Defenders of Wildlife Blog

Millions of Americans visit wildlife refuges each year.

It’s Halloween and Congress is eyeing some downright scary cuts to vital wildlife conservation programs as part of its budget cutting frenzy. But while these programs may seem like easy targets for cuts, there is a lot more to the story.

Hundreds of thousands of people have jobs because the federal government funds programs like National Parks and the National Wildlife Refuge System. And everyone who visits these special places—to hike, photograph, hunt, fish, camp, bike, etc—spends money on their chosen method of recreation. So when you cut funding for wildlife conservation programs like wildlife refuges, it’s important for Congress to remember that you also risk losing jobs and further hindering our economic recovery in addition to the damage done to our natural heritage, damage that will be costlier to repair later than it is to prevent now.

This week, citizens from across the nation are coming to Washington D.C. to remind lawmakers on Capitol Hill of this very fact.  And the leaders of many groups, including Defenders of Wildlife, are meeting with members of Congress.  Groups are also running ads in key Capitol Hill media outlets and holding a reception to further our message.

Congress will never be able to come close to balancing the budget by cutting funding for wildlife conservation programs.

And what is that message? Simple: wildlife conservation and wildlife-related activities are big business. In 2006, the total contribution from outdoor recreation—hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, hiking, camping, skiing, and bicycling—in the United States was over $730 billion a year. That translates into about 6,435,000 U.S. jobs and $88 billion in federal and state tax revenues.

Indeed, the main engine driving the economy of many local communities in and around national parks, wildlife refuges, and other federal conservation areas is wildlife-related tourism and activity. Just visit any small town or city around wildlife refuges, national parks and other outdoor recreation areas and you will see what I mean.

Moreover, these programs are an investment. Funding these programs and conserving wildlife now is a lot cheaper  and smarter than rescuing imperiled animals down the road, when their numbers plummet and the situation becomes critical or restoring degraded lands allowed to deteriorate without basic maintenance support. That’s when more drastic and costly measures are needed; similar to repairing a bridge now vs. replacing the bridge after it collapses. Sadly, this simple equation seems to escape some in Congress, many of whom are the first to complain when the bridge collapses.

Congress will never be able to come close to balancing the budget by cutting funding for wildlife conservation programs. Yet there are some in Congress who would target these programs first. They do so not out some long term fealty to fiscal discipline, but largely because they never valued these conservation programs to begin with.  Many would rather promote increased oil and gas drilling, logging, and development; the economic downturn just gives them the excuse they needed to defund wildlife programs they have long held in low regard.

But doing so is extremely short-sighted. Wildlife conservation is not a luxury, it’s an investment and a key building block of what makes our country healthy and strong. Yes, when you conserve wildlife you are preserving a key slice of our natural heritage for future generations. But you are also preserving jobs and helping to keep the economic engine that keeps so many local, hard-hit communities running. And you are making a smart money play, chipping in now to avoid having to pay more later.

These are tough budgetary times and everyone should be expected to sacrifice a little. But in our zeal to cut, let’s not let those who oppose federal environmental protections in general use this crisis as an excuse to slash wildlife conservation programs that are both a smart economic investment and a down payment on the preservation of our natural heritage. And let’s be sure to call out those who hypocritically seek to weaken wildlife programs only to complain later when animals are pushed to the brink and more stringent and costly measures are required to rescue them from extinction.

This week, the National Journal’s Energy and Environment Experts Blog asked, “Should Obama open Arctic waters to drilling?” Defenders’ president and CEO Jamie Rappaport Clark responded with a resounding, “NO.” Read more about what she has to say about risky drilling in the pristine Arctic environment. 

It’s been a busy time for the Obama administration’s rubber stamp of Big Oil’s to do list. In August, the administration approved the first part of Shell’s plans to start drilling in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea as early as the summer of 2012, the most aggressive Arctic drilling proposal in the history of the country. And just this week, the administration reaffirmed the sale of almost 500 oil and natural gas leases in the adjacent Chukchi Sea, opening 2.8 million acres to drilling. This isn’t just giving offshore drilling the green-light; this is slamming on the accelerator, apparently with the hope or expectation that the obstacles in the road ahead—the rough, frozen Arctic seas, the harsh climate and remote location—magically vanish.

