Endangered Species Act listings not based on science; Alaska opposition justified

Gov. Sarah Palin and the Legislature were criticized for opposing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings of beluga whales in Cook Inlet and polar bears. In these articles, ESA advocates imply the listings are based on definitive science. They are not. Mike Nizich and Gov. Palin have capably justified the state’s positions.

Animals considered under ESA are not necessarily endangered with extinction. Polar bears were listed even though worldwide numbers have increased over the last 40 years and most populations have not declined. Of the 19 populations identified in the ESA documents, five were declining, two were increasing, five were stable, and seven were unknown. Polar bears were considered endangered because of global warming and summer sea ice models. Whether polar bears are endangered at this time depends on one’s view of the model predictions. Models were also used for the belugas so it’s also not definite they are endangered with extinction. Numbers of whales declined from 653 in 1994 to 375 in 2008, but have increased over the last six years. Model results are predictions, not facts, and should be considered hypotheses to be tested with new information.

Some ESA species are not even species because the ESA can consider species, subspecies or distinct population segments (DPS). Subspecies and DPS are not rigorously defined, so almost any fish and wildlife population can qualify for the ESA. Subspecies and DPS are simply fish and wildlife populations with distinguishing characteristics in a geographic area. Examples of these categories include entire species (polar bears), subspecies (Pacific walrus), and populations (belugas in Cook Inlet).

Populations of belugas, sea otters and sea lions in Alaska were declared genetically distinct to support DPS designations. However, “genetically distinct” must be scientifically defined. For example, every person (except identical twins) is genetically distinct from every other. That’s why DNA testing works. At the other extreme, species are genetically distinct. For example, there are definite genetic differences between caribou and moose. Populations of one species are somewhere in between individuals and species. The beluga, sea lion and sea otter DPS do not have absolute genetic differences, but have limited interbreeding with other populations. Because of the indefinite nature of subspecies and DPS the potential for more to be considered under the ESA is almost limitless.

Managing wildlife requires identifying objectives that must be balanced in multiple-use management. Maintaining belugas in Cook Inlet is one objective, but so are commercial, subsistence and sport fishing; oil, gas and mineral production; marine and air traffic; and forestry. Because ESA listings are not definitive and can negatively impact citizens and economics, the governor’s opposition is legitimate and I believe reflects her concern for multiple-use management and her responsibility to provide input from the state of Alaska.

Finally, scientists who don’t support ESA listings have been accused of non-objectivity and bogus science in the Anchorage Daily News (5/9/08, 1/15/09). This is reminiscent of what was known as Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, in which science was dictated by government policy and dissension was not allowed. Because ESA species designations are not scientifically definitive, debate and discussion should be welcomed, not prevented.

Matthew A. Cronin has a Ph.D. and works for the University of Alaska School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences at the Palmer Research Center.