|
Floaters: Polar Bear P.R.
By Cary Curlee
Extreme staff reporter
For years, federal biologists have annually counted bowhead whales
sighted in North America’s Arctic waters. Bowheads
are targeted in the aerial survey, but the team’s researchers
routinely note the presence of other marine mammals, including seals,
walrus and polar bears, along with fluctuations detected in the
region’s sea ice.
In 2004, members of the “Bowhead Whale Aerial Survey Project”
observed something unexpected, possibly even unprecedented: four
polar bears had apparently drowned while swimming in the open ocean.
The observation marked the beginning of a two-year PR nightmare for the Interior Department and
several in-house agencies, pitting political considerations of policy
makers and industry regulators against science-minded biologists
conditioned toward sharing the long-standing survey's new data.
 |
"As I mentioned earlier, hold off talking to the press, unless we get the
ok from FWS or DOI"; wrote John Goll, regional director of
Interior’s minerals management agency, in an October 2005 email
to biologist Charles Monett, the survey's project leader.
|
 |
News of the drowned bear sightings trickled out over time. Waves of worldwide
interest greeted each new reference, along with another round of
internal debate within federal agencies pressed for comment. The
wrangling stirred by a handful of floating carcasses is chronicled in
a stack of inter-agency e-mails obtained by UAF Journalism through a
Freedom of Information request.
|
Even as Goll urged Monnet to “hold off,” the regional director’s
effort to control the release of information was being undercut by a
jurisdictional shuffle.
 |
Monnet pointed out that his name had been given to a reporter from the San
Francisco Chronicle by two other Interior branches, including Fish
and Wildlife Service, one of the agencies his boss now wanted him to
consult. The reporter had already questioned him about the survey
team’s observations. "She was mostly interested in the fact we saw 4 dead polar
bears floating in the ocean that we believed has succumbed to
drowning."
|
The biologist added that the reporter had agreed to read back quotes and
other material she planned to attribute to him "to ensure that
they are factually correct."
 |
In a message copied to other agencies and researchers, Goll e-mailed back
that he merely wanted to make sure everyone was "aware and
concurred" with the scientist's comments to the newspaper.
"Similar to if they (federal wildlife or Interior officials)
got a question on offshore oil and gas, I would hope they would let
us know."
|
"We will look forward to the article," he added.
 |
Annoyance colored the scientist's prickly response the following day.
"FYI, I did not know we needed FYS permission to talk about pb. I suppose
NOAA will have to approve when we talk about bowheads."
|
|
|
Furthermore Monnet speculated via email, where might the requested consideration between agencies end.
"I wonder what happens when MMS disagrees with FWS."
|
|
Robin Cacy, the minerals agency spokeswoman, contacted FWS and received their approval.
"I spoke to FWS/Rose Mehan; She said they have no problem with us talking to the media regarding polar bears."
|
|
Media members continued their attempt to gather information, culminating in
a request from National Geographic Television, to interview Monnett.
This time the refusal came from Washington, D.C., in the form of a
short and pointed email from Drew Malcomb, MMS Media Relations
Officer.
|
In retrospect, conflicts were perhaps inevitable given the bowhead
survey’s odd patronage.
The whale count was commissioned by the Minerals Management Service, an
Interior agency more commonly associated with resource development.
Indeed, the bowhead survey serves to collect environmental data used
regulating off-shore oil development.
Responsibility for population management, proposed developments affecting habitat
and pretty much everything else crucial to polar bears normally falls
under the jurisdiction of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service.
But that agency’s biologists weren’t part of the survey
team.
|
When reporters from around the world began calling about the reports first
circulated by wildlife protection groups, they naturally sought
comment from FWS. This was disconcerting. Minerals agency personnel
had been the ones who saw the drowned bears. Questions about the
sightings were referred to MMS.
|
|
In typical government agency fashion, the minerals agency directed
inquisitive reporters back to fish and wildlife. Eventually Monnet,
the MMS biologist leading the bowhead project
asked their PR people if they could get FWS permission to talk about
polar bears.
|
The FWS consented, rather whole-heartedly.
After the MMS got the green light in fall 2005, the agency was flooded
with requests for pictures or video of the unfortunate bears floating in the frigid Arctic waters.
Disappointingly, for the journalist, MMS couldn’t produce any visual evidence;
the weather had been too poor for decent photos. Media interest in
the story dropped like a possum shot out of the top of a persimmon
tree.
|
Those dead floaters rested in peace until the MMS researchers presented
their findings about changes in Arctic sea ice at the 16th annual
Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals in San Diego. The team’s
poster mentioned the sightings of drowned polar bears.
|
Now, the humble, let-me-stick-to-science MMS researchers came under new
fire anew. The wildlife agency had previously been more than willing
to let the minerals team biologists talk about dead floaters, but the
conference poster was another matter.
Upperlevel MMS mangers were perplexed as to how the interagency
stepping-on-the-toes could have happened. Wasn’t there a
procedure in place to prevent such surprises from occurring? Actually
there was. No, it didn't work.
|
Alaska Region minerals agency public affairs personnel received new guidance
about what could be released concerning polar bears. Any information
on the subject now required higher-level approval prior to
publication outside the organization, or better yet not released at
all.
|
|
Three MMS biologists were on the plane the day when those drowned bears
were sighted in 2004: Charles Monnett, Jeffrey Gleason and Lisa
Rotterman. The team’s observations catapulted the whale
watchers into a polar den of controversy.
|
|
By July 2006, agency managers began encouraging scientists to take part in practice interviews before speaking with the media.
|
In fall 2006, this reporter sought to speak with one of the researchers
just to see if they had any idea what a stir those dead bears would
cause?
Only Monett is still with the Anchorage MMS office.
"An interview will have to be approved by Washington," responded
Cacy, the minerals agency’s Alaska region public affairs
officer.
I was eventually granted an interview with Monett. PR watchdog Cacy sat in
on our discussion. Monett was straight forward and clear. He didn’t,
as one might expect, consider the sighting might draw the attention
it did. If he had any inkling, the biologist said, he’d would
have tried harder to get better pictures or video.
With the apparent changes in the Arctic sea ice and the effects these
changes might have on animal behavior, the ongoing bowhead project
may yield further information about polar bears swimming ever longer
distances separating a shrinking icepack from shore. How might
upper-level Interior personnel react?
|
|
Cacy may have provided insight in a June 2006 interagency email response to the conference
poster flap. As she put it: "Oh those darn polar bears!"
|
|
