Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Should Polar Bears be listed as a "Threatened Species"?

  1. #1
    Moderator David Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1997
    Location
    Redding California
    Posts
    57

    Question Should Polar Bears be listed as a "Threatened Species"?

    I recently received a note from a contact in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game that shed some additional light on why the State of Alaska has opposed the US Fish & Wildlife Service's proposal to list polar bears as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act.

    Here's the text of a letter that went to the USFWS that summarized the state's objections:
    The State of Alaska opposes any listing under the Endangered Species Act of the polar bear as threatened in all or significant portions of its range. Our review of the Fish and Wildlife Service's 12-month finding on a petition to list polar bears reveals that the best available scientific and commercial information was not used as required in the proposed determination. To the contrary, the very foundation of the proposed listing is the selective use of models to predict loss of summer sea ice over the next 45 years. The models used by the Service do not consider other models that are at least equally valid and predict less loss of summer sea ice in the future. Furthermore, the disclaimers accompanying the models used by the Service regarding the limitations of their predictive ability were largely ignored.

    Accompanying this letter are the State of Alaska's consolidated state agency comments, additional data, and analyses as requested in the January 9, 2007, (Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 5) proposal to list the polar bear as threatened throughout its range pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. These include: 1) a thorough review of additional sea ice models and their predictions of sea ice loss, 2) additional information on existing regulatory mechanisms for conservation of polar bears, 3) clarification on the standards for a threatened listing, and 4) additional information on and clarification of the status, trends, and assumptions concerning polar bear populations that the Service used to support the petition and Status Assessment.

    The State stands by its earlier conclusion that polar bears are abundant, stable, and unthreatened by direct human activity. The 19 recognized subpopulations of polar bears worldwide are well managed through international agreements and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The State of Alaska is deeply concerned that listing this species would harm many of the existing and highly successful polar bear conservation measures currently in place under these international agreements and treaties.

    We appreciate and accept your offer to continue to participate in this process as a peer reviewer and look forward to cooperatively assessing further information received during the comment period. We urge the Service to carefully review the enclosed information and to revise its finding based upon this additional information to conclude that a listing of the polar bear as threatened is not warranted throughout any portion of its range.
    The letter is signed by Tina Cunning, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of Fish and Game.

    What do you think? Should polar bears be listed as threatened?

    David
    David M Johnson
    Anchorage, Alaska
    http://awildolivebranch.blogspot.com

  2. #2
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Johnson View Post
    ".....Our review of the Fish and Wildlife Service's 12-month finding on a petition to list polar bears reveals that the best available scientific and commercial information was not used as required in the proposed determination. To the contrary, the very foundation of the proposed listing is the selective use of models to predict loss of summer sea ice over the next 45 years. The models used by the Service do not consider other models that are at least equally valid and predict less loss of summer sea ice in the future. Furthermore, the disclaimers accompanying the models used by the Service regarding the limitations of their predictive ability were largely ignored....."
    Sounds like the environmental industry is pulling all the stops with this GW issue.

    It's like the "nuclear winter" fiasco and the "we're running out of fossil fuels" lie they've been caught at in the past, but this time they've learned; push through as much legislation as possible before their boat of propaganda sinks...........

  3. #3
    Member BucknRut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The BEGINNING of the road!
    Posts
    1,137

    Default gotta agree

    After a recent urge to hunt the sacred creatures, I studied up on the polar bear and I have to agree with AK's stance. I think it is key to not disrupt proven conservation groups. I am not certain how much global warming plays in these surveys/reports, but I am sure it is an important player. From what I've read, there are still good numbers of polar bears, but they are reproducing at a less than "normal" rate, which could cause problems in the future. Side note - I did not know that there are 19 different subpopulations around the world. Does anyone know the locations?

  4. #4
    Member muskeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hollis
    Posts
    963

    Default survival of the species

    actually it could be a game !!!!! See http://www.cabinfeverart.com/id6.html
    Last edited by Webmaster; 04-14-2007 at 16:28. Reason: Image cannot be used here; copyright violation

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •