|
More lawsuits over bearded seal listing
The State of Alaska and the North Slope Borough have filed lawsuits in federal court, challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s December decision to list the bearded seal as threatened under the terms of the Endangered Species Act. The appeals against the listing follow a similar lawsuit filed in May by the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.
The Fisheries Service’s listing decision came as part of a growing trend to list Arctic marine mammal populations that, while healthy at present, may decline as a consequence of the loss of Arctic sea ice cover, as the Earth’s climate warms. But North Slope communities, the oil industry and the state, worried about the potential impact of Endangered Species Act-related restrictions on subsistence hunting and resource development, say that the listing is based on a speculative theory about future climate trends and the impacts of those trends on the seals.
Brower: population healthy “We are very concerned about environmental impacts on bearded seals and other wildlife,” said Charlotte Brower, North Slope Borough mayor, when the borough announced its lawsuit on June 26. “However, as our residents know, the population of bearded seals is currently healthy and abundant. This listing is improper because it is not based on good science.”
“These decisions are made with a disregard for both the law and the limits of current scientific knowledge,” said Doug Vincent-Lang, director of Alaska’s Division of Wildlife Conservation, in a June 27 press release announcing the state’s lawsuit.
The North Slope Borough’s appeal claims that the listing decision was “arbitrary and capricious” because in making the decision the Fisheries Service had depended on a 100-year climate projection that is unreliable and not credible. Moreover, the agency has not provided any scientific evidence supporting the theory that a loss of sea ice poses a threat to the survival of what is currently a healthy seal population, the borough claims.
The state’s appeal presents similar arguments, while also claiming that the Fisheries Service had not responded adequately to written comments submitted by the state prior to the listing decision.
—Alan Bailey
| 