Obama administration moves to protect polar bear

The Obama administration is setting aside 187,000 square miles in Alaska as a "critical habitat" for polar bears, an action that could restrict future offshore drilling for oil and gas. The total, which includes large areas of sea ice off the Alaska coast, is about 13,000 square miles, or 8.3 million acres, less than in a preliminary plan released last year.

Tom Strickland, assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at the Interior Department, said the designation would help polar bears stave off extinction, recognizing that the greatest threat is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change.

"This critical habitat designation enables us to work with federal partners to ensure their actions within its boundaries do not harm polar bear populations," Strickland said. "We will continue to work toward comprehensive strategies for the long-term survival of this iconic species."

Designation of crucial habitat does not in itself block economic activity or other development, but requires federal officials to consider whether a proposed action would adversely affect the polar bear's habitat and interfere with its recovery.

Nearly 95% of the designated habitat is sea ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off Alaska's northern coast. Polar bears spend most of their lives on frozen ocean where they hunt seals, breed and travel.

Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell and the state's oil and gas industry had complained that the preliminary plan released last year was too large and dramatically underestimated the potential economic impact. The designation could result in hundreds of millions of dollars in lost economic activity and tax revenue, they said.

Parnell said that the state is pleased that existing man-made structures will be exempted from critical habitat considerations. But, he said in a statement, the state is disappointed it was not consulted on other recommendations. "This additional layer of regulatory burden will not only slow job creation and economic growth here and for our nation, but will also slow oil and gas exploration efforts," Parnell said.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said reductions included in the final rule were mostly due to corrections that more accurately reflect the U.S. border in the Arctic Ocean. Five U.S. Air Force radar sites were exempted from the final rule, as were Native Alaskan communities in Barrow and Kaktovik, Alaska.

The Interior Department has declared polar bears "threatened," or likely to become endangered, citing a dramatic loss of sea ice. Officials face a Dec. 23 deadline to explain why the bears were listed as threatened instead of the more protective "endangered."

Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group that has filed a lawsuit to increase protections for the polar bear, hailed the decision. "Now we need the Obama administration to actually make it mean something so we can write the bear's recovery plan — not its obituary," she said. Siegel called for a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in bear habitat areas. "An oil spill there would be a catastrophe," she said. "That seems like an understatement."

The Arctic Slope Regional Corp., which advocates for Alaska native business interests, said in a statement that the decision disproportionately affects Alaska natives and called the designation the "wrong tool" for conserving the polar bear because it does nothing to address climate change.

"The burden of the impacts will be felt by the people of the Arctic Slope," said Tara Sweeney, vice president of external affairs for ASRC, which is based in Barrow, Alaska. "This is a quality-of-life issue for our people."

Kara Moriarty, deputy director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Assn., said the action would hurt oil and gas exploration in Alaska by creating more delays and added costs to projects in what already is a high-cost environment.

"The companies and the industry will be required to go through more permitting and create mitigation measures without a direct benefit to the polar bear or oil and gas development," Moriarty said. "The Fish and Wildlife Service has found over and over again our activities pose no threat to the polar bear."

RELATED:

Polar Bear: 'Endangered' or merely 'Threatened?'

An Arctic oil spill could linger for years

'The World in 2050': The Arctic and everything below

--Matthew Daly, Associated Press

Photo: Polar bears are shown in this undated photograph from UCLA released to Reuters Nov. 23,
2010. Credit: Alan D. Wilson / Reuters

Comments

[cece959]

I love people who claim that we need to take care of them because it's getting 'warmer'. First, the earth does not have a temperature, it's cooling down. Second, animals were here WAY before we were, they know how and when to migrate to climates suitable for them (they're not as dumb as you think). The polar bears, caribou, whatever will move into the cooler climate of Canada. As for pipelines impeding their way of life, I've seen pictures of caribou and bears playing around the pipelines...they know how to walk around them. It's called common sense...something the human race is lacking nowadays.

