US Department of the Interior

Remarks By Secretary Kempthorne
Press Conference On Polar Bear Listing
May 14, 2008

Today I am listing the polar bear as a “threatened†species under the Endangered Species Act.

I believe this decision is most consistent with the record and legal standards of the Endangered Species Act – perhaps the least flexible law Congress has ever enacted.

I am also announcing that this listing decision will be accompanied by administrative guidance and a rule that defines the scope of impact my decision will have, in order to protect the polar bear while preventing unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States.

In taking these actions, I accept the recommendations of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Lyle Laverty, and the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale Hall. I also relied upon scientific analysis from the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, Dr. Mark Myers, and his team of scientists.

The ESA protects vulnerable animals with two classifications:

* An “endangered†species is in danger of extinction
* A “threatened†species is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future.

Today’s decision is based on three findings. First, sea ice is vital to polar bear survival. Second, the polar bear’s sea-ice habitat has dramatically melted in recent decades. Third, computer models suggest sea ice is likely to further recede in the future.

Because polar bears are vulnerable to this loss of habitat, they are, in my judgment, likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future - in this case 45 years.

Four graphics tell the story. These graphics are based on actual satellite photos taken over the past three decades. [TV screens show slides].

This first graphic shows the extent of arctic sea ice in September 1979.



The center of the slide is the North Pole. To the top of the slide is Russia, to the left is the northern Alaska coast and Canada and Greenland make up the bottom of the page.

The white is the multi-year ice --five years and older, which provides many critical habitat functions for polar bears. The light blue includes seasonal ice that can form and melt in one year, and is used for hunting. The dark blue is open water.

Here is what the sea ice looked like in September 1989



Here is what it looked like in September 1999.



Here is what it looked like in September 2007.



Remember, these are based on actual satellite photos.

The fact is that sea ice is receding in the arctic. Last year, arctic sea ice fell to the lowest level ever recorded by satellite, 39% lower than the long-term average from 1979 to 2000.

I asked the U.S. Geological Survey to project future sea ice and its relationship to polar bears. They produced a peer-reviewed analysis of computer models. All ten computer models projected declines in September sea ice, averaging 30% by the middle of this century.

This chart tells the story. This black line is the mean for all 10 models. It shows a continued steady decline in sea ice between 2008 and 2030.



The red line is what we have recorded up to now from actual observations of sea ice from 1950 through last September. As you can see, when we have looked at what is actually happening in the Arctic, we have found considerably less sea ice than the models are projecting.

My hope is that the projections from these models are wrong, and that sea ice does not further recede. But the best science available to me currently says that is not likely to happen in the next 45 years.

Although the population of bears has grown from a low of about 12,000 in the late 1960’s to approximately 25,000 today, our scientists advise me that computer modeling projects a significant population decline by the year 2050. This, in my judgment, makes the polar bear a threatened species – one likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.

I have accepted the science presented to me by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. I have also accepted these professionals’ best scientific and legal judgments that the loss of sea ice, not oil and gas development or subsistence activities, are the reason the polar bear is threatened.

Polar bears are already protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which has more stringent protections for polar bears than the Endangered Species Act does. The oil and gas industry has been operating in the Arctic for decades in compliance with these stricter protections. The Fish and Wildlife Service says that no polar bears have been killed due to encounters associated with oil and gas operations.

The most significant part of today’s decision is what President Bush observed about climate change policy last month. President Bush noted that “The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change.â€

The President is right. Listing the polar bear as threatened can reduce avoidable losses of polar bears. But it should not open the door to use the ESA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, and other sources. That would be a wholly inappropriate use of the Endangered Species Act. ESA is not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy.

The Endangered Species Act neither allows nor requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to make such interventions. The Service must articulate a causal connection between the effects of any action and loss of a polar bear. As the U.S. Geological Survey has advised me, the best scientific data available do not demonstrate significant impacts on individual polar bears from specific power plants, resource projects, government permits, or other indirect effects of activities in the lower 48 states that are potentially reviewable under the “consultation†requirements of the ESA.

The President is right when he says: “There is a right way and wrong way to approach reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The American people deserve an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution. Discussions with such far-reaching impact should not be left to unelected regulators and judges but should be debated openly and made by the elected representatives of the people they affect.â€

This Administration has taken real action to deal with the challenges of climate change. The Administration and the private sector plan to dedicate nearly a billion dollars to clean coal research and development. Our incentives for power production from wind and solar energy have helped to more than quadruple its use. We have worked with Congress to make available more than $40 billion in loan guarantees to support investments that will avoid, reduce, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions or air pollutants.

