Polar Bears an endangered species!!!

[dancing-loon]

Hallelujah!!
Polar bear added to U.S. endangered species list

On the eve of a court deadline, the U.S. Interior Department is adding the polar bear to the list threatened species. This comes after evidence that rising temperatures are causing Arctic Sea ice -- the bears' habitat -- to vanish.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc...r_bears_080514

 

[MHz]

The bears don't spend their summers 'on the ice', they are on land mostly, esp the females. Nor are their numbers decreasing. Sending ice-breakers through the ice has a better chance of getting a few stranded than the natural freezing and thawing of the ice-pack. Global warming might mean their hunting season would be shorter. If the ice totally vanished the bears would probably need some humans to curry-comb them so they don't overheat. If the North ever became warm enough for humans they would be the first ones to be deliberately killed, just like their cousins down here on the flats.

 

[dancing-loon]

Aw... what do YOU know? How come you are so negative today?

We had a thread going on Polar bears a while back, I just couldn't find it right now. Anyway, we have talked about it, and scientist, naturalists, geologists etc. all had given their assessments, even the Inuit/Natives. Of course, the Natives said there are plenty of bears around. Well, it's their b. ... business that's at stake... naturally they will say there are plenty of bears!

All I am happy about is that these wonderful, beautiful, majestic and spiritual animals get protected!!!

 

[MHz]

Do you think a good place to start would be to put a ban on ice-breakers entering the Arctic at all? How much faster that that cause the break-up of the ice?
If the fish population can cope with a larger seal population then rather than killing the seal cubs in more southern waters there could be a catch and release program. That in turn would take some strain off the fish on the grand banks. (which probably died, in part, from all the ships sunk during WWII and the toxins, to fish, they were carrying. Those things are probably still leaking out bit-by-bit)
I'm not trying to be negative. A 300lb black bear cub would probably scare you if you got very close to one, let alone a 12ft tall one. I'm all for conservation of wildlife, but that means protection from man's activities, not isolation from man's activities. Did the herds of buffalo stop western expansion? They have the same qualities as you give to Polar Bears.

 

[Walter]

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Polar Bears: More Journalistic Malpractice [Henry Payne]

How do you declare a species endangered when its numbers are increasing?

Once again, my profession — journalism — failed its fundamental duty to report the facts Wednesday as the Interior Department bowed to political pressure from green groups to declare polar bears an threatened species due to global warming. This, despite the fact that bear populations have increased from 5,000–10,000 in the early 1970s to between 20,000 and 25,000 today (during the very period their habitat was allegedly shrinking). This is in part due to concentrated efforts to impose harvesting controls that have allowed this once-overhunted species to recover.

Indeed, Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a bear biologist with the Canadian government, wrote in 2006: “There is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

This data is readily available in the public record, and yet a review of reports from America’s two leading print sources found nary a mention. The Associated Press completely ignored the bear population data and any critics of the decision. As for The New York Times, reporter Felicity Barringer also ignored the data, but at least alluded to it by quoting M. Reed Hopper of the Pacific Legal Foundation (which is suing the Department of the Interior over the decision) at the very end of her article as saying: “Never before has a thriving species been listed nor should it be.”

Otherwise, press accounts seemed more than willing (as did Interior obviously) to accept the definition of a shrinking bear habitat put forward by the plaintiff in the suit against Interior, the radical left group Greenpeace.

“Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne cited dramatic declines in sea ice over the last three decades and projections of continued losses,” wrote AP. But as leading climatologist Patrick Michaels wrote in 2005 (when Greenpeace brought its suit): “Although the history of average Arctic temperatures shows no long-term warming whatsoever, trends can be found in the data if different starting points are used in the analysis — which is precisely what Greenpeace did. According to its release, ‘sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has declined 5.5 percent since 1978.’ Of course, 1978 is near the coldest point on record. Starting there has better yield a warming trend!”

In other words, Greenpeace — surprise! — deliberately cherry-picked data to bolster its case. Federal agencies should be skeptical of such a tactic — but for America’s top journalists to swallow it whole is simply unprofessional.

 

[dancing-loon]

Do you think a good place to start would be to put a ban on ice-breakers entering the Arctic at all? How much faster that that cause the break-up of the ice?
If the fish population can cope with a larger seal population then rather than killing the seal cubs in more southern waters there could be a catch and release program. That in turn would take some strain off the fish on the grand banks. (which probably died, in part, from all the ships sunk during WWII and the toxins, to fish, they were carrying. Those things are probably still leaking out bit-by-bit)
I'm not trying to be negative. A 300lb black bear cub would probably scare you if you got very close to one, let alone a 12ft tall one. I'm all for conservation of wildlife, but that means protection from man's activities, not isolation from man's activities. Did the herds of buffalo stop western expansion? They have the same qualities as you give to Polar Bears.

Alright, what point are you arguing? To stop the icebreakers, or not to stop the icebreakers? The icebreakers we won't be able to stop, but the hunting for pleasure and sport we can and should stop!

Are you for or against declaring the Polar Bears an endangered species? And what is the difference between protecting them from human activity, OR isolating them from such activity?