[Green Directory]

We need to do what it takes to protect the polar bear population. It is slowly getting warmer in these areas and we need to take care of them before they become extinct.

[Matt]

Lots of opinions offered but few opinionators know squat. No one knows what the current trends are in the several dozen distinct polar bear populations. They live way out there beyond the limits of human endurance.

Researchers do know for a fact that the quality and quantity of habitat for polar bears is crashing. If any of you want to go up there and count the bears, please do. Until then shut the f**k up about what you know nothing about.

[Polar Bear]

These Global warming deniers are way out there,repeating the same old remarks.Polar bears are dying off by scientific counts.Richard Ellis's book"On Thin Ice"to learn more about these magnificent creatures.We could go Green tomorrow if we tried,and Big oil would stop the lies,but even then it would be too late for the Bear...We can try to save this eco system and ourselves at the same time

[JamesJoyce]

Badger 1911,

No, I get my science from scholarly peer reviewed articles which publish cold hard facts. I base my views off of the evidence....which is overwhelming.

You, on the other hand, clearly do not know anything about even basic physics.

[Badger1911]

The bears don't need protection. The population is rising. Why is a population rising? Because the living conditions are excellent.

@Native Angeleno: there is no heating, no warming, no anything. There is no melting because of our small amount of CO2. Do some research. Learn a few basic things about physics. 0.038% CO2 in the atmosphere are not enough to cause anything. And from that we produce, if we're very, very, very, very, VERY lenient, 4%. CO2 starts having an effect at levels of 60, 70%.

Oh yes, Big Oil, Big CO2, without which you'd most likely die anyway. The people who scream loudest against Big Oil and the rest are usually those most dependent on them.

I'm still waiting for the proof. But the only thing we've gotten so far were the forged graphs from James Hansen and Mann's hockey stick farce (which proves only one thing: humans are extremely gullible.)

BTW, you're listening to a former politician (Al Gore), the UN (which has as much credibility as my cat's farts) and their completely incompetent "climate council" (which, even according to "fanboys", has only 20% members who're even remotely connected to climate and weather, the other 80% of its members come from areas that are not connected to climate, weahter, physics or chemistry at all, and these people talk about the "global climate", something that doesn't even exist!)

We're not destroying the planet. We can't destroy the planet. It's impossible. This planet has seen much, much worse things than mankind. And there will, eventually, be a new extinction wave, as it has happened before several times.

[DKelfor America]

Thank you for protecting our bears but I am still MAD that in 2011 Obama Administration is going to make us report the cost of our health insurance (and I work for local government in a crisis response unit) and then TAX ME 40% ! Obama Administration had no problem printing billions to bailout Wallstreet so WHY am I bailing out his healthcare plan forced on every American?

[Patricia Mattison]

Possible solution: Instead of extending unemployment benefits, Congress should pass legislation to purchase one-way airline tickets for George Soros and all environmentalists to the "critical habitat" for Polar Bears so that each of them could personally view a polar bear up close and perhaps give one a hug. The passengers could be furnished with a parachute and be dropped right in the middle of the 187,000 square mile site.

Problems solved.

[Jenni]

Wow, its COLD out there!

[onebackwardglance]

Gary,

No, Greenland was not named "Greenland" because it was once green. Do some research. The facts are out there.

[Paul Taylor Examiner]

... Obama Administration moves to protect Polar Bears.
WHY? There is no decline in their numbers or aquatic habitat.
President Obama... WHY???

[james]

so I ask Obama-can't we concentrate on the economy and personal income first??? I mean really WHAT Dose is your priority?? I think US citizens deserve first chance

[Jackrabbit90813]

This is just Obama doing George Soros' bidding. Soros has bet billions that the dollar will collapse. This is why Obama is printing $500 billion of new worthless currency. This is why he has blocked all new drilling.

He knows that drilling will produce hundreds of thousands of highly paid USA union jobs. This money will remain in OUR economy. The price of gas will drop as supply increases.

A growing USA economy will bankrupt Soros. Who is Obama loyal to? Guess!

