Polar Bear Listed

WASHINGTON – Defenders of Wildlife today welcomed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This move officially recognizes that polar bears are threatened with extinction from global warming, which is melting the Arctic sea ice where polar bears hunt for ringed and bearded seals, their primary food source. Defenders cautioned, however, that the Bush administration continues to be unwilling to address global warming, which is the leading threat to the polar bear.

“With the USGS predicting the demise of Alaska’s bears within 50 years, this decision to list the polar bear is long overdue,” said Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen. “Unfortunately, the Bush administration is unwilling to act to address the fundamental causes of global warming.”

In September, the U.S. Geological Survey published a series of reports predicting that loss of summer sea ice—crucial habitat for polar bears—could lead to the demise of two-thirds of the world’s polar bears by mid-century, including all of Alaska’s polar bears. As sea ice disappears, polar bears are forced to spend more time on land in search of food, placing stress on the bears and increasing the likelihood of often fatal conflicts (for the bears) with humans.

Listing polar bears as threatened under the ESA should help protect polar bear habitat from threats such as oil and gas development, which the Bush administration has proposed in pristine areas including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the primary land denning habitat for the polar bear. Instead, the administration has made it clear that the ESA will not provide any additional protections from these activities than those that already exist under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

“Today’s announcement confirms yet again that global warming is already affecting the United States and its natural heritage,” said Schlickeisen. “After years of denial, the Bush administration can no longer avoid facing up to the reality that global warming is happening, with long-term and devastating consequences for wildlife and people. However, the Bush administration remains committed to pushing through oil and gas lease sales in prime polar bear habitat. Defenders of Wildlife will do everything in its power to stop this senseless development.”

Learn more about Defenders' work to protect polar bears.

###

Defenders of Wildlife is dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities. With more than 1 million members and activists, Defenders of Wildlife is a leading advocate for innovative solutions to safeguard our wildlife heritage for generations to come. For more information, visit www.defenders.org.

Grist highlights the areas where the threatened designation does no good at all -- especially since the administration contends it gets to choose which protections are implemented.

From Grist:

The "threatened" designation means the bear could become endangered if conservation steps aren't taken; it puts polar bears on the endangered-species list but in effect allows Interior to pick and choose which protections to impose. And those protections will, says the very subhead of the departmental press release, "allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska."

"While the polar bear is being listed specifically because climate change is melting its habitat, Interior took pains to point out that the listing "should not open the door to use of the [Endangered Species Act] to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, and other sources." In fact, the department plans to propose modifying the regulatory language in the ESA to "prevent abuse of this listing to erect a back-door climate policy."

http://www.grist.org/news/2008/05/14/polar_threat/index.html

I don't know about you, but I don't feel that much better after reading this. How many days left?

I am disappointed with the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species. This is a bad decision for a couple of reasons. Conservation funding will be eliminated because hunters from the United states will no longer be allowed to hunt the bears, almost all conservation funding comes from hunters from the United states.Canadians and the eskomos will still be able to hunt the bears, this decision will not address climate change and worst of all oil drilling may be eliminated or restricted in polar bear habitat, I don't think it is fair that we will have to pay six dollars a gallon for gas just to protect a bear. If I was fortunate enough to have a polar bear tag in my hand I would still go on the hunt and I would find a way to bring my trophy back into the states.

Hold on there. You’re sending us two conflicting messages. On the one hand you’re telling us that hunting protects polar bears (sorry, I don’t buy it). Then you tell us that the ESA is protecting polar bears at your expense. Don’t buy that either.
Best,
Ted

Ted, you claim to be a hunter but lately you have been taking sides with groups that want to restrict hunting. This question is not related to the polar bear issue, do you support the lead ban enacted in California in order to protect the condor? The legislation was based on junk science, it was pushed through by the democrats and signed into law by Governor Arnold, thats his way of thanking the gun owners and sportsmen who helped him get elected. I was against this legislation from day one, it unfair because it greatly increases the cost of going hunting in areas that are effected by this law. Have any idea what a box of lets say 3006 ammo loaded with pure copper bullets costs? If you check out some of the online sporting goods stores you can get a box of twenty cartridges for about thirty five bucks, a box of leaded ammo cost as little as fifteen bucks. I load my own ammunition so it would cost me about fifteen bucks, the same as a box of factory leaded ammo, but not everyone reloads their own ammo. If California wants hunters to use unleaded ammo then the state should provide coupons to help out with the cost of the ammo.I recently went on a pig hunt on a ranch that is in condor territory, I asked my hunting guide about the condors, he just laughed, he said that in the eight years that he has been guiding on the ranch he has yet to see a condor. Sportsmen are getting screwed over a bear and a glorified buzzard that can't stay away from power lines.

Thanks for posting one of the top five brainless posts I’ve seen anywhere, even on our old forum. “Taking sides with groups that want to restrict hunting”? Imagine that! Apparently you believe we should always take the opposing side, no matter the issue? If HSUS came out against hunger, I wouldn’t be surprised to see people like yourself coming out for it. HSUS is against shooting lactating black bears over garbage in the spring, thereby orphaning cubs. I take it you’re for it. Please spare us the NRA-style drivel about condors and lead shot. I recall hearing the same BS during the fight over lead shot for waterfowl. It was not gonna kill waterfowl; it was gonna ruin our shotguns; it was unavailable because no company would make it without a regulation. And there couldn’t be regulations because no company would make it…. Your description of condors as “glorified buzzards” is, alas, typical of the me-first, species-be-damned, ESA-bashing, troglodyte element of the sporting fraternity. Who needs biodiversity, if it might inconvenience us or make us spend $4 more for a box of shells? It’s not HSUS and its allies that give hunting a bad name. It’s guys like you.
Best,
Ted

I am going to do whatever I can to protect my right to hunt. How many more restrictions should we allow on our right to hunt? It seems to me that you don't care if you lose your right to hunt or fish.

We have no “right” to hunt and fish. It’s a privilege, a privilege we need to protect with good behavior.
Best,
Ted

Dirk Kempthorne protecting the polar bear is an absolute joke! THE GUY SERVES THE BUSH MASTERS AT THEIR WORST !

Idaho's many salmon species are all threatened or extinct, or close to extinction. His own biologists working for the Idaho Department of Fish & Game advised him the four dams on the lower Snake must be breached or the fish were history.

What did Dirk do? He was Gov of the state at the time. He issued a gag order to all scientists and employees to shut up and say nothing on the issue... and he stopped all public information presentations at schools and service clubs.

The day after he issued the order all the fish and wildlife mounts at IDF&G headquarters were stuffed with toilet paper gags.

The order stands to this day by the current Gov Butch Otter.

Ted, it takes more than good behavior to protect hunting, it takes people and organizations like SCI and USSA to protect hunting. It is a right to hunt in eight states, voters approved ballot iniatives amending their state constitutions, they all passed by large margins, I don't remember which state it was but one of the iniatives passed with eighty percent of the vote. There will be at least one iniative to vote on in this Novembers election, I think it is Oklahoma, it should pass with ease, Arizona is attempting to get an iniative on the ballot but there is strong dissaproval from the Fish and Game dept, they claim that the way it is written it would make it hard to enforce game laws. If someone was arrested for shooting a game animal out of season he could claim that it is his right to hunt in court and win, I don't want that either. Got an email from SCI, they claim that the listing will not effect the number of polar bears killed by hunters, it will only stop the importation of trophys into the states.