Endangered Species

[awakening2lite]

Polar bear added to endangered species list
May 14th, 2008

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-05/38856684.jpg
"The science is absolutely clear that polar bear needs protection under the Endangered Species Act," said Andrew Wetzler, director of the endangered species program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The animal, whose habitat has been shrinking with the melting of arctic sea ice, is the first to be designated as threatened with extinction mainly because of global warming.

The Bush administration today designated the polar bear as threatened with extinction, making the big arctic bear, whose fate clings to shrinking sea ice, the first creature added to the endangered species list primarily because of global warming.

The designation invokes federal protections under the Endangered Species Act, the nation's most powerful environmental law that requires designation of critical habitat to be protected as well as forming a strategy to assist the bear population's recovery.

The decision came only after a U.S. District Court in Oakland forced the Bush administration's hand by imposing a May 15 deadline for the decision that was supposed to have been completed by Jan. 9.

It was the first time in more than two years that the Interior Department extended protections to another species under the Endangered Species Act -- the longest hiatus of new listings by the department since President Richard Nixon signed the law in 1973.

Pressure has been mounting from inside and outside the government. Various congressional committees have held hearings to nudge the administration to protect the bear and complained about delays on the decision. Meanwhile, the government marched ahead on Feb. 6 to open offshore oil fields to exploratory drilling in prime polar bear habitat.

The court's deadline evolved from a lawsuit seeking a court order to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with the legal deadline for the decision and another suit challenging the offshore leases. And then the Interior Department's inspector general opened an investigation into allegations that the decision had been detained by "inappropriate political influence."

The yearlong clock began ticking when Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Dec. 27, 2006, announced that there was sufficient scientific evidence of the bear's melting habitat to officially propose that the polar bear join the list of species threatened with extinction.

The proposal did not include designating critical habitat. Nor did it include a scientific analysis of the causes of climate change, which Kempthorne said was beyond the scope of scientific review under the Endangered Species Act. He directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work with the public and the scientific community to broaden understanding of what is happening to the species.

Since then, the arctic sea ice last summer retreated to record levels -- a retreat that about half of the climate modelers did not think would happen until 2050.

In September, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey released a comprehensive nine-volume analysis of the science and reached a dire forecast: Two-thirds of the bear's habitat would disappear by 2050.

Polar bears are experts at hunting ringed seals and other prey on sea ice. But they are so unsuccessful on land, they spend their summers fasting, losing more than 2 pounds a day.

This forced fast is an average of three weeks longer than it was 30 years ago, according to studies in Canada's western Hudson Bay. This gives the bears less time to hunt and build up fat reserves they need to make it until they can resume hunting with reformation of the ice in the fall.

As bears have become thinner, the reproductive rates of female bears has declined. The survival rates of cubs have fallen, too. Overall, the western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since 1987.

These bears in the Hudson Bay are among the best studied populations. Scientists don't know if similar trends exist elsewhere in the Arctic, which is a vast and forbidding place to conduct field world. Surveys have shown other problems, including bears swimming and drowning in open waters left by ever-increasing gaps in the sea ice and cannibalism among hungry bears.

Overall, scientists believe the global population of 20,000 to 25,000 bears remains robust. But virtually all polar bear experts predict rapid population declines in the Arctic, which is warming faster than anywhere else in the word, and changing too rapidly for the bears to adapt and find another source of food.

A group of Canadian scientists last month declared the polar bear as a "species of concern," but stopped short of saying it was "threatened" with extinction -- a designation that could have restricted hunting by Canada's Inuit people.

Canada has about two-thirds of the world's polar bear population. Interior Secretary Kempthorne joined Canada's environmental minister last week to sign an agreement that the two governments would form an intergovernmental group with tribal government to consider "the best available scientific information and aboriginal traditional knowledge."

The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, which operates in Canada's far north, recently proposed reducing the quota of polar bears hunted in Baffin Bay, a proposal opposed by Inuit trappers and hunters saying their traditional knowledge reveals there are too many bears in the area.

Meanwhile, in the United States, conservation groups in recent months have urged the Interior Department to give the polar bear a higher designation, one of "endangered with extinction," rather than mere "threatened."

source: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-polar15-2008may15,0,1220040.story


http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2008-02/35120385.gif

[awakening2lite]

EXCERPT

The conservation groups said Kempthorne acted improperly.

"On the one hand, he's acknowledging that global warming is impacting polar bears," said Melanie Duchin of Greenpeace in Alaska. "On the other hand, he's not willing to do anything about it. We're asking the administration to uphold the spirit and intent of the Endangered Species Act."

In court filings Friday that amended their original lawsuit, the conservation groups asked U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland, Calif., to reject Kempthorne's administrative actions.

more at source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-polar21-2008may21,0,5326944.story

[awakening2lite]

EXCERPT from Anderson Cooper 360 transcript

And a battle over polar bears. The governor of Alaska saying today her state will sue to challenge the federal government's recent decision to list polar bears as a threatened species. She says there is just not enough evidence to support that ruling. Many Alaskan lawmakers are worried such a classification would actually cripple offshore oil and gas development -- Anderson.

Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/21/acd.02.html


It always comes down to money.

[spike404]

Where is the data for the sea ice from 1492 to 1980? Manipulative extrapolation to the nth degree. 1980-2007 data--then being extrapolated to 2050? 27 years data, to project the next 42 years? A ratio of almost 2 to 1? Un-scientific, at the best, pure hogwash, more likely.

It is like predicting a weight loss of 200 lbs in one year, based on a weight loss of 100 lbs in 6 months! Eventually, the dieter will disappear.