What ever happened to the Obama administration’s stated commitment to make decisions “based on sound science and the public interest, and not on the special interests?”

What ever happened to the Obama administration’s stated commitment to make decisions “based on sound science and the public interest, and not on the special interests?” Because if that commitment held true, the government wouldn’t allow drilling in the Arctic’s extremely sensitive and unique marine environment until we have filled the glaring information gaps identified by the U.S. Geological Survey just this summer. It would have acknowledged the recent studies that show that the Beaufort Sea’s Camden Bay provides habitat of “special significance” to the endangered bowhead whale. And it certainly would have heeded the U.S. Coast Guard officials’ repeated warnings that the resources to clean up an oil spill in the waters of the Arctic Ocean simply don’t exist. And yet none of that information has slowed down the “full speed ahead” attitude toward drilling in the Arctic Ocean.

Bowhead whales, courtesy NOAA

After BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, the Obama administration wisely delayed plans by Shell Oil to drill in the Arctic. Now is not the time to give in to pressure from Big Oil and forgo that prudent commitment to safety. There is still too much to learn about the pristine Arctic environment, and too much to lose if we don’t. When it comes to opening the Arctic waters to risky drilling, the administration should not let the voice of reason—and of science—fall on deaf ears.

Learn more:

Read the full question and see what others are saying on the National Journal’s Energy and Environment Expert Blog.

See how offshore drilling threatens the Arctic’s fragile marine environment.

Read more about Shell’s inadequate oil spill response plan and the threat it poses to bowhead whales and polar bears.

The Value of Conserving Wildlife

by Jamie Rappaport Clark

(This post originally appeared on Huffington Post on October 4, 2011)

Why save a lizard? Who cares about some little fly? What difference does it make if we kill off a few unwanted prairie dogs?

These are fair questions. At a time when nine percent of Americans are unemployed, another seven percent are marginally employed or working only part-time, and millions more are struggling to stay afloat, protecting obscure endangered species probably isn’t the first thing on people’s minds. But that doesn’t mean we should turn our backs on the countless species, large and small, that still need our help.

Nearly 40 years ago, our government made a commitment in the form of the Endangered Species Act to preserve all native wildlife for the benefit of future generations. And since that time the Act has been 99 percent effective in preventing the extinction of the plants and animals it protects. But tragically, Congress is preparing to use our current economic crisis as an excuse to abandon America’s commitment to preventing extinction.

Before the August recess, no fewer than 13 different proposals had been introduced to limit the federal government’s ability to protect endangered species (see Assault on Wildlife: The Endangered Species Act Under Attack). Since Congress returned from recess, another four have been added to the list, and more will no doubt surface long before a comprehensive funding bill is finally passed this fall.

At the center of nearly all of these attacks on our landmark wildlife conservation law is the implicit argument that saving imperiled plants and animals is simply a luxury we can no longer afford. Some members of Congress are taking it a step further, exploiting our country’s very real financial difficulties by pinning job losses on endangered species protections. Of course, this sham calculus disguises the fact that many of these politicians rely on certain big corporate interests hostile to the Endangered Species Act to line their campaign coffers.

Despite the protestations of anti-wildlife politicians, there are very good reasons to protect a lizard, or a fly or a prairie dog. Though they may seem trivial, these animals are an integral part of the web of life that sustains us all. Lizards control insect pests and provide food for hawks. Flies feed reptiles and can help pollinate crops. Prairie dogs mow down prairie grasses, reducing risk of wildfire, and they provide food for ferrets, badgers and owls. What’s more, by fighting to save these species, we are preserving the vitality of the entire ecosystems that they inhabit.

Madagascar periwinkle

There are also practical reasons for saving as many imperiled species as we can. The ESA acknowledges the direct link between maintaining biodiversity and our own well-being. For example, one economist has estimated that America’s plants and animals provide us with “ecosystem services” (such as erosion control, flood protection, air and water filtration, sedimentation, carbon sequestration, providing nutrients, crop pollination, etc.) totaling $33 trillion per year. Plants like the Pacific yew tree, Madagascar periwinkle and mamala tree have all led to promising treatments for diseases like cancer, leukemia and AIDS. And expenditures for wildlife-related recreation accounted for more than $122 billion in 2006 — about one percent of our GDP.

What doesn’t show up on the ledger though is the value of upholding the principles of good stewardship. The great conservationist Aldo Leopold once wrote, “The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, ‘What good is it?’ If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not.”