To make sure that the Endangered Species Act is not misused to regulate global climate change, I will take the following specific actions:

First, to provide clarity and certainty to those regulated under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service will propose what is known as a 4(d) rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards imposed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the Endangered Species Act with respect to the polar bear. This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way.

Second, Director Hall will issue guidance to Fish and Wildlife Service staff that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to listed species or their habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project, or government action.

Third, the Department will issue a Solicitor’s Opinion further clarifying these points.

Fourth, the ESA regulatory language needs to be clarified. We will propose common sense modifications to the existing regulation to provide greater certainty that this listing will not set backdoor climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.

I sought to reform the Endangered Species Act with Senators Harry Reid and Max Baucus and the late John Chaffee when I served in the United States Senate. I had lived with the consequences of ESA decisions as Governor of Idaho. As Secretary I have now experienced the reality that the current ESA is among the most inflexible laws Congress has passed. It prevents me, as Secretary, from taking into account economic conditions and adverse consequences in making listing decisions.

In many ways, the polar bear poses a unique conservation challenge. With most threatened and endangered species, we can identify a localized threat that we can seek to address. The threat to the polar bear, however, comes from global influences and their effect on sea ice.

While the legal standards under the ESA compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting. Any real solution requires action by all major economies for it to be effective. That’s why I’m taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn’t abused to make global warming policies.

Last week, I met with my Canadian counterpart John Baird, the Minister of Environment, and we signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the conservation and management of polar bear populations shared by the United States and Canada. I will also reach out to my counterparts in other arctic nations to further increase international polar bear cooperation and research.

Additionally, the Interior Department will continue to:

* Monitor polar bear populations and trends,
* Study polar bear feeding ecology,
* Work cooperatively with the Alaska Nanuuq Commission and the North Slope Borough for co-management of polar bears in Alaska,
* Provide technical assistance to the participants of the 1988 North Slope Borough Inuvialuit (In new vee al u it) Game Council Agreement for the conservation of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea region and monitor the effects of oil and gas operations in the Beaufort Sea region.

This has been a difficult decision. But in light of the scientific record and the restraints of the inflexible law that guides me, I believe it was the only decision I could make.

And from SCI...

For Immediate Release
May 14, 2008

SCI Condemns U.S. Fish and Wildlife Decision to List Polar Bear as Threatened Under ESA

Washington, D.C. - Safari Club International President Dennis Anderson today condemned the decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list all populations of the polar bear as “threatened†under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). “Because of the uncertainty surrounding the extent of climate change and its impact on the polar bear, the listing was not warranted under ESA standards,†said Anderson.

Currently, polar bear population numbers are at or near all-time highs. Most populations in Canada are either stable or increasing. The FWS is relying on speculative computer modeling and limited professional judgment to conclude nonetheless that the polar bear will be threatened with extinction 45 years in the future.

The listing means that imports into the United States of polar bear trophies legally hunted in Canada will no longer be allowed as of the effective date of the listing, which will be the date that the rule is published in the Federal Register. Before the listing, the law permitted imports from six populations of polar bears in Canada. The FWS previously had determined that the sport hunting programs for each of these six populations is “based on scientifically sound quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock at a sustainable level.†The new listing rule recognizes the conservation benefits of sport hunting and importation, but claims the Marine Mammal Protection Act bars imports once a species is listed under the ESA.

As SCI demonstrated in comments filed with the FWS, the hunting of these populations supports conservation and sound management in a number of ways, including the payment of $1,000 for each import permit to support research in Alaska and Russia. In addition, the cash supplied to the local native communities by U.S. hunters encourages sound management and conservation by Canadian authorities. With the listing, all these benefits are lost. In addition, the listing will have no effect on polar bear mortality through hunting, as the native communities will simply harvest for subsistence purposes those bears not harvested by U.S. hunters for import. SCI hopes to work with the FWS to reinstate the ability to import trophies under the ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The listing of populations in the Canadian archipelago, including several from which imports are currently allowed, is particularly unjustified. Even the government’s own speculative computer modeling does not predict a threat of extinction to these populations in the next 45 years.

