Washington, DC; July 30, 2008: Pacific Legal Foundation, headquartered in Sacramento, CA and the nation’s leading legal watchdog for property rights and a balanced approach to environmental protection, today announced a legal challenge to the federal government’s decision to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act because of climate change, or global warming, considerations.

In a letter mailed to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, PLF details how the listing of the polar bear as threatened falls short of the standards required by the ESA and the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

The letter constitutes the “60-Day Notice” that plaintiffs must provide before the formal filing of a lawsuit against federal endangered-species regulations. The PLF letter is filed on behalf of ranching and forestry interests that, along with employers nationwide and the economy in general, would be harmed by heavy-handed regulations that could proceed from the listing of the polar bear.

Another party represented by PLF in the filing of this letter is CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality, a philanthropic civil rights organization established to fight discrimination and encourage the economic and social independence of the poor and minorities. CORE’s interest in this case stems from the fact that excessive environmental regulation drives up the cost of energy, housing, transportation, and food, all of which disproportionately harms low-income minorities.

“The government’s listing decision is based on guesswork about future trends in ice floes and bear population, not solid science,” said PLF Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper. “In fact, it contradicts the undisputed fact that polar bear numbers have been increasing, not decreasing. Polar bear numbers have risen from as low as 5,000 fifty years ago to as high as 25,000 today, according to federal estimates.”

Among the major points in the PLF “60-Day Notice” letter:

• The Claim of “Threatened” Status Is Not Supported by Sea Ice Models

The government relied on ice forecasting models that do not meet the ESA’s requirement that a listing be based on “best available science.” The factors that affect sea ice in the Arctic are unknown, and probably unknowable. Due to their high degree of complexity and variability, they cannot be reproduced by any known modeling system. Indeed, the “prediction” that 2/3 of the polar bear population will be lost by mid-century is speculation based on a “prototype” model that the Interior Department warns is only preliminary and “not to be taken as final.”

• Threatened Status Is Not Supported by Current Polar Bear Demographics

Independent studies have confirmed that approximately 3/4 of the 19 polar bear populations worldwide are either increasing, stable, or indeterminate. Of the five populations identified as declining, only two are deemed in decline due to reduced ice conditions. The rest are identified as declining solely due to over harvest – a factor, according to the Interior Department, that does not support a listing. Moreover, polar bears have already survived previous warming periods with higher temperatures than exist today and with significant reductions in sea ice.

• The Government Impermissibly Relies on Anecdotal Evidence

The ESA requires that listings be based on “best available evidence.” Mere anecdotal evidence does not meet this standard, and yet the government’s listing announcement is replete with anecdotal stories – of bear drownings, for instance – without any critical evaluation. Especially when the overall numbers of polar bears have increased over time, anecdotes about incidents involving individual bears are simply not a scientifically credible basis for a listing decision.

• The Listing Is Arbitrary Because the Government Admits the Polar Bear Is Already Protected

“This suit is necessary to ensure the use of good science and prudent judgment in environmental regulations, and for adherence to the law,” said Reed Hopper. “We are also defending the American economy against devastating regulations that could be imposed because of this listing. We could see crushing restrictions on job creation, land use, and the whole gamut of economic activity, if global warming factors are cited in lawsuits to ‘enforce’ the polar bear listing.”

The “60-Day Notice” letter is available at PLF’s website: www.pacificlegal.org .