We should ask ourselves instead, what will be left when all the lizards, and flies and prairie dogs are gone? What will happen to our lakes and forests, our deserts and oceans, our rivers and prairies, when fewer and fewer living creatures call them home? If we allow piecemeal changes now to our most important environmental laws, what else might politicians find inconvenient to protect?

The attacks on America’s great conservation legacy may seem small and insignificant. But each one tugs at a thread that could unravel the entire fabric of the great safety net we have built over four decades. Killing off a few lizards or flies or prairie dogs isn’t going to rescue our flailing economy. But it could very well ruin us all.

This blog originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

The ashes of my good friend Mollie Beattie rode the winds before settling slowly beneath the surface of the crystal blue mountain lake in the heart of the Brooks Range in northern Alaska. A few tears were shed among the close friends and family members gathered along the shore, but many let a smile creep across their face. As she had wished, Mollie was now at rest in one of North America’s wildest places, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Arctic refuge is not your typical resting place for a dear friend’s ashes, nor is it your typical travel destination. Most folks never set eyes on this vast land tucked away on Alaska’s North Slope. But for the few who do, it is a humbling and life-changing experience. That was true for Mollie, the first female director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and it was certainly true for me.

When Mollie passed away in 1996, I traveled to the refuge with a small number of her closest friends and family to help spread some of her ashes in a place she loved dearly and worked so hard to protect. And during my all-too-short time there, I came to see what Mollie saw. I came to understand that this unique national wildlife refuge is a place worth fighting for.

As the National Wildlife Refuge System’s largest land-based refuge, the Arctic refuge supports a vast array of wildlife. Its coastal plain is the most important onshore denning habitat for America’s vanishing polar bears, as well as the calving ground of the renowned Porcupine caribou herd. And, each year, millions of birds from six continents and every state in the U.S. make their way to this special place to nest.

Most folks never set eyes on this vast land tucked away on Alaska’s North Slope. But for the few who do, it is a humbling and life-changing experience.

But the refuge is undergoing a dangerous transition. Disappearing sea ice and melting snow cover are making it harder for animals to find food and shelter. Entire ecosystems are expected to shift northward, bringing with them new species competing for a limited amount of resources. For the 38 different mammal species who call the Arctic refuge home, these changes could have dire implications. New research from Defenders of Wildlife reveals 16 of those mammals to be extremely or highly vulnerable to the changes warming temperatures will bring, including the polar bear, Arctic fox, lynx and North Slope herds of caribou. Without help, these specialized mammals may not survive the changes a shifting climate will bring.

Fortunately, we have a unique opportunity to increase the chances of their survival now. This prospect comes by way of revisions now being considered to the Arctic refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan, a management plan currently being developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. One of the key recommendations of this plan could be for Congress to formally designate the refuge’s coastal plain a wilderness area. Such a designation would prevent oil and gas development in the coastal plain, thereby avoiding even greater peril to the survival of species on the refuge due to climate change.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, courtesy of USFWS

Without a doubt, Big Oil and its lobbyists in Congress will decry such a suggestion. They’ve been after the Arctic refuge for development purposes for decades, falsely claiming that the amount of oil that lies beneath the refuge will solve our country’s energy crisis. Never mind that any oil that might be found on the refuge wouldn’t make it to market for 10 years, nor would it make a dent in the price at the pump. And despite oil companies’ misleading claims about developing oil fields with only “small footprints,” the fact remains that industrial scale oil and gas development would destroy the wilderness character of the Arctic refuge forever. Already, this summer has seen the risks of oil and gas development played out, including Exxon Mobil’s 42,000-gallon-oil spill in the Yellowstone River and a BP pipeline leak in Alaska that spilled 2,100 to 4,200 gallons of a methanol and oily mixture onto the plant life on the tundra. The evidence is clear: oil companies cannot be trusted with our treasured places—and that includes the Arctic refuge.

Like Mollie Beattie, I have fought relentlessly to protect the refuge’s pristine coastal plain—both as her successor as the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and in my role here at Defenders. And I will continue to work to protect the refuge and the wildlife it supports, whether the threat is from climate change or oil companies, or both. The Obama administration should do the same, and pursue a wilderness recommendation for the coastal plain of the refuge. Because, as one of America’s most unique natural treasures, the Arctic refuge is indeed a place worth fighting for.