To allow trophy importation in the future, the FWS will need to make a formal finding that sport hunting enhances the survival of the species. In addition to exploring options for challenging the listing, SCI hopes to work with the FWS to enable the agency to make this finding and to thereby quickly reinstate the ability to import trophies under the ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

“The ESA is ill-suited to address climate change or other perceived threats to the polar bear. The biggest loss brought about by this listing will be to polar bear conservation and management, because the funding provided by U.S. hunters will dry up,†Anderson concluded.

There is so much good science that refutes this that it is truly disappointing. I was on the phone with John Jackson's office right after this and I think they were frankly stunned. Interestingly, Canada just ruled to keep the Polar Bear unlisted. Also, I know for a fact there has not been a count of the Lancaster Sound or Pond inlet populations of bears in over 10 years. Now the Inuit community will continue with business as usual without the economic boon and without the motivation to further protect and manage the Polar Bear. This ruling will have far reaching consequences we have not even begun to imagine at this point. This is truly a sad day.

Jeff

I have 2 very good friends that worked on planning their polar bear hunt for 3 years. Everything finally came together this year and they knew they were rolling the dice when they went last month. They both killed bears!! It looks like they will never get to relive those hunts by admiring their polar bear mounts. It really is sad.

There is a group that seems to be intent on making global warming a reality, no matter what the cost, and regardless of whether it is or not.

Alan

quote:

Originally posted by 308winchester:
we should scramble to save it!

Unfortunately that would take effort and would mean that some people don't get their bear (or even a chance at one). Rather than work to make sure their kids actually get to see one there will be a scramble to get one (ie, lets go hunt in Canada)

quote:

Originally posted by 308winchester:
Take global warming seriously, we cant aford too lose this great animal.
Johan

People will ignore alot of the big picture if they have a shred of evidence that supports their version of the truth. Don't expect much in the way of support for your excellent post.

Johan and Cap,

I really have to call you down for your ignorance of the FACTS. The truth is Polar Bear is at RECORD or NEAR RECORD numbers throughout their range. This listing does absolutely NOTHING to address the problem of global warming. How do you justify the listing on the basis that they MAY become endangered in 45 years? Please enlighten me. The fact is this listing will not do a damn thing about global emmissions. I am amazed that you are this unaware. Certainly no hunter or outdoorsman will want to see the Polar Bear or any species depleted, lost or even threatened. However this sort of far reaching stretch using only a small portion of the science available is at best irresponsible. So Cap, your post actually would be best applied to the USFWS decision to list the Polar Bear as threatened. I openly challenge both you and Johan to please state the facts that have brought you to what I feel as well as others smarter than me to support an erroneous position. The facts don't add up. Park your car. That would do a lot more for global emmissions. I applaud you desire to have a healthy planet and your support for a great animal. I feel however your facts don't fit the equation. I know this is terse, but I am passionate about REAL wildlife management. That excludes management championed by anti hunting groups and the liberal media. If I am wrong, please educate me.

Jeff

quote:

That excludes management championed by anti hunting groups and the liberal media.

The Threatened/Endangered Species list thing was a great thing at it's inception. Now it seems to be a political weapon.

Alan

308Win, Where I live we have to take the word of what we hear in regards to what is happening in the Arctic. What we hear is that the polar ice is melting and we are hearing it from the liberal anti-hunting media and the liberal anti-hunting politicians. Both of these entities are not above lying to advance their causes among which are anti-hunting /gun agendas. When Arctic sea ice melts in any significant quantities we are suppose to see dramatic rise in sea levels. We haven't seen this so what we conclude is that the media and the politicians are lying. Our liberal lying media and politicians will say no to hunting and no to guns and then tell us it's because they want to stop global warming. They want to stop U.S. citizens from hunting polar bears so the polar bears can die off from no more ice. Sounds kinda stupid doesn't it?

Alan

This is a good thing! As we all know, the Feds stepped in with another critter, and after years of hard work, lots of $ spent and efforts to relocate, etc., the wolf populations have expanded exponentially and are now found all over the place, even where they never were before! Same thing will happen with the polar bears, no doubt. Wonder when the first ones start getting trapped and released. I'd like to volunteer New England as a test run. Plenty of forage for them on Cape Cod...

