Do you agree with the Interior Department decision to list polar bears as a threatened species?

Question

The Interior Department declared the polar bear a threatened species, saying it must be protected because of the decline in Arctic sea ice from global warming.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne cited dramatic declines in sea ice over the last three decades and projections of continued losses. These declines, he told a news conference, mean the polar bear is a species likely to be in danger of extinction in the near future.

Kempthorne cited as support for his decision conclusions by the department's scientists that sea ice loss will likely result in two-thirds of the polar bears disappearing by mid-century.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Polar-Bear.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Here is an interview with Dr. Nick Lunn of the Canadian Wildlife Service - one of a handful of scientists studying the polar bear.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2008/03/10/scientist-on-western-hudson-bay-polar-bear-population-i-consider-myself-a-historian/

Do you agree?

Answer 1

What can the US do unless the Bears are in Alaska?  There is nothing the US can do to protect the bears in Canada, but it sure does make me feel good and all warm and fuzzy!

Answer 2

It seems odd to me--the polar bear population is doing fine, but maybe, sometime down the road, polar bears might be threatened.

Personally, I doubt that it really comes down to a want to protect the polar bear, but rather it is the backdoor to forcing major CO2 restrictions.

Edit:

Well it is a good thing that Kempthorne put his foot down: "That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn’t abused to make global warming policies.”

Answer 3

He has a history of using his job to make things a lot worse for everyone.  You can't keep ignoring how this side is for this economic scam as well!  And it will make pollution a lot worse!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/...

"Negative consequences

Opponents of the Engangered Species Act argue that that the act may have a perverse effect of habitat destruction. An example given by the Property and Environment Research Center, a free-market environmental think-tank, is that of the red cockaded woodpecker. This woodpecker prefers to nest in trees that are at least 80 years old. Ben Cone is a tree farmer in North Carolina who owns 7,200 acres of southern pines. In 1991, the federal government forced him to pay a biologist $8,000 to look for red cockaded woodpeckers on his land[7]. After they were found, the government forced him to set aside 1,560 acres of his land in order to protect the woodpecker habitat. This cost him an additional $1.8 million. The government did not compensate him for his losses. Originally, his family had allowed the trees to grow for 80 to 100 years before harvesting them. In order to prevent any further financial losses, Cone switched the rest of his acreage to a rotation of only 30 to 40 years, so it would no longer be a suitable habitat to the woodpecker. [8] Randal O'Toole, a libertarian economist and public policy analyst who studied this case, stated, "Cone was given no incentive to protect the bird... When landowners face stiff penalties for harboring endangered species, they minimize suitable habitat... The law creates incentives to destroy wildlife." [9] A study of more than 1,000 forest plots showed that many other landowners have also cut down trees in order to prevent the woodpecker from nesting on their land. [10]"

A January 20, 2008 article in The New York Times states, "In a new working paper that examines the plight of the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, the economists John List, Michael Margolis and Daniel Osgood found that landowners near Tucson rushed to clear their property for development rather than risk having it declared a safe haven for the owl. The economists make the argument for 'the distinct possibility that the Endangered Species Act is actually endangering, rather than protecting, species.'" [11]

--Wikipedia (small section at the end on the "Endangered Species Act")

Sounds like a scam to make logging companies, contracting firms, and other interests that destroy the envorinment rich to me.  No wonder Nixon enacted it!

Answer 4

I agree that they actually opened their eyes to see the reduction of polar bears due to man-made global warming. What I don't agree in is the fact that they listed it as an endangered species but are doing nothing to protect them from ice glaciers melting. Look this is simple, If we don't act now on a global warming Act then we can kiss our kids' futures goodbye. We used the Commerce Clause to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and to desegregate public places but we can't use this as a stepping stone? This is just pure bullshlt from the subgovernments who are controlling congress!. Why not use this to regulate CO2 Emmissions, b/c clearly the states aren't doing a thing about it!