Learn more:

Read Defenders’ report, Climate Change and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Which Species Are Most At Risk?

Ask the Experts: Hear from some of Defenders’ experts on what climate change and a revised management plan means for the largest land-based national wildlife refuge.

This article originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

It’s like a bad trivia game. “On this day in history …” Except today we’re not talking about a record-setting homerun or the birth of a world-famous writer, and no prize will be awarded to a correct response. That’s because today marks not an anniversary, but a memorial, of something this country would probably rather forget altogether.

But for the people who make their homes and livelihoods in the Gulf of Mexico, there’s no forgetting that on this day last year, BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig exploded into flames, killing 11 of its workers and initiating the worst oil disaster this country has ever seen.

Joining them to bear witness to the unfolding tragedy, we stood by helpless as more than 205 million gallons of oil spewed into Gulf waters, marring beaches and coastal wetlands, killing thousands of animals and crippling Gulf economies that rely on healthy fisheries and a steady stream of tourists to survive.

A year later, the region is still reeling from the impacts of the oil and toxic dispersants. What has Congress done to ensure that the Gulf is cleaned up effectively, and that nothing like the BP disaster should ever happen again?

Not one thing. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez crisis, the country responded. Shortly after the Alaska spill, legislation that improved the nation’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills had passed through Congress. The Oil Pollution Act, while not perfect, brought parties together in the common cause of protecting our coasts, our fisheries and our natural treasures. The devastation in Prince William Sound was a call to action, and Congress responded.

And yet this past year, instead of addressing the crisis that is still being played out in the Gulf, Congress has failed to pass any responsive legislation or take any steps at all toward securing our shores from the dangers posed by offshore drilling. In fact, quite the opposite has occurred instead: Big Oil and the members of Congress in its pockets have pushed to open up new areas to drilling, in the Gulf of Mexico, along the Atlantic Coast, off of California and even in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, which support an intricate and fragile marine ecosystem and where the technology to respond to an oil disaster doesn’t even exist yet.

Oil disasters don’t have to be a permanent part of this country’s future. By making the right choices today, we have the power to choose a clean future.

If their efforts to put our most fragile coastlines at risk are successful, we can anticipate even more costly spills in the future, destroying coastal communities and wildlife habitats. For if treasures like the national wildlife refuges and other protected areas in the Gulf cannot escape harm from drilling disasters, how can we believe that areas like the Chesapeake Bay or North Carolina’s Outer Banks will be safe?

Some in Congress have gotten the message. Reps. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Jay Inslee (D-WA) have offered legislation to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan oil spill response commission. Mr. Markey’s bills would improve enforcement of safety and environmental regulations and provide for Gulf restoration. Mr. Inslee’s bill would adjust the polluter liability cap so that oil company liability is no longer capped at the artificially low number of $75 million per incident and oil companies are held fully responsible for the damage they cause.

Unfortunately, others in Congress are still focused on nothing but more oil. Just last week, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) pushed through committee three bills that would mandate new drilling while fast-tracking oil permits and bypassing meaningful environmental regulations — exactly the kind of reckless approach that led to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

The only way to ensure we won’t forever condemn future generations to cleaning up our messes is to stop making them in the first place. That means ensuring drilling companies are responsible for fixing their mistakes. It means protecting our coasts from drilling rigs and potentially devastating accidents. It means implementing the recommendations made by the Presidential Oil Spill Commission, measures Congress has no excuse to ignore. It means moving the country in the direction of clean, safe renewable energy instead of subsidizing more oil.

We may still be dealing with the damaging effects of oil and toxic chemical dispersants on the Gulf of Mexico decades from now. But oil disasters don’t have to be a permanent part of this country’s future. By making the right choices today, we have the power to choose a clean future. Hopefully it won’t take another year for our government to decide to lead us in that direction.

Learn more:

One year later, Defenders continues to fight for wildlife in the Gulf. Click here to learn more about what we’re doing and see what YOU can do to help!

This article originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

My son Carson is eleven years old. And though at times he may think he’s a grown up, he still has many years ahead of him before he’s an adult. Like most parents, I want my child to have the same opportunities I had growing up — which is why it breaks my heart to think that by the time he’s my age, one of America’s most iconic creatures could be gone forever — the polar bear.