Polly-ticks as usual. Yes, the grand plan of the Wolf: what wunnerful things it has done. Shall we ask Mr. Elk and Deer his feelings about it? Nah, who knows better than our own Federalli Government

Global warming my arse. There is more good science that says it is bunk than the PC science that has everyone in a tizzy. Guess what gets reported. The fact that Bush caved on this PC BS is really sad. These are normal climate shifts. We just had the coldest year in recorded history last year. Don't buy in to the propaganda. Remember what that wise sage Joseph Goebbles, Hitler's propagandist said: "Repeat a lie often enough and the people will believe it."

Now.....back off my soap box.

Bob

US Senate: "Over 400 Prominent Scientests Refute "Man-Made" Global Warming."
12/18/2007

"Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus†on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even the some in the establishment media now appears to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists.

In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.†Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bites the dust.â€

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters†report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated."

“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,†Paldor wrote

Glacier calving and sea ice reduction is actually happening. There are reasonable agencies without a discernable agenda that support this. They also state emphatically that this is just a case of mother nature doing what she wants to do---

a good friend consults for the State DOT, and they DIRECT him to find high levels of Ozone, and not worry about where it all goes at night. They DIRECT him to sample only at high traffic count times to show max levels of ozone. Ozone is bad down here on the surface of the planet, apparently when it escapes into the atmoshpere though, it isn't filling up the 'Ozone Hole' so we have global warming--WTF????

My point is that various agencies have their own ax to grind, and the results are often tainted, and despite folks agreeing that, e.g. policy for global warming should not be set or impacted by ESA decisions, we have people saying right here on our pages that it's OK! It isn't OK. Whether or not Polar Bears are sufficient in population to hunt right now is the question. Not what's gonna MAYBE happen in 45 years??? What is the answer for why polar bear populations have continuously increased during this warming period that has been going on for over 30 years--supposedly--???? Maybe they like warmer temps and less ice?

Do any of these authorities even address the increase in population of the bears?? Of course not, that makes way to much sense. Give me a break, Look at these bears over a reasonable period of time +/- 10 years, and see how many of them are around, and set your hunt quota's based on that. GEEZ, it really ain't that damn hard.

More.........

ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) Releases Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis


May 15, 2008 12:39 PM EDT
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)
Who: Dr. Arthur Robinson of the OISM
What: release of names in OISM "Petition Project"
When: 10 AM, Monday May 19
Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC


Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM's Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of "settled science" and an overwhelming "consensus" in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.


It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not "skeptics."


CONTACT: Audrey Mullen, +1-703-548-1160, for the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Johan,

I hope you are more adept at your vet. studies.

Johan instead of quitting and going home, and without insulting my country defend your position with facts. Not left wing unsubstantiated gossip. Your hold yourself as a man of science, show me the data from a preservationist standpoint, wildlife magt. standpoint, human socialogical standpoint, and a meteorologic standpoint. Tripe and feelings won't cut it.

308,

So, you stir a little debate, folks disagree with you, the thread doesn't go the way you want it to, and you take your ball and go home.

It is pretty immature to pull your posts......

I thought you had thicker skin than that.

Bob

Instead of getting easier and easier to be proud of my country, it seem to be going the other way for me. Mayabe I need to go see a doctor.

Seems to be the same number of Polar Bears in the Carolinas and KY that we've always had. We don't even bother Hunting for them, because they don't bother a thing. Do see occasionally pictures of them in what must be the White Sand we have. Don't even know any Polar Bear recipes.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

I would imagine that if our former governor (Kempthorne) decided and the Bush administration signed off on the current listing it is because they and the Republicans feel it is better (for them-- not the bears) to list them with some administrative rules and let the courts play it out rather than have our next president (be it Obama or McCain) who would probably have listed them without any administrative guidelines.

Whether you, me or anyone else is for or against this listing-- it would probably have been much more restrictive if the next administration would have done it.

For those who are against this listing-- I think you have won a small victory and don't even know it yet. For those of you who support this listing-- you might want to rethink what you have really achieved??

Just some thoughts....

I am anxious to buy a wolf tag for the hunt this fall but I will be surprised if the courts don't delay it a year or two....

IV

I haven't been around in a couple of days and ole 308Win is gone an left us talkin to ourselves. What happened to the boy? I must have missed his hissy fit.

Alan

SG Olds, What country are you from?

Alan