U.S. Wants Polar Bears Listed as Threatened

Designation May Force Action on Global Warming
The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world's most recognizable animals out of existence.

The administration's proposal -- which was described by an Interior Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity -- stems from the fact that rising temperatures in the Arctic are shrinking the sea ice that polar bears need for hunting. The official insisted on anonymity because the department will submit the proposal today for publication in the Federal Register, after which it will be subject to public comment for 90 days.

Identifying polar bears as threatened with extinction could have an enormous political and practical impact. As the world's largest bear and as an object of children's affection as well as Christmastime Coca-Cola commercials, the polar bear occupies an important place in the American psyche. Because scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide from power-plant and vehicle emissions is helping drive climate change worldwide, putting polar bears on the endangered species list raises the legal question of whether the government would be required to compel U.S. industries to curb their carbon dioxide output.

"We've reviewed all the available data that leads us to believe the sea ice the polar bear depends on has been receding," said the Interior official, who added that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have concluded that polar bears could be endangered within 45 years. "Obviously, the sea ice is melting because the temperatures are warmer."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122601034.html

Magnificent animals.

"Polar bears are a potentially threatened species rather than an endangered one. A threatened species is one that could easily become endangered. The major threat to the polar bear is climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

How many polar bears are there?
Scientists estimate that there are between 22,000 to 27,000 polar bears.

What is the polar bear's scientific name?
Ursus maritimus or the "sea bear." Its closest relative is the brown bear.

How big are polar bears?
Adult male polar bears measure 2.5 to 3 meters (8 to 10 feet) tall. They weigh 250 to 770 kilograms (550 to 1,700 pounds). Adult female bears are smaller. They measure 1.8 to 2.5 meters (6 to 8 feet) tall and weigh 90 to 320 kilograms (200 to 700 pounds)."

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/faq/









Alaska won't be the paradise of wildness (not just wilderness) unless we do something to halt, or at least slow down, climate change.

The Bush solution to global warming is to let the marketplace
develop and offer solutions rather than compel industry to
clean up its act. Besides, the Bush administration considers
itself above the law. Any mandate that comes from this finding
will only be a suggestion.

The animal's listing should proceed in any case.

There was no denying that polar bears are in trouble, or soon to be. But I didn't like Kempthorne's wimpy responses on the interview on the NewsHour on PBS the other night. It seems like BushCo is still in denial about global warming and impacts of oil and gas development up there.

Plus I wouldn't put it past them to come up with something REALLY WEAK if they actually DO list the polar bear as threatened.


**** All this may be cover for several controversial moves the Fish and Wildlife Service has made in recent days elsewhere across the country. ****
Yes, it is "business" as usual as far as eliminating Endangered Species Act protections for at-risk species.

For example,

1.) Bushco wants to move the NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL from endangered to unlisted (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-21530.htm) - One of the MAJOR THREATS is coal-burning power plants, which impact the high elevation forests where they live.

2.) Bushco is talking about moving the INDIANA BAT off of the endangered species list. This species roosts in mature and OLD GROWTH forests - rare in the Eastern US. Populations are still staggeringly low.

3.) Bushco denied the petition to list the cerulean warbler as threatened (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-20530.htm). This warbler is facing one of the steepest declines of any warbler species. It's habitat is extensive Eastern forests with large, tall trees - often OLD GROWTH.

3.) Bushco wants to delist the gray wolf, and would allow wolves to be shot on sight in parts of Wyoming.

"Idaho Statesman

Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 12/19/06

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today it will propose delisting Rocky Mountain wolves as endangered in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming by the end of January.
Fish and wildlife director Dale Hall and Todd Willens, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks met with Gov. Jim Risch early this afternoon to announce their decision.

It comes after federal wildlife officials reached an agreement with Wyoming leaders that would expand the area in that state where wolves would be protected.

But it still allows Wyoming wolves to be managed as predators outside that area, which means they can be shot on sight.

Idaho and Montana already had approved wolf management plans.

Under the proposal, wolves would be delisted in Idaho and Montana even if the Wyoming legislature and Fish and Wildlife commissions don’t approve the agreement there.

The public will have 60 days to comment after Fish and Wildlife makes its proposal to delist wolves.

Fish and Wildlife will then have a year to make its final decision.

Willens said the agreement was announced today because it has cleared the necessary people in the Interior Department — including its lawyers.

That’s important because the final decision will likely be challenged in court.

“We wanted to get it right, so it would hold up,” Willens said.

Risch said Idaho looks forward to managing wolves just as it has managed mountain lions and black bears.

He said he’s hopeful when a court challenge comes, a federal court will not issue an injunction stopping the decision to turn management of wolves back to the state.

“If that’s the case, we will have management in less than 12 months,” Rich said"

This will not be a victory for polar bears until we stop them from dying. How many will now die while the political wheels continue to spin for poll numbers? Bush knows he is taking a hit on this issue, so they put out feelers that they MAY do this. I say, JUST DO IT ALREADY, and call on Congress to give us legislation that slashes fossil fuel use in order to delay the full effects of what we have done to our planet and other species. This is a "planetary emergency" which means we need to take emergency steps to mitigate this crisis that has already taken tropical islands and plans on taking more the longer we wait. Just adding them to a list is not doing a damn thing now other than buying them time on being criticized for doing nothing at all while they still sleep with oil companies. When I see REAL legislation being signed, then I will have reason to celebrate without all of the "mays" and "coulds" thrown in.

the Bush administration has become adept at making these regulatory changes that fall under the radar screen. They know that few people will be watching them until it is too late --- Not until the ice melts - a few years after they are out of office --- Or not until the bulldozers begin - after they are out of office (All this once they have given a "free pass" via streamlined regulations to industry.) Then everybody looks around and says "Duh, what happened?"

Adding them to a list or not adding them to a list can make a big difference. And the measures they approve to recover the polar bear can make a big difference. Are these measures going to be for real, or are they just greenwash????

Yes, we do need to treat this as a "planetary emergency." We need to watch their every move! And we need to hold them accountable for whatever they do!

They now get another year to "study" the problem, and this'll provide them just enough green paint to lull a few percentage points of the electorate into believing they're doing something.

By the end of 2007, the environment is going to be nowhere on anybody's radar, what with the galactically important Iowa Caucuses coming up and all, and the campaign season is going to take up most of the air in the room for about a year after that, and then Chimpy's home free.

This scenario may not play out in exactly this fashion if something catastrophic comes along (the Ross ice shelf cracking in half, Katrina V. 2.0) to remove both crumbs of doubt remaining on anthropogenic climate breakdown. Such events might induce some hand-waving and more photo-ops, policy nips and tucks or maybe, just maybe some Congressional action overriding ChimpCo. But barring this last option, or some fluke of federal law, just another bucket of green paint.