Answer 5

Yes

Answer 6

I don't hunt polar bears, nor do I care to hunt them, so it really doesn't affect me. The guides and outfitters that sponsor hunts  will be affected by the decision.  I would be more interested with  their opinion on this decision.

Answer 7

great so far as it goes, but i notice

"The US government Wednesday listed polar bears as a threatened species owing to a drastic reduction in Arctic sea ice, but stood by its permission for oil and gas drilling in their frozen habitat."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20080514/ts...

hmmmmm.

but at least this means they have now openly admitted climate change is affecting ecosystems;

"The announcement by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne amounted to the government's first use of the Endangered Species Act to list a species as menaced because of a loss of habitat caused by global warming."

Answer 8

I believe they know better than I, and especially Jello, do.

(Btw, Jello only feels warm b/c he's BURNING IN HE-L-L)

Answer 9

The real threatened species is the American worker.

When the food runs out, and the riots start, hopefuly it will be the 'interior' dept and those responsible for such useless decisions that will be the first on the chopping block.

Answer 10

The Endangered Species Act has been around for a long time. It has stringent requirements that must be met, before listing species on the list. I'm sure the intense scientific analysis of the past year (along with many years study before) made it quite clear that they should be listed.  

Kempthorne is a well-known Bush appointed conservative Republican, so we certainly know this wasn't done based on political ideology.  Kempthorne is also at the end of his political career (having already been a Senator and Governor and his current position will end in January), so it would be foolish to claim he buckled under some sort of imaginary pressure.  

As Occam's Razor states: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."  And the simplest explanation is that the science shows the polar bears are endangered.

Edit:

Cindy W. - see if you can learn the difference between extent and mass. That might help you understand the sea ice issue. It looks like another year of near record sea ice melt is underway:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Answer 11

This may seem like an odd analogy, but stick with me here.  

When congress gave casino gambling to the Native Americans, it was to make redress and give them a leg up.  But you know what they did?  All the profits stay with the tribe that has the casino on it's land.  If your reservation is in Connecticut next to a major market you get a windfall.  If it's in East Podunk you're out of luck.  So a tiny fraction of tribes get billions and the rest get nothing.  And the casino industry takes a huge cut and manipulates the tribe because otherwise they don't have the wherewithal to create said casino and get nothing.  

So we have this really blunt arbitrary instrument that creates as many problems as it solves.

You know my positions on these issues, all species should be protected.  But that is a practical impossibility in the modern western world, so we pick and choose what is important and what is not without really understanding what we are doing or why.

How can we chop the top off entire mountains in Appalachia because there are no "important" species there, while at the same time shut down the industry of entire regions in what seems more like a publicity stunt (spotted owl).

You know, I think it's perverse that we allow entire ecosystems to be degraded, and species to fall below some arbitrary cutoff before we swoop in and "save" them in dramatic fashion.

There has to be a more rational way to do it.

Answer 12

Polar bears are well adapted to the water, and can swim miles to land, but the distance is increasing as the ice melts. It's actually not a problem for them to swim around 100 miles, but with the Warming, it's a longer swim, costing more energy, making them vulnerable, and causing many to drown. With all this struggle for survival, polar bears, usually around 10ft tall and 1700lbs are becoming much thinner. Polar bears use their body fat to keep them alive in the harsh winters. Usually at this time of year, they would be sheltering with their young in dens they carve for themselves in mountain slopes near the shoreline or in snowdrifts on the sea ice. Global Warming causes their habitats to disappear.

So to answer your question, yes I do believe polar bears are a threatened species.

Answer 13

actually I've heard reports that the polar bears were doing great. the only in-dangered species I see are true American patriots.

Answer 14

I still have not found that peer reviewed science that states that THE SUN WARMS US as you demanded... But, I did find quite a number of articles that state that the SEA ICE HAS INCREASED further showing the stupidity of you and your chronies....  

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news...

http://www.motherjones.com/blue_marble_b...

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...

Funny that many say that sea ice increases because of a lot of "HOT AIR" which is what your GLOBAL WARMING HOAX IS FULL OF.