POLAR BEARS: ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR SHAFTED?

Blame it on the Mets.

Earlier this year, the Department of the Interior (DOI, Interior) listed the polar bear as a threatened species. DOI did NOT, however, list it as an endangered species.

Environmentalists claim ice melts, induced by global climate change, make the polar bear an endangered species.

DOI says listing the polar bear as endangered would be tantamount to ruling on US climate policy and imply a need for the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not, Interior says, the right tool to do that.

Instead, DOI wants to change the ESA. Well, Section 7 of the ESA.

Dirk A. Kempthorne, Secretary, DOI: "The last time that these regulations were changed in a meaningful way was in 1986. Ronald Reagan was president, the New York Mets won the World Series…”

If only the Mets had played a little better ball. They haven’t won even a league championship since President Bush was elected. (But they're edging out in front in the National League East right now. Does that imply something good is coming for the polar bear? Can't know 'til October - or would that be November?)

DOI’s claim is that much has been learned in the intervening quarter century about how Interior can best work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish policy on endangered species and that learning should be incorporated into ESA before DOI makes its final ruling on the polar bears.

Kempthorne, DOI: "Our intent is to reduce the number of unnecessary consultations under the ESA. We need to focus our efforts where they will do the most good. It's important to use our time and resources to protect the most vulnerable species…"

Listings of endangered species have fallen off dramatically during the Bush administration. (Ford admin: 15/year; Carter: 32/year; Reagan: 32/year; Bush I: 58/year; Clinton: 65/year; Bush II: 8/year)

It isn’t hard to see what’s going on here. On Wall Street, it’s called end-of-session profit-taking. The Bush administration is leaving town. The last thing its patrons would want it to leave behind is a pronouncement the next administration might interpret as further grounds for action against global climate change.

A sincere concern for the polar bear would most certainly place its status ahead of the need for clarifying a part of a law. Fix the law, that's fine. But what is the priority, the law or the polar bear?

It may or may not be as bad as some environmentalists believe. Cathy Duvall, Political Director, Sierra Club: "[This is the Bush administration's] latest effort to gut one of our nation's most important environmental laws . . . If these regulations had been in place 20 years ago, we would not have brought the bald eagle back from extinction."

DOI says it is improving the law. Secretary Kempthorne: "The existing regulations create unnecessary conflicts and delays. The proposed regulations...should be a process that is less time-consuming and a more effective use of our resources…"

The normally fairly reliable U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) sides with DOI on this.

H. Dale Hall, Director, FWS: "In 1986, our existing rules made sense. At that time, very few federal action agencies had any in-depth expertise with Section 7 and listed species, but that is not the case today. We are not being good stewards of our resources when we pursue consultation in situations where the potential effects to a species are either unlikely, incapable of being meaningfully evaluated, wholly beneficial, or pose only a remote risk of causing jeopardy to the species or its habitat…"

Given all that is known about the plight of the polar bear, it is hard to believe Director Hall’s characterization of it as “…only a remote risk of causing jeopardy to the species or its habitat…" But this is the Bush administration’s FWS and it is coming down to the wire on the administration’s race to reverse whatever it can and postpone what it cannot reverse.

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) doubts the necessity of rewriting the law right now. John Kostyack, executive director (wildlife conservation/global warming), NWF: "With striking arrogance, the administration apparently believes that it can succeed now with this discredited agenda because the American people and Congress are distracted by a presidential campaign and other pressing business. Conservationists must mobilize to prevent the administration from succeeding with this stealth attack on America's most important wildlife law…"

Either way the Bush administration wins because the rules revision process will delay action and fail to provide even the most meager protection for the bears.

Maybe, though, the Mets will continue their current winning ways. What they need is a slugger, somebody who can hit like - well - a bear.

Possibly not endangered, just adrift. (click to enlarge)

Kempthorne’s proposed minor changes signal new Endangered Species Act battle
Nick Snow, August 15, 2008 (Oil & Gas Journal)

WHO
Dirk A. Kempthornem, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior; H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); Cathy Duvall, Political Director, Sierra Club; John Kostyack, executive director (wildlife conservation/global warming), National Wildlife Federation (NWF)

WHAT
Instead of ruling on the status of the Alaskan polar bear as an endangered species, DOI want to update Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which governs federal agencies' responsibilities.

click to enlarge

WHEN
- May: DOI’s Secretary Kempthorne labeled Alaska’s polar bears as “threatened.”
- August: DOI’s Secretary Kempthorne announced the need for “minor” changes to the Endangered Species Act.
- 1986: Last ESA regulations update.
- 2000: Mets won the pennant but lost the World Series to the Yankees.
- 1986: Mets won the NL pennant and beat the Boston Red Sox in the World Series.

WHERE
The DOI ruling was on polar bears in Alaska.

WHY
- According to environmental groups opposed to the changes, they represent what business and industry groups have unsuccessfully sought before.
- DOI says its proposal is designed to make it easier to understand how and when ESA regulations apply according to current practices.
- DOI wants regulations defining and clarifying required consultations between it and FWS and NOAA.
- DOI wants regulations based on experience in implementing and judicial decisions regarding the ESA by FWS, NOAA and other federal agencies, states and property owners so DOI can better handle the new challenges of global climate change.
- DOI also wants timelines limiting inter-agency consultation, allowing a cut-off after 60 days if a further 60-day request is not made.

click to enlarge

QUOTES
- US Interior Secretary Dirk A. Kempthorne: "The last time that these regulations were changed in a meaningful way…[gasoline] was under $1/gal. Since then, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has gained a great deal of experience managing endangered species and the courts have provided extensive guidance concerning the consultation process…"
- John Kostyack, executive director of wildlife conservation and global warming, National Wildlife Federation: "Do not be fooled when the administration claims it is merely tweaking the law. The cumulative impact of these changes equals a full blown attack on America's premier conservation law. We owe it to future generations to stop this attack and continue our legacy of protecting wildlife on the brink of extinction…"
- FWS Director H. Dale Hall: "We need to have the ability to put our efforts where they're needed. And there are consultations that take place on a daily basis across the country where we have to expend staff and our energies on actions that we know don't have a negative effect on the species, but under the current regulations that agency is vulnerable if we don't complete a consultation…"