I was pleased to see the recent editorial by Ms. Herrmann (Oct. 14) about the new climate-focused Arctic strategy. Alaska is the U.S. Arctic, and Ms. Herrmann rightly pointed out the previous lack of engagement by national leaders in this strategically and economically important region.
However, readers might have the impression that nothing has been happening on other fronts. In fact, the U.S. has been actively involved in circumpolar studies, monitoring, and collaboration for decades. Scientists, resource managers and Indigenous leaders continue to work on assessments of trends in resources, communities and the impacts of climate change. They work through organizations such as the North Pacific Marine Science Organization and working groups of the Arctic Council such as the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program and Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment. I encourage folks to check out their websites.
Congratulations on the successful efforts by our congressional representatives for new icebreakers — finally! — and establishing the Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies. Nonetheless, it is disconcerting that it takes a military threat to engage interest at the national level. I’m most familiar with the scientific community, and the recent break in contact with Russian colleagues has been painful on both sides, and a detriment toward efforts to understand Arctic ecosystems. I hope we can reengage in the future, beyond military necessities.
— Kathy Kuletz
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, retired
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.