Climate change has had such a dramatic impact on polar bear populations that my son’s generation could be the last to see polar bears on U.S. shores. With their homes literally melting away beneath their feet, there are now fewer than 20,000 polar bears left on Earth. Less than a decade ago most of these same populations were considered healthy, even growing. Now it’s commonplace to hear reports of drowned polar bears, hungry bears wandering into Alaska Native villages in search of food, even cannibalism, along with more and more scientific reports of multi-year sea ice — prime polar bear habitat — shrinking and disappearing altogether. Running out of places to call home, polar bears are in serious trouble.

This week the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge celebrates its 50th anniversary. The refuge also happens to be the most important onshore polar bear denning habitat in Alaska. And bears aren’t the only animals that make their homes in this pristine northern wilderness — despite its chilly disposition, the refuge supports an incredibly diverse ecosystem, including the famous Porcupine caribou herd. Yet this national treasure has been caught up in a decades-long battle between those who wish to preserve the refuge’s integrity, and those who seek to open it up for oil and gas drilling. Such a move could be catastrophic for polar bears, from the impacts the bears’ habitat to the increased difficulties of hunting prey frightened off by noise and infrastructure. And for what purpose? A limited amount of oil that the U.S. Energy Information Administration says won’t even make a dent in the price at the pump, let alone in our country’s addiction to oil and other dirty fossil fuels.

Climate change has had such a dramatic impact on polar bear populations that my son’s generation could be the last to see polar bears on U.S. shores. With their homes literally melting away beneath their feet, there are now fewer than 20,000 polar bears left on Earth.

As the candles are blown out on its 50th birthday cake, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is safe from oil and gas development. But it’s only a matter of time before Big Oil’s lobbyists begin to push for drilling with renewed energy. And as a freshman class full of climate “deniers” settles into their new offices on the Hill, it won’t be long before chants of “drill, baby, drill” begin echoing the hallways of Congress. Arctic supporters will have to continue to be strong to fend off attacks due to our country’s stubborn addiction to oil and our inability to move on to cleaner, safer renewable energy. I can personally attest to the hard work that will entail — protecting the refuge from drilling was a battle I had to fight as director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. But in order to remain an important sanctuary for polar bears, the Arctic refuge must continue to be off-limits to energy development.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, courtesy of USFWS

But there is more that we can do to save the polar bear. Besides protecting the refuge from oil and gas exploration, we also need to address one of the biggest problems for the bear, and that’s food. With the loss of multi-year sea ice, and with it their food source, ice dependant seals, polar bears will be stuck on land more often, looking for ways to feed themselves.

Already, this is leading to bears entering communities in search of food. Alaska Native communities have traditionally used ice cellars to store their food. With hungry polar bears increasingly staying on land, these communities are looking at more secure ways to store their food that will not attract bears. Defenders of Wildlife and World Wildlife Fund are providing polar bear resistant food lockers for a pilot program in coastal community of Kaktovik. If we can find alternative ways to store food in these communities, we will be saving the lives of people and polar bears alike.

While Defenders is finding ways to discourage polar bears from accessing food in rural communities, we are also exploring safe ways to feed polar bears on land. Defenders is working in partnership with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) to host a workshop of science experts in June 2011 to consider supplemental and diversionary feeding and ways to replicate and build on other methods of reducing human-polar bear conflicts. The results of the workshop will shape the Service’s decisions regarding polar bear management in Alaska.

There are other ways to help the polar bear, including ending all trophy hunting; ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; protecting the bears’ prey base, such as a recent government proposal to list six Arctic seal species threatened by diminished sea ice; and in the end, working with zoos and wildlife scientists on how best to preserve the polar bear’s diverse gene pool should climate change claim entire populations.

The only thing more tragic than the loss of Alaska polar bears would be Americans making the conscious decision to destroy what may be their only hope for survival in exchange for a few drops of oil. I don’t want to have to tell my son that because my generation valued filling up their Hummers more than protecting this unique and incredible animal, the only polar bears he’ll know will be those in a zoo, or worse — featured in old Coca-Cola commercials. Our country has had great successes with restoring imperiled wildlife. Let’s make sure that the polar bear is one of those successes.

Read more about what Defenders is doing to help save the world’s only marine bear.