We are not talking here about dying fish and seal cubs, nor about buffalo herds... we are talking about preserving the Polar Bears, so they can still be around a little longer. IF their habitat gets altered through global warming and becomes unlivable to hem, then it is nature doing them in and not man with his harpoons, shotguns, clubs and the like. Nature we can not stop, but man we can try!

I am for stopping the hunting for sport and pleasure!!!!!!!!

 

[MHz]

Alright, what point are you arguing? To stop the icebreakers, or not to stop the icebreakers? The icebreakers we won't be able to stop, but the hunting for pleasure and sport we can and should stop!

Depends what the objective is, preserve the ice or hasten it's departure. So far it seems to be centered on preserving the ice, that would mean you have to stop the icebreakers, period. There are enough subs around that they could be used to gather any data needed. Yes the breakers can be stopped.

Are you for or against declaring the Polar Bears an endangered species? And what is the difference between protecting them from human activity, OR isolating them from such activity?

Again it depends, if wars have to be fought in the name of oil because the North becomes a protected area then they should not get that label. If the North can be developed they should get a label that gets them considered important enough that steps are taken to ensure that the oil industry impacts their lives as little as possible.

We are not talking here about dying fish and seal cubs, nor about buffalo herds... we are talking about preserving the Polar Bears, so they can still be around a little longer. IF their habitat gets altered through global warming and becomes unlivable to hem, then it is nature doing them in and not man with his harpoons, shotguns, clubs and the like. Nature we can not stop, but man we can try!

Their population is still at the whim of supply and demand, food being just as important to them as it is us. Certainly the sport hunting should stop, who hunts these bears, people with too much money.
Would you agree that bears sort of regulate themselves, lots of food they get big, declining food they 'shrink'. That isn't the road to extinction, it is following the availability of food that says only a few big bears (or more smaller bears) are sustainable
I kind of like the idea of some stupid rich smuck going against a full grown bear with just a club.

I am for stopping the hunting for sport and pleasure!!!!!!!!

Certainly, I don't think they should even be put in zoo's. The repetitive motions animals exhibit at zoo's are stress induced moves, they aren't dancing for the viewers.

 

[dancing-loon]

Quoting dancing-loon Alright, what point are you arguing? To stop the icebreakers, or not to stop the icebreakers? The icebreakers we won't be able to stop, but the hunting for pleasure and sport we can and should stop!
MHz​

Depends what the objective is, preserve the ice or hasten it's departure. So far it seems to be centered on preserving the ice, that would mean you have to stop the icebreakers, period. There are enough subs around that they could be used to gather any data needed. Yes the breakers can be stopped.
Loon
I didn't know it's the ice they want to preserve! Preserve it for the bears?
Don' t we need the icebreakers to enable the ships to go through? Why are we breaking up the ice now? Does the icebreaker gather water, climate and spy data?
But fine, let's stop the breakers! Use u-boats!

Quoting dancing-loon Are you for or against declaring the Polar Bears an endangered species? And what is the difference between protecting them from human activity, OR isolating them from such activity?
MGz​

Again it depends, if wars have to be fought in the name of oil because the North becomes a protected area then they should not get that label. If the North can be developed they should get a label that gets them considered important enough that steps are taken to ensure that the oil industry impacts their lives as little as possible.
Loon
Why would we fight a war up there? About the Alaska oil? That is rather remote, imo. Anyway, given that scenario any regulations would be temporarily annulled.
Yes, I agree... the oil industry should work around the bears as best they can, but it would be better, to leave the oil alone altogether. There is enough oil elsewhere.

Quoting dancing-loon We are not talking here about dying fish and seal cubs, nor about buffalo herds... we are talking about preserving the Polar Bears, so they can still be around a little longer. IF their habitat gets altered through global warming and becomes unlivable to hem, then it is nature doing them in, and not man with his harpoons, shotguns, clubs and the like. Nature we can not stop, but man we can try!
MHz​

Their population is still at the whim of supply and demand, food being just as important to them as it is to us. Certainly the sport hunting should stop, who hunts these bears, people with too much money.
loon
At least here we are in agreement!People with to much money can give it to charities.
MHz
Would you agree that bears sort of regulate themselves, lots of food they get big, declining food they 'shrink'. That isn't the road to extinction, it is following the availability of food that says only a few big bears (or more smaller bears) are sustainable.
loon
Yes, that is the course of nature, at least as far as we humans have left it intact.
MHz
I kind of like the idea of some stupid rich smuck going against a full grown bear with just a club.
loon
:lol:Me too!

Quoting dancing-loon I am for stopping the hunting for sport and pleasure!!!!!!!!
MHz​

Certainly, I don't think they should even be put in zoo's. The repetitive motions animals exhibit at zoo's are stress induced moves, they aren't dancing for the viewers.
loon
Zoos and pet stores should be forbidden! But that is wishful hoping. Except sanctuaries for injured animals are good.
At least we agree in general. Sorry, that I had a bit of a brainblock understanding you the first time.

 

[MHz]

I wasn't meaning a war fought in the Arctic, I meant wars in other parts of the world (oil rich parts) being fought because the Arctic was off-limits due to concern for bears. Obviously there are other factors involved.

