Do you think it is good that they classified polar bears as threatened species?

Question

In 1970 there were only 5,000 polar bears in the world. Today, there are 25,000 polar bears. But in 50 years they expect the polar bears to be threatened because of melting ice in antarctica, due to global warming.

Answer 1

I wish they had never done that. They should have done more research before doing so. Polar bears are the alarmist's road to scaring people.

Answer 2

Its pointless and just a way to scare people more about global warming. Global warming is a farce in the 70s there was Global cooling and an impending ice age......well im not frozen.

Answer 3

But they didn't, not really, the government showed utter contempt for the statutes they are bound to uphold by watering it down to the point the designation is practically meaningless, a designation in name only.

It's good they were classified as threatened, though.  There's usually a bump in public awareness.

A few links if you haven't had a chance to check out the status of polar bears in greater detail.

Answer 4

Why don't we wait until they actually become a threatened species 50 years from now to see if the prediction rings true? (Which I doubt).

It's nothing but typical alarmism.

It could be equally argued that any species, including the human race, COULD be endangered in 50 years.  So, why limit it to Polar Bears?

Answer 5

(it isn't the antarctic, rather, the polar bears live in the arctic).

It seems to me to be a rather useless classification:

-Polar bear populations are stable. Models predict that sometime down the line polar bears could be endangered.

-The vast majority of bears live in Canada, where our "threatened" classification won't do a thing.

-Secretary Kempthorne said "That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn’t abused to make global warming policies.” So, listing the polar bear won't stop emissions.

It was pointless to list them. Though, I am glad Kempthorne isn't allowing this to be a backdoor entrance to global warming policies.

Answer 6

yes. if all ice meltdown they can't live in other country. not just the polar bear maybe many life's in there are threaten.

Answer 7

It is just another example of alarmist stupidity!

Answer 8

This does not exactly answer your question but...

I am not particularly worried about global warming not saying that I do not believe it exists, only that there are things that are destroying this country/planet right now this very minute that I think are more pressing than something that may/may not be happening, and if it is happening it will not be catastrophic for 50 or even 500 years from now.

Why not first deal with the things that can/is killing us TODAY, today?

What about chemical testing, HIV, AIDS, drivebys, cancer, famines, natural catastrophies, murder???? Or is worrying about the aforementioned, considered passe?

Answer 9

It's a good way to make people want to learn more about them, study their population dynamics and understand more about the threats on their population, as they are threathened by things other than global warming, such as hunting and pollution,

and if the arctic sea ice really is receding, then more pressure will be put on their population.

I think Polar bears could be classified as an umbrella or flagship species for other polar animals as well, so by protecting them, other animals in the north pole such as the arctic foxes or even seals would also receive a degree of protection...

However, classifying an animal (not just polar bears) as a threatened species is one thing, and doing something real to keep them safe is another...

I reckon it's pointless calling an animal a threatened species but no action is taken to reduce the pressure that is threatening their population...