| on May 15, 2008, 09:37 AM E.S.T.
|
Alaskans are used to seeing the Endangered Species Act at work to
great effect. When eagles, falcons and swans were listed, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service turned to Alaska — where the animals still
flourished — for brood stock. Wolves from Alaska, now repopulating
Wyoming and Montana, got similar treatment.
The act does have its benefits in helping to pry loose badly needed
research funding. The act has great power, and it forces our society to
ask whether — or to what extent — preserving wild species and their
habitats is more important than economic upheaval or even dislocation
of families. By and large, the United States is a better place for the
existence of the Endangered Species Act.
But any act can be misapplied. From the full impact of the spotted
owl listing on the timber industry in the 1990s way back to Tennessee’s
snail darter snafu of the 1970s, its history has examples of undue
impact on people’s livelihoods.
At times, the act has been used as a legal hammer that cost U.S.
taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars in court while
on-the-ground conservation efforts were nonexistent and the price for
worthy developments soared. The costs trickle down. The people pay.
Indeed, the Little Tennessee River was not the sole environment for
that little fish that was never truly endangered. But it nevertheless
put a stop to a massive hydroelectric project. Congress and the courts
were tied in knots for years. It took the better part of a decade to
set things straight. The fish was later de-listed.
So with Wednesday’s listing of the polar bear as threatened under
the act, there is plenty of rational cause for concern. Questions
remain about whether this is an appropriate and effective use of the
act. Questions remain about global warming in general, much less
whether a direct tie exists between human activity and thinning polar
ice. More resources to answer these questions now will very likely be
funneled into the courts rather than to biologists’ field books and
scientific lab work.
Many still feel that polar bears are quite well protected and that
funding and research under the Marine Mammal Protection Act is more
than adequate to document their fate or argue for measures to mitigate
population declines.
When North Slope Borough Mayor Edward S. Itta responded to the
listing by qualifying his intent to work with federal agencies saying
“the Endangered Species Act is a very big hammer, and it could easily
land on us even if the agencies don’t want it to,” he is expressing a
realistic and practical concern.
When U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens said, “this abuse of endangered species
law will have a devastating impact on the entire nation through endless
litigation and regulation,” his concerns are not unfounded.
Immediately following Wednesday’s announcement, the Alaska
Wilderness League called for the suspension of all oil and gas
activities in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Any resulting action will
no doubt lead to the courts.
And so here come the lawyers. Source
|