The earth might find a balance that leaves some ice (closer to Greenland) as permanent while also having open water routes along Canada's and Russia's shorelines. If the tundra warmed up enough (natural cycle) to support growing food then that would be good for man, more useful land gained than what was 'lost'.

 

[#juan]

For God's sake.....Both the seals and bears depend on the sea ice. The seals give birth to their young on the sea ice. The polar bears harvest some of the seals for food. This has been going on for millennia. I think there is a very good chance that man is causing the climate change that is melting the sea ice. Drowned polar bears have been found; bears that didn't have the endurance to swim to the sea ice. If all the sea ice melts, both the seals and the polar bears will suffer. To extinction? I don't know. In our living history, it hasn't happened before.

 

[dancing-loon]

Thanks, Juan!

I've educated myself a little about the Polar Bear basics. http://www.bearsmart.com/moreStuff/PolarBearsScript.pdf

Seals and Polar Bears both need the ice!! Therefore, we need to restrict the area of the icebreaker's activities. Because that would go hand in hand with trying to save the bears and seals.

That icy northern environment is so unknown and foreign to me that I have no sense of the true reality... only what I hear and read about arouses me to want to save the animals. Ultimately I know they will have to go into extinction. Man's drive for oil and money, and the lure of conquest to bring a continent under his control is too great to resist in favor of nature.
Meanwhile, the Polar Bear can breathe a little easier. :grin:

 

[MHz]

Drowned polar bears have been found; bears that didn't have the endurance to swim to the sea ice. If all the sea ice melts, both the seals and the polar bears will suffer. To extinction? I don't know. In our living history, it hasn't happened before.

That's true but can it be said for sure that the cause was too much open water. That could be quite common for an older bear or one that had been injured (after having some tits in a chopper run it near to death). I'm quite sure these bears can tell when it time to get off the ice, the ones that stay on it would simply head away from the open water.

That icy northern environment is so unknown and foreign to me that I have no sense of the true reality... only what I hear and read about arouses me to want to save the animals. Ultimately I know they will have to go into extinction. Man's drive for oil and money, and the lure of conquest to bring a continent under his control is too great to resist in favor of nature.
Meanwhile, the Polar Bear can breathe a little easier. :grin:

I don't think they have to go into extinction, even with a natural retreat of the sea-ice, without the ice both seals and bears would have to use the land. Stopping oil spills would be the best protection they could get. Once the drilling and piping are finished there wouldn't have to be many men actually in the field.

 

[missile]

So the Inuit charge US hunters 30 Gs to bag a polar bear and this new law just puts this little enterprise out of business..Good:smile:

 

[dancing-loon]

So the Inuit charge US hunters 30 Gs to bag a polar bear and this new law just puts this little enterprise out of business..Good:smile:

Prima!:-D

 

[Walter]

 

[Walter]

 

[dancing-loon]

:lol::lol::lol:

Good humor with a "message"!!;-)

 

[Walter]

 

[einmensch]

Polar Bears? Salmon on the west coast, Cod on the East coast and all the other animals except humans and a few animal groups are disappearing. In the last 35 years 99%+ have disappeared. Cod were already depleted in 1972 Newfoundland. In Lewisport Newfoundland many pictures of 30-40 pound lobsters hang on the wall. Our History books in the 1950's talked about Cod 50-60 pounds. Smelt in Lake Simcoe have disappeared. In the Florida Everglades 99.9% of the animal life has disappeared. National Geographic ran an article telling of the abundant wild life in the Everglades--a complete lie--
Not to worry. We have huge stocks of Pollok in the Arctic--Have you noticed all is made from Pollok a fish considered 3rd class--soon it will be on the endangered list. In Ontario this is the time for spear fishing which stopped 30-40 years ago although a few may still poach--the Pike, Pickerel, trout, suckers are gone. My brother in law and I looked into the water and counted 5 pike, no perch or minnows, no anything. Once upon a time the two of us could not count the Pike, Pickerel, and schools of Perch. Depressing!

 

[Walter]

Polar Bears? Salmon on the west coast, Cod on the East coast and all the other animals except humans and a few animal groups are disappearing. In the last 35 years 99%+ have disappeared. Cod were already depleted in 1972 Newfoundland. In Lewisport Newfoundland many pictures of 30-40 pound lobsters hang on the wall. Our History books in the 1950's talked about Cod 50-60 pounds. Smelt in Lake Simcoe have disappeared. In the Florida Everglades 99.9% of the animal life has disappeared. National Geographic ran an article telling of the abundant wild life in the Everglades--a complete lie--
Not to worry. We have huge stocks of Pollok in the Arctic--Have you noticed all is made from Pollok a fish considered 3rd class--soon it will be on the endangered list. In Ontario this is the time for spear fishing which stopped 30-40 years ago although a few may still poach--the Pike, Pickerel, trout, suckers are gone. My brother in law and I looked into the water and counted 5 pike, no perch or minnows, no anything. Once upon a time the two of us could not count the Pike, Pickerel, and schools of Perch. Depressing!

I, too, have noticed less food in the stores and mass starvation. It's terrible what we have done.