by Vic Van Ballenberghe

There are countless examples across North America where wildlife populations, including endangered species, were harmed by poorly regulated development, contrary to Attorney General Sullivan's claim ("Developing resources won't harm wildlife," Dec. 13). I am sure Mr. Sullivan is a good lawyer but he lacks expertise as a biologist.

Mr. Sullivan pledges lawsuits to stop actions designed to protect endangered species like the polar bear. He thereby demonstrates Alaska's intent to violate this nation's policy and statutes to protect and restore endangered species. He claims it's in the public interest to advance economic opportunities while preserving wildlife, but his lawsuits fail to consider what's best for wildlife.

Mr. Sullivan's lawyers recently argued before the state Supreme Court that Alaska need not manage predators for sustained yield, contrary to the state constitution. If we scrap sustained yield management and endangered species protection, how much longer will our wildlife resources remain intact?

Let's not pit wildlife against resource development. We need them both.