Appeals court protects polar bears in Alaska
To the praise of conservationists nationwide, a federal appeals court has upheld a federal plan to protect 187,000 square miles of Alaska鈥檚 northern coast, a vast habitat for vanishing polar bears.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Monday a lower court victory for the state of Alaska and fossil fuel lobbyists, who sued US Fish and Wildlife Services for its Polar Bear Recovery Plan, which was drafted six years ago. The plaintiffs argued that the federal agency overstepped its boundaries and that its oversight was too extensive.
According to conservation scientists, this reversal is a big win. Scientists say that if global warming trends continue, the world鈥檚 polar bear population will diminish by a third in the next 35 years.
鈥� for polar bears and the issue of climate change,鈥� Brendan Cummings, a lawyer for the Center of Biological Diversity, told Bloomberg Business.
鈥淏ut it鈥檚 not an absolute prohibition on activity ...鈥� he added. 鈥淎nd as a practical matter, the US Fish and Wildlife Service rarely sees a project they don鈥檛 like.鈥�
Soon after the polar bear was designated as an endangered species in 2008, Fish and Wildlife Services drew up a plan that involves protecting an offshore region of Alaska鈥檚 North Slope 鈥� the sea ice on which polar bears hunt and migrate. As of then, the population of polar bears in the disputed regions fell to under 1,000.
But in 2013, the state of Alaska and the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, as well as a coalition of Alaskan indigenous groups, sued the federal government, calling the plan an overreach because FWS lacked scientific evidence that proves certain areas of the 187,000 square miles are active habitats of polar bears.
In turn, the FWS argued that while it had restricted information on how or whether polar bears lived in those regions, it鈥檚 scientific knowledge that the animals are highly mobile, traveling up to 50 miles inland. Wildlife proponents also argued that it was than to neglect the species鈥� safety under doubt.
Meanwhile, the state鈥檚 oil production has been declining since the late 1980s, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Rates have gone from 2 million barrels a day in 1988 to about 500,000 a day last year.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska said in a statement that Monday鈥檚 ruling will jeopardize the state鈥檚 oil-dependent economy.
鈥淭his never should have happened in the first place. It is an abuse of the well-intentioned Endangered Species Act that will result in serious consequences for ,鈥� she said.
鈥淭he most up-to date-research and traditional knowledge indicate that polar bear numbers are strong and healthy across Alaska鈥檚 Arctic. It is clear once again that decision makers outside of Alaska are overreaching and do not understand the impact this will have on those who live, work and raise families in the Arctic.鈥�
But the three-judge appeals panel rejected the claim that the FWS didn鈥檛 take into account the economic impacts of its plan, ruling that the 鈥淔WS鈥檚 designation of polar bear habitat was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise in contravention of applicable law.鈥�
Under this decision, oil companies will still be able to look for oil in parts of the Arctic Ocean and native communities will be able to fish and hunt for subsistence in the disputed area.
