polar bears listed as threatened???

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
Let's hear from all the guys who have been telling us Global Warming is a myth!:rolleyes:
-------------------------------------------------------

The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world's most recognizable animals out of existence.

The administration's proposal -- which was described by an Interior Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity -- stems from the fact that rising temperatures in the Arctic are shrinking the sea ice that polar bears need for hunting. The official insisted on anonymity because the department will submit the proposal today for publication in the Federal Register, after which it will be subject to public comment for 90 days.



Identifying polar bears as threatened with extinction could have an enormous political and practical impact. As the world's largest bear and as an object of children's affection as well as Christmastime Coca-Cola commercials, the polar bear occupies an important place in the American psyche. Because scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide from power-plant and vehicle emissions is helping drive climate change worldwide, putting polar bears on the endangered species list raises the legal question of whether the government would be required to compel U.S. industries to curb their carbon dioxide output.

"We've reviewed all the available data that leads us to believe the sea ice the polar bear depends on has been receding," said the Interior official, who added that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have concluded that polar bears could be endangered within 45 years. "Obviously, the sea ice is melting because the temperatures are warmer."

Northern latitudes are warming twice as rapidly as the rest of globe, according to a 2004 scientific assessment, and by the end of the century, annual ocean temperatures in the Arctic may rise an additional 13 degrees Fahrenheit. As a result, researchers predict that summer sea ice, which polar bears use as a platform to hunt for ringed seals, will decline 50 to 100 percent. Just this month, researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research outlined a worst-case scenario in which summer sea ice could disappear by 2040.

By submitting the proposal today, the Interior Department is meeting a deadline under a legal settlement with three environmental advocacy groups -- the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace -- that argue the government has failed to respond quickly enough to the polar bear's plight. The department has been examining the status of polar bears for more than two years.

NRDC senior attorney Andrew Wetzler, one of the lawyers who filed suit against the administration, welcomed the proposal for listing.

‘A loud recognition’
"It's such a loud recognition that global warming is real," Wetzler said. "It is rapidly threatening the polar bear and, in fact, an entire ecosystem with utter destruction."

There are 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears worldwide, 4,700 of which live in Alaska and spend part of the year in Canada and Russia. The other countries with polar bears in their Arctic regions are Denmark and Norway.

Although scientists have yet to fully assess many of the 19 separate polar bear populations, initial studies suggest that climate change has already exacted a toll on the animals.

The ice in Canada's western Hudson Bay is now breaking up 2 1/2 weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, giving polar bears there less time to hunt and build up fat reserves that sustain them for eight months before hunting resumes. As local polar bears have become thinner, female polar bears' reproductive rates and cubs' survival rates have fallen, spurring a 21 percent population drop from 1997 to 2004.

Scientists have not charted the same rapid decline within the U.S. polar bear populations, but federal scientists have observed a number of troubling signs as the bears have resorted to open-water swimming and even cannibalism in an effort to stay alive.

Polar bears normally swim from one patch of sea ice to another to hunt for food, but they are not accustomed to going long distances. In September 2004, government scientists observed 55 polar bears swimming offshore in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, an unprecedented spike, and four of those bears died. In a separate study that year, federal scientists identified three instances near the Beaufort Sea in which polar bears ate one another.

The Interior official said government officials studying Alaskan polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea area have observed thinner adult bears and a lower rate of survival among cubs. Although the population has yet to dip, "unless the polar cub survival rate goes up, it would have to happen," the official said.

Still, the official added that the decision to propose polar bears as threatened with extinction "wasn't easy for us" because "there is still some significant uncertainty" about what could happen to bear populations in the future.

"This proposal is sort of like a scientific hypothesis. You put this out there and say to the world, 'Tell us, is this right or is this wrong?' " the official said, adding that Interior will hold several public hearings about its proposal. "We're projecting what we think will happen in the future, not just what's happening at this moment."

Up to a year
The department could take up to a year to complete its proposal, and it could abandon the listing if it unearths new scientific projections about the bears' fate. But that appears unlikely, as recent models have consistently pointed to a faster deterioration of Arctic sea ice.

Although federal officials cited rising sea temperatures once before in a threatened species proposal -- in May, when they called them a "major stressor" on Caribbean elkhorn and staghorn corals -- today's proposal will mark the first time the administration has identified climate change as the driving force behind the potential demise of a species.

Robert Correll, the scientist who chaired the international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment in 2004 and now directs the global change program at the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, said in an interview that the proposal to place polar bears on the endangered species list is "highly justified."

Correll added that he is participating in an administration-funded study at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on how climate change could affect national security and foreign policy.

That, along with the proposal on polar bears, he said, "plays into a reality that, in my opinion, they're going to be rethinking their position" on global warming.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company
 
Ithaca,

Here are some good comments from your friend Ralph's site reguarding this issue.


1. Alan Gregory | December 27th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
And here’s an update on one of those now “traditional” listing proposals. This time it’s the white marlin, a popular Florida sport fish.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/16314106.htm

2. JEFF E. | December 27th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Is it just me or does anyone else remember when this pile of dog **** in the white house and all his equally sorry little minions said time and again that there was no such thing as global warming. It was all just a liberal plot against the administration.

