush-era exemption for the fossil-fuels industry. Fortunately, the regulation is currently being challenged in court by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace.
In a Center for Biological Diversity release, Greenpeace campaigner Melanie Duchin pointed out that in order for the polar bear protections to be successful, greenhouse emissions and global warming must be limited.
Designating polar bear critical habitat is a good first step toward protecting this species. However, as long as the secretary of the interior maintains that he can do nothing about greenhouse emissions and global warming, protections for the polar bear will ultimately be ineffective.
According to attorney Rebecca Noblin with the Center for Biological Diversity, the polar bear population is already in decline as a result of sea ice loss.
Thanks to the protection of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, a lot of the harvest has been curbed and the population did go up over the last 20-25 years but it is, now due to the loss of sea ice, in decline …
We are certainly disappointed to see that the state of Alaska is continuing its anti-science policy.
Not only is the Parnell administration seeking removal of Endangered Species Act protections for the polar bear, it is urging the federal government to give Alaska more control over which species are considered threatened or endangered.
It looks like the Governor of Alaska is (still) determined to turn one of the country’s greatest wildlife treasures into a toxic industrial zone.
For more information and to learn how you can help protect the polar bear, visit the Center for Biological Diversity.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
About Rhishja Cota-Larson
It is my understanding that the polar bear population is currently at its highest recorded level, or somewhere around 20,000 bears. This is up from somewhere around 13,000 bears in the 1960′s-1970′s.
Why would we need to place them on the endangered species list if this is the case?
Eric -
Thank you for your question. Endangered species protections are not only for existing populations, but to ensure that these animals have a future.
There is detailed information about classification criteria on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species website at http://www.iucnredlist.org/
- – Rhishja