data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/af205/af2057a4cd8364c44d9afaf6afec3c6f2291d531" alt=""
“To see the polar bear’s habitat melting and an iconic species threatened is an environmental tragedy of the modern age,” Salazar said. “This administration is fully committed to the protection and recovery of the polar bear. I have reviewed the current rule, received the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and concluded that the best course of action for protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is to wisely implement the current rule, monitor its effectiveness, and evaluate our options for improving the recovery of the species.”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57cf9/57cf9443ef592a254fb99ef3aaa697e6de4e4058" alt=""
In addition, the polar bear is protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which provides equal and in some cases more stringent protections, and international treaties such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
The rule also states that incidental take of polar bears resulting from activities outside the bear’s range, such as emission of greenhouse gases, will not be prohibited under the ESA.
“We must do all we can to help the polar bear recover, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change,” Salazar said. “However, theUnder the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Congress granted Salazar authority until May 10 to revoke the 4(d) rule. If Salazar had decided to withdraw the 4(d) rule, a virtually identical “interim” 4(d) rule issued by the previous Administration when the polar bear was first listed as a threatened species would be put back in place.
Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions. Instead, we need a comprehensive energy and climate strategy that curbs climate change and its impacts – including the loss of sea ice. Both President Obama and I are committed to achieving that goal.”
“Revoking the current 4(d) rule would return us to an interim rule that would offer no more protections for the polar bear and would result in uncertainty and confusion about the management of the species,” Salazar said.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/83dea/83dea0d145e807da55e83f40e02fcf9162147e1d" alt=""
No comments:
Post a Comment