[Smokey Stover]

Where is the data for the sea ice from 1492 to 1980? Manipulative extrapolation to the nth degree. 1980-2007 data--then being extrapolated to 2050? 27 years data, to project the next 42 years? A ratio of almost 2 to 1? Un-scientific, at the best, pure hogwash, more likely.

It is like predicting a weight loss of 200 lbs in one year, based on a weight loss of 100 lbs in 6 months! Eventually, the dieter will disappear.

There is probably no scientific conclusion whatever that can't be denied when politics are involved. True, even politicians generally admit that carefully controlled experiments under conditions that can be duplicated exactly will result in conclusions that may be accepted as scientific law. But in any scientific study involving the past, or involving outer space, where experiments under controlled conditions are not possible, the politicians and their followers feel free just to assume that the scientists involved are all going off half-cocked--even if the entire scientific world respects their conclusions. Politics always trumps science, when it's to the politicians' advantage, just as religion trumps science when that suits the religionaries. Fortunately for these nay-sayers, they will never have to eat their words, since even overwhelming evidence can just be denied or ignored. You need only to look at the O.J. Simpson case.

This cavalier suggestion of rushed and wrong conclusions is deeply insulting to scientists who have studied at prestigious institutions that are hard to get into, and who often have gone deeply in debt to finish their degrees, whose publications are peer-reviewed before publication and mercilessly debated by other scientists when published. Their intellectual rigor means nothing at all to those who, without the slightest notion of what the scientists have been doing, just say it's all wet because it doesn't suit their political bias.

In my opinion this attitude is also dangerous in terms of the future, not only of polar bears, but of ourselves.

[cogito]

That would be a wonderful sentiment were it not for the fact that scientists depend upon funding to do their work and more often than not, that funding comes from sources with political agendas.

Scientists are no more noble than any other profession. They know very well which way the wind blows and on what side their bread is buttered.

The fact is that Mauna Loa, Mt Etna, Mt St Helens, or Vesuvius could burp and it would cause more greenhouse gas emmissions than what man does. It is kind of hard to quantify man's impact upon global warming when variables such as volcanic eruptions, solar activity, farting herds of carabou in Finland and Kangaroos in Australia all contribute just as heavily, if not more to global warming and there is no way to control them.

To put it another way, let's say a family of five is going over the budget. They decide that they need to cut back or they're going to go under.

Dad likes to golf each and every Saturday and his green fees and equipment upkeep comes to around 350 dollars a month

Mom likes to shop at Banana Republic and buy name brand clothes and get a manicure every week. These extravagances take about 350 out of the till as well

Jr. likes to take showers every day until there's no more hot water and he leaves every light in the house on. Not to mention he goes through about 3 gallons of milk a week...he drains about 250 a month out of the budget

Sis likes Banana Republic as well and she also likes an occasional manacure. Not to mention that she also likes to run over on the family calling plan every month so she costs the family an extra whopping 300 a month.

So where do we start placing the blame? The baby....if he didn't eat and poop, we could save on diapers and formulae.

Environmetalists have been preaching doom and gloom of one kind or another ever since I can remember. I can't recall them being right even once. All of their messages have the same underlyng tone....man has no business being on this planet.

[awakening2lite]

Ahhh...to believe the scientific evidence or not to believe.

Regardless of the belief we should all want to leave the Earth to future generations in a better condition than the one we found it in.

[spike404]

"..Logically we can't trust organized religion, because they obviously have an agenda to get more people to believe in god because more believers mean more people attending church which means more money to the clergy...."

Exactly where does "organized religion" have anything to do with MAN CAUSED global warming? What an "illogical" post. Bringing religion in, where it has no relevance.

[cogito]

Ahhh...to believe the scientific evidence or not to believe.

Regardless of the belief we should all want to leave the Earth to future generations in a better condition than the one we found it in.

Yes we should. We should not, however, submit to draconian laws based upon evidence that is inconclusive to many.

on other words...it is almost June and it was a FREAKING 40 DEGREES OUTSIDE THIS MORNING!!!

[Roamer]

You're welcome to discuss these things, just not on a thread about something else.

Thanks.

[Smokey Stover]

You're welcome to discuss these things, just not on a thread about something else.

Thanks.

I have a little difficulty here. I don't know exactly what "these things" are. Are you referring to the posts directly above? Or to one or more posts that you have erased?

The posts above seem more or less focused on a large problem connected to environmentalism generally, which can be summarized as epistemology, as applied to science. It seemed to me that the problem of threatened polar bears, and every other problem connected with environmentalism, is connected with the perception of science. Clearly some regard it with awe and support, others believe it to be tainted one way or another. This is basically a problem of epistemology, although stating it that way reminds us that some people think that words like epistemology are invented by untrustworthy people just to confuse.

I'm one of the chief offenders of the law requiring strict adherence to the topic. I see tangents (or tangential discussions) as important and often far more interesting than the topic strictly interpreted. I think the concept of strict topicality is at odds with the purpose of a "social message board."

I'd like to bring your attention to a different kind of arrangement I found on a social message board to which I once contributed, until I found myself in hot water because of my stated distaste for Political Correctness.

There was a summarized display of responses, and it was "forked." It happens not infrequently, even on this board, that a respondent is replying, not to the latest post, but to an earlier one in the thread. On the board I have in mind, if more than one response to, say, the third post, was posted, each would be linked, by a line (as in a genealogy) to the third post. Each of these two or more could then have its own descendants. And of course the forking could take place at any point in any line of descent. I found this useful. Unfortunately, it involves time, expertise, and the feeling that it will be useful.

I mention this because I thought it was useful, and perhaps you would be glad to know of the existence of this system. I also thought the general membership might profit from knowing, which is why I didn't just send it in a PM.

Sorry for the non-topicality, but it was you who changed the topic.