Polar Bears up for grabs!

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
Hi and hello;

Canada is going to invite bidders for drilling in the Beaufort Sea. Before that gets underway we have to move the polar bears! Where to? No idea!! Let's invite the American hunters @ $30 000 a shot = good income for whoever owns the bears. Sarcasm off!
The rights to oil and gas exploration on more than 2.9 million acres of continental shelf in the Beaufort Sea, north of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, were recently offered up by the Canadian government. Bids will be accepted until June 2, when the rights will be issued.
I think it would only be proper and decent to ask us citizen first, if that's what WE want, because I want to leave the North as it is!! If we can throw our money away to fight in Afghanistan, then we surely don't need to sell off our beautiful land with its beautiful animals!
On Wednesday, the U.S. government began selling similar property in Alaska. More than $2.6 billion was offered for the purchase of 2.7 million acres of the continental shelf in the Chukchi Sea.
In the next few days, the U.S. is expected to decide whether to add polar bears to its Endangered Species Act -- a decision Ewins said was postponed in order to give the U.S. government time to sell more land.
Ewins said the Beaufort and Chukchi seas are the "last conventional oil and gas frontiers" left for development.
The governments are rushing to open oil drilling now because they will not be allowed to if the polar bear is declared endangered, he said.
"They're trying to sneak in as many of these oil and gas sales as possible before the polar bear gets listed as threatened," he said.
If the polar bear is listed as threatened, the onus would be on a developer to ensure their actions do not interfere with the animal's habitat.
With polar bears on the verge of being placed on the endangered species list, Ewins said this could be the tipping point.
Our politicians are soo short-sighted! Why not leave the oil and gas where it is until such time when we Canadians are desperately in need of it?

I wonder what the money will be used for? More military equipment, I suspect!

http://tinyurl.com/yvc52o
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
We Canadian's desperately do need it now.

Quite frankly we'd be in the toilet without selling resources.


As for leaving the north unspoiled..don't you think you SHOULDN'T get a say in it? Isn't that the business of the people who live there?

What if they told you to tear down the cities in southern ontario and revert to hunting and gathering because they think the animals here are beautiful.

If the people up north want to industrialize, we who have already done so shouldn't step in and tell them no.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I want to leave the North as it is!! If we can throw our money away to fight in Afghanistan, then we surely don't need to sell off our beautiful land with its beautiful animals!
Our politicians are soo short-sighted! Why not leave the oil and gas where it is until such time when we Canadians are desperately in need of it?

You can't leave the north as it is. We need to be developing it, or someone else will go in and take it. As it is we've had to send patrols out to claim it as Canadian land, and if we don't start doing something more, then there will be a war over it. I think I'll take oil revenues over war expenses thanks.
 

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
We Canadians desperately do need it now.

Quite frankly we'd be in the toilet without selling resources.

As for leaving the north unspoiled..don't you think you SHOULDN'T get a say in it? Isn't that the business of the people who live there?

What if they told you to tear down the cities in southern Ontario and revert to hunting and gathering because they think the animals here are beautiful.

If the people up north want to industrialize, we who have already done so shouldn't step in and tell them no.
I dare to be reckless this morning and bet you a whole loonie that the people up north weren't asked either!!!
Besides, my dear, ;-) when I looked the last time, Canada was still all one big united D e m o c r a c y!
What you could tell me, though, is that this decision has been in the making for a while and was debated over in Parliament while I had my ears elsewhere. It probably was debated, but still, something so destructive and irreversible should be brought before all the inhabitants of the whole nation, called Canada, and majority should rule.

To humor you... go ahead and tear down our cities... would suit me fine!:lol: I'm a nature person, not a city slicker!! Ha ha...;-)
 
Last edited:

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
There’s no need to ’save’ the polar bear



By BEN LIEBERMAN
Exxon used to encourage motorists to ”put a tiger in your tank.” Well, a different animal may begin influencing traffic soon. Polar bears could force drivers to shell out even more money for gasoline.
Why? Because environmental groups are pushing to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, and the Bush administration is considering their demands.
It might make sense — if the polar bear were endangered. But the worldwide population of these bears has more than doubled since 1965, to an estimated 20,000-25,000 today. Far from being threatened, by all accounts the bears are thriving.
So what’s behind the push to ‘’save” the bears? A desire to ban energy exploration in much of Alaska, and a threatened species tag is just the ticket to make it happen.
Once a species is listed, its ”critical habitat” is broadly defined to include vast areas. The government then drafts a ”recovery plan” that often contains onerous restrictions on economic activity inside the habitat and, in some cases, even outside it, trumping property rights in the process. Plus, environmental groups can sue to force the Interior Department to include additional restrictions.
The first victim of a polar-bear listing would be new oil and natural gas production throughout Alaska and in its surrounding waters. The listing would end any chances of opening up a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, estimated to contain 10 billion barrels of oil — enough to offset nearly 15 years worth of current imports from Saudi Arabia.
That’s a problem, because Alaska is America’s last best frontier for domestic oil and natural gas. Closing off these potential resources would jack up energy prices for decades to come and make us even more dependent on imports.
It’s true that legislative proposals to open ANWR have faltered in Congress, but a polar-bear listing would be the nail in the igloo. And other promising onshore areas could also be restricted.
The fact that extensive oil drilling has been under way for decades in Prudhoe Bay and elsewhere in Alaska without harm to polar bears and other Arctic wildlife is something that should sway federal bureaucrats, but probably wouldn’t. (Miami Herald)
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I dare to be reckless this morning and bet you a whole loonie that the people up north weren't asked either!!!
Besides, my dear, ;-) when I looked the last time, Canada was still all one big united D e m o c r a c y!
What you could tell me, though, is that this decision has been in the making for a while and was debated over in Parliament while I had my ears elsewhere. It probably was debated, but still, something so destructive and irreversible should be brought before all the inhabitants of the whole nation, called Canada, and majority should rule.

