Investor’s Business Daily Misleads on Polar Bears
- Andrew Wetzler
- Director, Endangered Species Project, Chicago
- Blog | About
- Posted October 27, 2009 in Moving Beyond Oil , Saving Wildlife and Wild Places , U.S. Law and Policy
Investor’s Business Daily just published a foolish editorial about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's recent proposal to designate over 200,000 square miles of Alaskan coast and sea ice as “critical habitat” for the State’s beleaguered polar bear population. The editorial doesn’t contain much in the way of actual substance, and what substance it does have is mostly bunk. Here’s a sample:
The administration creates the mother of all protected habitats for a species whose numbers have increased since Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."
Wrong. In fact, not even close to being right. The global population of polar bears is thought to number between 20,000 and 25,000 individuals. No scientist of whom I’m aware suggests that this number has increased since 2006, when “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. Way back in 2005, of the 19 recognized polar bear sub-populations, 5 were thought to be declining, only 2 were thought be increasing, and five were thought to be stable. As for the rest, we simply didn’t know. One of those declining populations, by the way, is in the Southern Beaufort Sea, where much of Alaska’s polar bears are located. Today, the situation has only deteriorated.
The editorial also states:
One of the nine critical errors Judge Michael Burton found in Gore's film was the claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for ice melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court said it was aware of were four that died following a storm.
Well, I can’t speak to Judge Burton’s ruling, but as a factual matter this is also wrong. In 2005 scientists did indeed spot four drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea during regular transect surveys of the area and following an intense storm. But based on extrapolation from the area surveyed, they estimate that as many as 27 bears could have died. It was the first time in over a quarter-century that such a mass-drowning event had ever been recorded. In 2008 a large number of swimming bears was also reported in the same area. As sea ice continues to retreat farther from land and the distance polar bears need to swim grows, such mass drowning events are projected to increase, not only in the Beaufort Sea, but in other places as well.
If Investor Business Daily wants to editorialize about designating critical habitat for the polar bear, fine. But guys, get your facts straight first.

(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.




Comments
Kevin Taylor — Oct 31 2009 05:11 PM
I think you need to take your own advice and get your facts straight. You state that, "based on extrapolation from the area surveyed, they estimate that as many as 27 bears could have died." That's where you should have stopped. Extrapolations are not facts - they are estimates based on observations. Estimates have a 50% of being right and 50% of being wrong. It's fair enough to assume that up to 27 bears could have died. However, to sensationalize your story by continuing with, "It was the first time in over a quarter-century that such a mass-drowning event had ever been recorded" is misleading and wrong. Were the deaths of 27 bears in fact recorded? I think you know the answer to that question. So why did you state it as a fact when you know there is reasonably good chance it's not true? It is this type of misrepresentation that hinders the environmental movement. You see, I want to be a part of the movement. In fact, I am sitting here with an NRDC gift solicitation and trying to decide if I should contribute. So then I read this gross distortion of the truth and it makes me want to stay far, far away. I don't know what is real, what is contrived, what is distorted, or what is plausible. Thanks for helping me make up my mind.
Andrew Wetzler — Oct 31 2009 05:24 PM
Thanks for commenting Kevin. I guess I'm a little puzzled by your reaction. As you note, I explained the origin of the estimate of 27 bear dealth, and linked to the source so folks to look at it and judge for themselves. Also, it’s worth noting that while you are correct that less than 27 bears could have drowned, it's equally true that more than 27 bears could have drowned. It's also true that scientists had never before recorded multiple drowned bears (or even 1, so far as I know) during this survey. Finally, even if you assume only 4 bears died (which, as you note, is a poor assumption) it would still constitute a mass drowning event never before recorded. In short, I think there is nothing sensationalistic about the claim.
Anyway, I hope you come back to Switchboard and keep checking us out. Maybe you'll change your mind again.