[Joeseph]

Native Angeleno, Why don't you help save the planet by removing your contamination from it? All your hot air and CO2. Lead the way! Put your money where your mouth is! We'll look for your obituary in the papers.

[Gary]

Scott, I am certainly not misinformed.

I am not talking about genetics here, I am talking about the basics of evolution that animals will either adapt with changing conditions or die. That is evolution. Over time our DNA changes to suit our new way of life, but it is always forced by our own behaviour. Hence why a meteor hitting the Earth forces evolution on species and that happens in the blink of an eye.

Dolphins did not sit around the beach in Africa waiting to grow some flippers before they swam. They started swimming first and evolution caught up and eventually gave them flippers.

The Arctic used to be ice free, it is only because we are still in an ice-age that there is ice today. The fact it might be melting is exactly what is supposed to happen, we are coming out of an ice-age, it is getting warmer!

Why do you think Greenland is called GREENland? When it was discovered it was not covered in ice is the reason.

But this is happening very, very slowly. There actually is little real evidence that the ice is melting much at all. It retreats in the summer and ices up again in the winter. This is all part and parcel of a planet with a changing climate. All animals have been through this before, and will continue to do so.

To even suggest that we are in control of the climate is the most arrogant idea of our age. People in the future are going to laugh at us for the hysteria we have cause over the weather. It is nothing more than a religion.

[Kat]

Thank you, Mr. President!! Wonderful news!! Keep up the great work for protecting animals and the environment!

“Last year I came face to face with a polar bear and while I was scared, I also felt a deep respect for the fact that I was in this bear’s territory and that it was global warming that was forcing this magnificent creature toward the brink of extinction.”
~ Lonnie Dupre, Polar Explorer

[Mr. Incredible]

Native Angeleno, I'm confused...

On the one hand, you obviously hold Christians in contempt as being uneducated buffoons incapable of sustaining rational thought. On the other hand, you attribute global warming/climate change/global heating to these same people. If Christians are so stupid, how did they develop all of the technology you believe leads to global warming/climate change/global heating in the first place? I'm surprised that a bunch of 'peabrain slaves' with a 'childish fantasyland of "Heaven"' could even be capable of such feats.

Also, is the current phrase global warming, climate change, or global heating? And could you point me to the computer models showing what we have to do to get back to normal temperatures? Speaking of normal temperatures, what is the normal temperature we are trying to get back to?

It's kinda hard for my peabrain to keep up.

[Scott]

Wow, Gary, you are truly misinformed. Evolution does not happen within an individual's lifetime. You need to go back and study up on this topic. Maybe once you understand evolution you will understand why conservation is important.

[Windfall]

187,00 square miles?

More fascism American style.

[Native Angeleno]

The problem with some posters is their inability to understand the definitions of preservation and conservation, even tho they are de facto extreme conservatives, no seeming relation with the root "conserve" having occurred to them. These words have nothing to do with the given of evolution, which is the odd excuse to continue the status quo of global heating. Gary, you are one with Barack Obama, who cares not a whit to save the habitat of the polar bear from his ilk, Big Oil, Big CO2, Big Methane and the like, and all the beneficiaries of global heating and the melted poles, especially Big offensive Defense, on its usual rampage to steal and otherwise secure all the dirty 20th century energy it can from the grasp of Russia and China and emerge some globally heated day as Sole Dictator of the Planet, which is their unabashedly retarded goal.

We who live right now really do not want to see the polar bear, and the other hundreds of millions of species becoming extinct due to anthropogenic stupidity, evolve into some hothouse version of the polar bear, we want to see the polar bear and its shrinking habitat saved, as is.

And btw evolution will not save the polar bear, except in some Frankenstein's lab, who would turn it into some hot Earth version of a bear that used to live on ice but cannot any longer becasue there will be no ice outside of your freezer anywhere on Earth, the insane rate we are going.

