Polar bears may get a much needed break

[Oceana Diver]

The Department of Interior has proposed listing polar bears as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, citing loss of habitat as a reason for their decreasing populations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/science/28polar.html?th&emc=th

Of course, how they're going to address loss of sea ice without addressing climate change is another matter...

 

[Wildcard]

A much needed break from what? Three years ago? they hit an all time high in population. This will change nothing except to apease a bunch of greenies that have never seen them.

 

[H2Andy]

let's see those figures, Wildcard

bear population has been declining since the 1980's (some estimates as high as 20% decline) due to sea ice melts, which keeps the bears from their traditional spring and summer hunting grounds

according to the article, they are expecting a 30% decline by mid-century

 

[Wildcard]

Im looking.
http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/s034.htm
In the mean time show me something besides an article from the NYTs.

 

[Wildcard]

Im still looking for the source, I know I read it a while back.
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pbmain.htm
Point being is that this is just the latest in "feel good" posts about that of which they know not.
Yup, ice goes away, so do the bears. The ice came and away went the mammoths. We are not helping by dumping billions of tons of crap in the air and sea but nature will do as it pleases, like it or not.

 

[H2Andy]

that shows a 2% increase in population for a very specific group of bears ...

hardly says they hit an all-time high in population three years ago, and doesn't really do anything to project their population into the future

Point being is that this is just the latest in "feel good" posts about that of which they know not.

now that's what i call a reasoned, informed argument

 

[Oceana Diver]

Im looking.
http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/s034.htm
In the mean time show me something besides an article from the NYTs.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0210_060210_polar_bears.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2006/12/us_could_designate_polar_bears.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/27/polar.bears/index.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewFlash.asp?Page=/ThisHour/Archive/NTH20061228x.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec06/bear_12-27.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,239102,00.html

and straight from the source:
http://www.doi.gov/

 

[Wildcard]

Have you ever even seen one O?
The 20ish percent people are quoting is from the Hudson bay group alone. Recently they found 8 I believe dead bears that had drowned. SO of course there had to be more, right? The "experts" came up with the number of 80 and touted that as fact.
Anybody posting from WDC about my home that Im quite sure you have never spent much of any time in will always draw my attention.
So they get listed? What will that do? They have been on the MMPA for many years.
Again, nature will do as she wishes.

 

[Wildcard]

ANd of course the evil Bush has neve done anything for them...
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pbmain.htm

 

[Wildcard]

OK, for the time being, I will conced the population point untill I can find it and I have tired of looking tonight.
World est of populations run from 25K to 40K yet only 2K of those are in the US. Again, the ESA declearation is nothing more than a feel good move. It can't/won't do anything meaningful. The world warms, the world cools, critters come, critters go including humans.