Polar Bears now a threatened species; Bush approves threatening them

[treg50]

APNewsBreak: Companies get OK to annoy polar bears

WASHINGTON (AP) - Less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species because of global warming, the Bush administration is giving oil companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in the pursuit of oil and natural gas.

The Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations this week providing legal protection to seven oil companies planning to search for oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea off the northwestern coast of Alaska if "small numbers" of polar bears or Pacific walruses are incidentally harmed by their activities over the next five years.

http://story.news.ask.com/article/20...D919UQNO0.html

A blank-cheque by Bush to oil companies like Shell, to 'harass' and 'annoy' polar bears --- give it a few months we'll be hearing about these oil companies killing polar bears. Bad enough their ice habitat has been melting and breaking away.

[SJW]

Wow this is the dumbest piece of news i've ever read.

[rage2]

Originally posted by treg50
Bad enough their ice habitat has been melting and breaking away.

There's a sucker born every minute.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11879

I thought ppl already know An Inconvienent Truth was full of crap? Hell, the whole arctic scene was ripped from A Day After Tomorrow .

[Primer_Drift]

I was gonna put a picture of Manbearpig up in here.. but I figured you had crazy all covered.

[SJW]

Durka Durka

[treg50]

Originally posted by rage2
...
http://newsbusters.org/node/11879

I thought ppl already know An Inconvienent Truth was full of crap? Hell, the whole arctic scene was ripped from A Day After Tomorrow .

Who said anything about movies?

That newbusters article was written a year ago.

It's now 1-year later and what's happened? Polar bear status has degraded to threatened.

[revelations]

The natives up there are saying there are TOO MANY BEARS around - and not just in the Churchill dump either.

[rage2]

Originally posted by treg50
It's now 1-year later and what's happened? Polar bear status has degraded to threatened.

Ya, that's because up in Northern Canada, we kill about 900 polar bears a year... for fun and for business. US doesn't like that, and put the Polar Bear on their list making it illegal to import polar bears into the US, hoping to slow down the hunters. Apparently, each bear is worth 20k, so it's a huge business for NWT (or is it nunavit now?) folks.

If Polar Bears were really endangered, do you really think our government would continue to hand out polar bear hunting licenses yearly?

[msommers]

Originally posted by revelations
The natives up there are saying there are TOO MANY BEARS around - and not just in the Churchill dump either.

Uhhh...source?

[Eleanor]

IIRC they are not endangered according to the World Conservation Union, the are a "vulnerable species"

http://cms.iucn.org/search.cfm?uNewsID=75

[rage2]

Here's one.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...80420/20080420

Sorry some of my numbers are off. It's $25k a bear (for just the license!) which means a bear must be worth somewhere in the 30-40k range.

[alloroc]

Originally posted by msommers


Uhhh...source?

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ta...lar_bears.html

Last stand of our wild polar bears

Dr. Mitchell Taylor
Polar Bear Biologist,
Department of the Environment,
Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada

May 1, 2006

Tim Flannery is one of Australia 's best-known scientists and authors. That doesn't mean what he says is correct or accurate. That was clearly demonstrated when he recently ventured into the subject of climate change and polar bears. Climate change is threatening to drive polar bears into extinction within 25 years, according to Flannery. That is a startling conclusion and certainly is a surprising revelation to the polar bear researchers who work here and to the people who live here. We really had no idea.

The evidence for climate change effects on polar bears described by Flannery is incorrect. He says polar bears typically gave birth to triplets, but now they usually have just one cub. That is wrong.

All research and traditional knowledge shows that triplets, though they do occur, are very infrequent and are by no means typical. Polar bears generally have two cubs — sometimes three and sometimes one. He says the bears' weaning time has risen to 18 months from 12. That is wrong. The weaning period has not changed. Polar bears worldwide have a three-year reproduction cycle, except for one part of Hudson Bay for a period in the mid-1980s when the cycle was shorter.

One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay ) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good.

Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, 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.

It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population ( Davis Strait ) may actually be over-abundant.

I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor,

[rage2]

Originally posted by Eleanor
IIRC they are not endangered according to the World Conservation Union, the are a "vulnerable species"

http://cms.iucn.org/search.cfm?uNewsID=75

And the whole point of that is politics. Nothing more, nothing less. There was a lot of pressure because US allowed Polar Bear trophies to be imported from Canada, and now it's banned. It's just convienent for them to say it's climate change so nobody questions it.

Fuck, I don't even watch Canadian news that much, and I knew about it. Shocking how many beyonders are brainwashed by mass hysteria.

Remember the Dixie Chicks getting blasted for having an opinion on Bush? Look at what ppl say about Bush now LOL. Mass Hysteria at it's finest at the start of the Iraq war! I guess in a few years, we'll see the same thing with Global Warming, or Climate Change, or whatever they hell they wanna call it then.

[alloroc]

Originally posted by rage2

Fuck, I don't even watch Canadian news that much, and I knew about it. Shocking how many beyonders are brainwashed by mass hysteria.

That is what is causing the mass hysteria Canadian news .. CBC ..


Look at this freak, I think he has smoked one too many blunts.
http://archives.cbc.ca/arts_entertai...ia/topics/663/

We are all fruit flies ... wtf??!

[Eleanor]

^ Everyone who hasn't realized David Suzuki is a crackpot by this point is smoking the same shit he is.

[rage2]

Well fuck, that shut everyone up.

[msommers]

Originally posted by alloroc

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ta...lar_bears.html

Last stand of our wild polar bears

Interesting article, thanks for posting. As a "warning," my opinion on climate change has no influence when I read this article. I am confused however when I read this , and not entirely sure what the real situation is there. Example:

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.
It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population ( Davis Strait ) may actually be over-abundant.
I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.

Dr. Taylor mentions that 11 populations are stable or increasing (thanks for being specific!) with the remaining 2 ... not appearing to have declined (also stable?) and the remainder being maybe over-abundant. The only area that he mentions specifically that is MAYBE over-abundant is the Davis Strait. "May" meaning he is hypothesizing and isn't proving fuck all. Lastly, he concludes "the north" has too many polar bears around.

So what I'm taking from this article is that, climate change is not having an effect on polar bear populations. Of these populations, ~92% are stable or increasing, ie: NOT OVER-ABUNDANT. How can he say there are too many around when he has just said that 12/13 populations are stable or increasing? My interpretation of the comment, "too many polar bears" is strictly an opinion expressed in a "scientific" article in relation to the amount of polar bears near human populations which are essentially a pain in the ass for them. I don't live in the north, so maybe they are for humans. But in no way should he be correcting someone else's data when he throws in crap like this.

Alloroc, I'm sorry if I'm coming off defensive and/or lashing out at you. In all honesty, I'm ecstatic that you posted this. It goes to show how deep you have to look into someone's research for it to actually hold water, especially in such a controversial topic. Here I don't think it does, but that's a personal opinion. It is a shame that the "Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut , Igloolik , Nunavut , Canada" is throwing articles like this out to the public.