One can only hope that humans will not adapt, or evolve, to save themselves from their own hand, removing this fantastically powerful species of unconsciously suicidal idiots from the web of interrelatedness we destroy virtually with every breath, or otherwise continue to wipe out the evolutionary descendants of species we have not yet managed to kill off altogether.

The cause for our group devolution is monotheism, in particular its so-called Christian wing, the goal for which is the very destruction of the planet being discussed, "the Earth" defined as the sum of its ecosystems, so its peabrain slaves can ascend to their childish fantasyland of "Heaven", never having known the Paradise that is, or as they would have it, was. So, Happy Thanksgiving, and a Big Fat Death to Monotheism.

[Andy K]

Cut through the smoke and what you find is that there is no decrease in polar bears. Then why set aside so much land? Easy, the dude whants to prevent drilling for oil. All the dude cares about is to redistribute wealth, he wants to make everyone equal, except his cronies who ill be the ruling class. The next president will overturn this Marxist ruling.

[tom]

Those who say it is just evolution and polar bears will adapt, obviously don't understand evolution. Species go extinct when changes happen too quickly for evolutionary adaptation. Adaptation takes time. These climate changes are happening quickly in the evolutionary time frame. And for those who say who cares... well, human populations and their social systems can collapse pretty rapidly under swift climate change. I don't care to go back to primitive or even pioneer standards of living because oil and coal companies want huge profits. But don't listen to the scientists. Let greed have its way. Everyone will pay the price in the future.

[Newport]

This is very good news. While there is some uncertainty about the numbers of polar bears, there is no uncertainty about the effects of global warming on their habitat. Protecting this land is just another small step toward getting away from our dependence on oil, which is not making the big oil companies happy of course; and that's what it's all about. Shell, Exxon, etc. don't want this because it encroaches on their profits.

[Gary]

The thing I find so strange from the environmentalists is their refusal to believe in Evolution. I know that sounds weird, after all it is the environmentalists who keeping harping on about how it isclimate change deniers who do not get evolution. But the reality is that it really is the animal rights campaigners.

What is Evolution? It is the ability for species to adapt to changing conditions, changing climates and changing environments and evolve to cope with them. The Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years, it has been colder than it is now and it has been warmer. Thie Artctic has been ice free in the past and it will be ice free in the future. This folks is normal! It is how it is supposed to be and is how the world works.

The very fact that Polar bears are still here today only goes to show they in the past, just like humans, they adapted to the changes in their habitat and managed to cope.

Darwin's theory makes it quite clear that species that have died out alltogether did so because they failed to adapt to their new environment, and that does include humans encroaching on that environment, because like it or not we are pa of the animal world, we are part of evolution too.

So the very act of trying to protect a species from extinction is actually going against the theory of evolution. It is clear then that the environmentalists do not believe in evoluton and instead have some very weird notion that it is actually humans who control the planet, and everything on it. What's up with that? You guys are evolution deniers.

Anyway, it s academic, Polar bear number have been on the rise since the 80's, there are plenty of scientific studies that show this inconvenient fact.

[Gary]

Crazy, crazy people.

Yes let's believe some computer models that tell us Polar bear numbers should be decreasing.

Or, how about turning to the facts that cleary show Polar bear numbers are actually increasing.

But wait, this is a climate change story, so facts are obviously not important, we are dealing with faith here after all, not science.

Google "polar bear numbers", ignore the Photoshop pictures, do some research. It's time we all spent time on real issues not made up ones.

[Get Planted]

There is no scientific data that suggests that we can reverse or even slow the ongoing trend toward warmer climate in the Arctic. We need to accept it, live with it, and plan for it.

With the reduction in Arctic pack ice, life in the North will continue to get harder for polar bears and easier for oil tankers.

As summer shipping lanes open up and widen along the north coast of Alaska and Canada, perhaps wildlife agencies can provide a shuttle service for polar bears to get them to the dwindling summer ice floes in the northern Arctic Ocean, then after they've fattened up on seal blubber all summer shuttle then back to the coast where they will den up for the winter.

Strange times require strange measures.