Sean Parnell on the polar bear critical habitat designation in Alaska
Author: Brandon Middleton
The Alaska governor's op-ed in Friday's Washington Post:
Imagine a federal agency listing a species as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act even though that species is stable and shows no
evidence of decline.
Now imagine that agency setting aside an area larger than the state of
California as "designated critical habitat" for that species, and
subjecting all activity in that region to federal review, skyrocketing
costs, endless delays and certain litigation, despite the agency itself
admitting that the critical-habitat designation will do nothing to
benefit the species.
Unfortunately, this isn't a hypothetical situation. This is exactly what
is occurring in Alaska as the federal government strives to appease
environmental advocacy groups.
What to read next
Can the government designate your private property critical habitat for a species that can’t survive there?
Pacific Legal Foundation filed its Reply Brief today in Weyerhaeuser v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in this important … ›