3. Ralph Maughan | December 27th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
They have been taking a real beating in the media for polar bears drowning, starving, etc. Polar bears are an icon. Maybe Rove told them “we sure need some kind of gesture,” and this is it.

4. mike | December 27th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
They want to list the Polar Bear? Whoa, beware! I smell a booby trap of some kind. Can you say TTRROJAAAN HORRRSSSE?

5. Mike | December 27th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Very good news. As Bush struggles to build any kind of decent legacy at all, he might be prodded into actually doing some good for the environment. I know it sounds ridiculous, but now is the time to start tossing up some wildernes bills. Rove knows Bush needs to leave with at least some sort of legacy besides the Iraq disaster.

Bush’s complete failure as president might work to our benefit in some ways.

6. Pronghorn | December 27th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Regarding comment #4, this is the same feeling I just can’t shake. I saw Kempthorne tonight on the News Hour confirming that yes, it’s about climate change and melting ice, but also asserting (and repeating it again later) that gas/oil exploration is NOT a threat.

7. Jim | December 27th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Hi, my comments my be completely ignorant or uninformed or just plain stupid, but I have zero knowledge of polar bear ecology. Would it be feasible to introduce polar bears into the Antarctic? Are they suited to the climate? Is there food sources? If this is completly ridiculous forgive me, but it is just a thought that entered my mind.

8. Tim Z. | December 28th, 2006 at 9:19 am
I saw Kempthorne last night also, the guy is a joke. He sounded like someone briefed him on global warming five minutes before he went on the air and he was having trouble remembering what he was told to say.

9. mike | December 28th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Jim, not to ignore your comment. It’s well-intentioned; but, you know the old saying about the road to… well, you know. Introducing Polar Bears to the Antarctic would be a repeat of introducing cheatgrass to Nevada, lake trout to Yellowstone, rainbow trout to any and every cutthroat stream, house cats to the Galapagos, cockroaches to NY, and such to areas where they do not belong. They might look pretty harmless at first; but, the first thing that they would take out would be the already stresssed penguins, then the seals and fish species that would have no genetic memory of them and no evolved defenses to deal with them. It would be a nightmare.

10. Wolfy | December 28th, 2006 at 11:31 am
This news makes me a bit optimistic, but wary of the intentions behind this apparent reversal of the present administration. The struggle to get a species listed is only the first part of the struggle to recovering the species. I have a feeling that the request for listing is just a political stunt to recover the administration’s ratings.

Most of the polar bear population is outside of the US. Therefore, other countries that have bears are not necessarily subject to recovery strategies imposed by the US. And, as with any species, if there is not enough suitable habitat, there will not be enough bears to have a viable population. The vital component of most polar bear habitat in the winter is sea ice. The sea ice is disappearing and the bears may disappear as well. There is no action or legislation that we implement at this point to stop it. The administration is probably well aware of this.

The US Fish and Wildlife may move with the proposal to list the polar bear. They will probably do a cursory 90-day investigation of the situation. And if warranted, they may do an in-depth study of habitat, ecology, and population status of the polar bear (a conservation assessment). At that point, they may decide whether to list the bear or not. They may find that the factors (climate change?) leading to the demise of the species are out of the control of the US government. This may lead the feds to find that, although the bear is disappearing, there is nothing that the US can or is willing to do about it. The feds will probably come-up with some generic conservation strategy to recover the bear. This strategy will probably be unenforceable and too impractical to implement.

Whether they list the bear is irrelevant. When the smoke clears, the administration can then throw up their hands and say that they tried. The bear’s population will continue to decline. The sea ice will continue to disappear. They’ll blame the failure on the Democrats, Russia, environmentalists, or some other scapegoat.

I’m sorry, but I think the polar bear, as a wild, viable species is doomed. Its demise will be another footnote to the growing tale of how our inept leadership, greed, and ignorance led to our own demise, as well. Eventually, our consumer society will consume the planet and ourselves.

11. rocknation | December 28th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Rocknation suggests that the Bush Administration is also an endangered species!

12. Brian | December 28th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Maybe they should do something to stop the reasons the polar bears are endangered, instead of just placing them on a list.

Bushco is one of the main reasons that the environment is in the shape it’s in today, and we can only expect it to get worse.

13. JEFF E | December 29th, 2006 at 11:02 am
A related but disturbing addition is that a ancient, maybe 3000 year old, 41sq. mi. ice shelf in the Arctic has broken free from Elsmare island. While it happened a year or more ago I don’t remember seeing any news on it until now
 
Another conspiracy theroy by BHR. \\

BTW, I read about the Ice sheet breaking free more than a year ago.
Also the average temp for the interior US for the year ending 2006 was up 2 degrees above average over the past 20 years, which by the the way had the 15the highest recorded averages for a year sence recard keeping began.

What say you BHR?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,102
Messages
1,947,022
Members
35,026
Latest member
hardan9
Back
Top