To humor you... go ahead and tear down our cities... would suit me fine!:lol: I'm a nature person, not a city slicker!! Ha ha...;-)


No, everyone should not get a vote in matters that don't concern them.

That is known as mob rule, in a western democracy we put limits on what people can mass decide.

The ability for the majority to rob the minority of their wealth is one of them.
 

normbc9

Electoral Member
Nov 23, 2006
483
14
18
California
The Polar Bears are also threatened with a disappearing ice pack. They now venture further inland and lack the hunting prowess of the grizzlies. ther are clahses now and then and as the ice further recedes those will increase in number. The Polars have been observed now preying on ground nesting birds and other wild life but I think the time involved in their acclimation to this new setting could prove to be another setback for the species. I sure hope this new decision doesn't add to the pressures already being experienced by the Polar bears. But maybe Churchill Bay and other northern settlements have a different opinion. I hope they are consulted before any crazy decisions and agreements are reached. The fossil fuel industry has a lot of money and they buy influence with the politicians all the time. Lets hope this isn't another one of those under the table deals that the politicians are famous for buying into.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
Cool And The Gang

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Knut the polar bear isn't so cute and cuddly anymore. He's grown up a tad and is now a killing machine capable of surviving in perhaps the Earth's most hostile environment — the Arctic.

Nor is the poster animal for warming warnings that drive children to tears and his kind in danger of perishing anytime soon.
Funny thing about ice: It melts in summer and thickens in winter. And according to Gilles Kangis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice service in Ottawa, this Arctic winter has been so severe that the continent's allegedly vanishing ice is 10 to 20 centimeters thicker than it was at this time a year ago.
Polar bear Knut, shown here snapping at a child at the Berlin Zoo, is no longer so cuddly. But at least the ice floes that supposedly have been stranding his fellow bears in the Arctic are thickening up this winter.

Recent satellite images, moreover, show the polar ice cap is at near-normal coverage levels, according to Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
This winter has been particularly severe. The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reports that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. The average temperature in January "was 0.3 (degrees) F cooler than the 1901-2000 average," the NCDC says.
Ontario and Quebec have experienced major snow and ice storms. In the first two weeks of February, as Canada's National Post reports, Toronto got 79 centimeters of snow, "smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950."
This is a consequence of what we recently commented on: The sun, the greatest influence on earth's climate, seems to be entering an unusually quiet cycle of limited sunspot activity. As Kenneth Tapping of Canada's National Research Council warns, we may be in for severely cold weather if sunspot activity doesn't pick up.
Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." The last time the sun was this quiet, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age, which lasted five centuries and ended in 1850. The winter at Valley Forge, a famous part of history, occurred during this period.
It's a good time, therefore, for some of the best climate scientists in the world to be gathering in New York City — setting for the Al Gore-promoted doomsday flick "The Day After Tomorrow" — for the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change hosted by the Heartland Institute.
More than 550 climate scientists, economists and public policy experts are at March 2-4 event, their very presence shattering Gore's myth of a warming "consensus" and a debate that is over. Yet because of the media's embrace of Gore's crusade, this may be one of the few places you read about the conference.
The keynoter, Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute and the University of Virginia, debunked claims of "unprecedented" melting of Arctic ice. He showed how Arctic temperatures were warmer during the 1930s and that the vast majority of Antarctica is cooling.
President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic is scheduled to speak Tuesday. Klaus, who knows what it is to live under a mindless tyranny, thinks he knows the motives of warm-mongers like Gore. He sees an eerie similarity between communism and what he calls the global warming "religion."
In the June 14 Financial Times he wrote: "As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."
If Marx and Lenin were alive today, they'd be environmentalists.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Oh people are complaining that the Polar Bears are going to go extinct because the ice is melting up north so much they can get proper terrain for capturing their food (ie: seals)

But come on people.... animals are not entirly stupid and they will adapt when they need to. for the last few years, Polar Bears have been moving more south and inland towards our communities and eating out of the trash. If we have a level of responsibility for their habitat being changed to make their lives difficult, then it's been countered by them moving into our terrain and eating our junk.

Does that make the community more dangerous, esspecially for your children to play outside? You bet'cha! but hey.... that's the wonderful thing about nature and our involvement in it. We can change things as much as we want, so long as we're willing to accept the effects of those changes. Accept responsibility for our own actions and don't take it out on the animals in which are just trying to survive.
 

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
.. that's the wonderful thing about nature and our involvement in it. We can change things as much as we want, so long as we're willing to accept the effects of those changes. Accept responsibility for our own actions and don't take it out on the animals which are just trying to survive.
Hi, Praxius;
the thing is both species want to survive. Question is who will win in the end?
My answer.... Nature will!! Nature has the resilience to always renew itself given time.