On Nov. 15 the Daily News published a story ("Alaska officials pan endangered species law") about a forum at which state officials expressed dissatisfaction with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In reading the story, it appears that little new information came out of the forum. Unfortunately, many of the quotes in the Nov. 15 piece reflect, at best, a misunderstanding of the law, and at worst are not supported by fact.
Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was the target of several of these errors, I'd like to set the record straight.
Much of the misinformation reported focused on the 2008 listing of the polar bear under the ESA. For example, assertions made at the forum that polar bear populations are healthy and stable are not supported by science.
Specifically, the International Polar Bear Specialist Group (which is made up of the most renowned and respected polar bear scientists from around the world) lists eight polar bear populations as declining and only one as increasing. Climate change and resulting sea ice loss have detrimentally affected bears in several of the most-studied populations, including that in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska's coast.
Assertions that risks to polar bears caused by climate change are "speculative" and that "models projecting sea ice loss remain untested" are also contrary to the facts. The climate forecasts used in listing polar bears were developed by a panel of the world's leading climate scientists from NOAA, NASA, and academia, and have been tested against observed sea ice loss. When compared against actual sea ice declines over the past 30 years, these forecasts have continually underestimated the speed and severity at which the Arctic environment is changing.
The ESA listing used the best information available to consider ways in which polar bears might avoid population declines due to sea ice loss, such as by spending more time on land and adapting to new food sources. The conclusion reached by biologists then has since been reinforced by new studies: There isn't enough food on land to sustain healthy polar bear populations.
Polar bears are fundamentally reliant on sea ice as a platform to access their primary prey, ice seals. Declines in availability of sea ice translate directly to reduced foraging opportunities, regardless of whether polar bears are "at a maximum capacity within their range."
To sum up: Projected sea ice loss based on tested models and observed relationships between sea ice loss and declines in body condition, survival and reproduction formed the foundation of the listing decision. Subsequent studies have indicated that the projections used were in fact conservative, and the recent court case on this very issue supported the scientific analyses and upheld the listing determination.
Critical habitat remains largely misunderstood. Designation of critical habitat doesn't affect land ownership or establish new conservation areas. It simply requires federal agencies that undertake, fund or permit activities that may affect critical habitat to consult with the service to ensure that such activities don't "adversely modify or destroy" critical habitat. Through that consultation process, we work with developers to minimize impacts to habitat as projects progress. Rather than viewing industry as a threat to polar bears, we consider it a valued conservation partner. In fact, encounters between polar bears and oil and gas operations have been successfully addressed since the early 1990s under the Marine Mammal Protection Act's Incidental Take Regulations.
Furthermore, there has never been a single instance of a land ownership change or "land grab" resulting from ESA listings anywhere in the United States.
The work that the service has done in Alaska to administer the ESA has been driven by science, peer reviewed and upheld by the courts. I understand that political speech isn't necessarily bound by the same rigid guidelines that surround scientific publication, but even political speech should, I think, have a basis in fact.
Geoffrey L. Haskett is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Alaska regional director.
By GEOFFREY L. HASKETT