Community Perspective

Animals considered under ESA are not necessarily endangered with extinction. Polar bears were listed even though worldwide numbers have increased during the past 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 also were used for the belugas, so it also is not definite they are endangered with extinction. The number of whales declined from 653 in 1994 to 375 in 2008, but have increased during the past 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 apply to species, subspecies or “distinct population segments.” The terms “subspecies” and “distinct population segment” are not rigorously defined, so almost any fish and wildlife population can qualify for ESA listing. Subspecies and distinct population segments 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 designations as distinct population segments.

However, “genetically distinct” must be scientifically defined.

Every person (except an identical twin) is genetically distinct from every other. That’s why DNA testing works.

Species also are genetically distinct. There are definite genetic differences between caribou and moose.

However, populations within one species are somewhere in between individuals and species. The beluga, sea lion and sea otter distinct population segments do not have absolute genetic differences, but have limited interbreeding with other populations. Because of the indefinite nature of subspecies and distinct population segments, 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 is the continuation of 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 (Anchorage Daily News, May 9, 2008 and Jan. 15, 2009). This is reminiscent of what was known as Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, in which science was dictated by government policy and dissent was not allowed. Because ESA species designations are not scientifically definitive, debate and discussion should be welcomed, not prevented.

Matthew A. Cronin, Ph.D., is a research associate professor of animal genetics with University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Palmer Research Center and a member of the Alaska Board of Forestry.