Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsAlaska sues over listing polar bear as threatened
Alaska Sues Listing Polar Bear Threatened - Sciences, Education, Art, Writing, UFO - Posted: 7th Aug, 2008 - 1:40pm
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ Sciences, Education, Art, Writing & UFO
Posts: 8 - Views: 580
Animals & Pets News
Post Date: 5th Aug, 2008 - 4:55pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: Informer [?]
Alaska sues over listing polar bear as threatened
Alaska sues over listing polar bear as threatened
(AP)
Animals and Pets Related News
AP - The state of Alaska sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Monday, seeking to reverse his decision to list polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
Source: Yahoo! News: Animals & Pets News
Sponsored Links:
threatened bear polar listing sues Alaska
They are not saying the Polar Bear does not need protection, they are saying measures can be taken to protect the bear without taking such drastic measures as placing it on the endangered species list. That will have a major negative impact on people who's livelihood is dependent upon industry within the polar bear habitat. Here is an excerpt from the governor's announcement and a link to the entire press release:
| QUOTE |
| The Service's analysis failed to adequately consider the polar bears" survival through prior warming periods, and its findings that the polar bear is threatened by sea-ice habitat loss and inadequate regulatory mechanisms to address sea-ice recession are not warranted. The Service also failed to adequately consider the existing regulatory mechanisms, including conservation measures within Alaska and the international community, which have resulted in a sustainable worldwide polar bear population that has more than doubled in number over the last 40 years to 20,000-25,000 bears. The State takes seriously its obligation and interest in the management, conservation, and regulation of all wildlife and other natural resources within its jurisdiction. Alaska is also responsible for the welfare of its citizens, who are concerned that the unwarranted listing of the polar bear as a threatened species will have a significant adverse impact on Alaska by deterring activities such as commercial fisheries, oil and gas exploration and development, transportation, and tourism within and off-shore of Alaska. Source 5 |
threatened bear polar listing sues Alaska
That is true if they are put on the endangered list it does effect activities in that area like oil production. I would think that if Alaska does move to put laws into place that protect the Bears it would be best. If they do not then I will stick with putting them on the endangered list.
Far as oil production I am sure the government would find a way to put clauses into place that would allow this to be drilled and fish to be caught while not putting the bears at risk. I do not know if the result will change as the ice caps disappear but it will help. We have to chose in the next 5 years do we say nature takes its course and let species die off and say oh well or do we chose to try and help preserve their blood lines.
Historically we have let things die off and pollute what we like as fast as we can not caring. Question is when will be next on that list. So for me if we help other species live we have better odds of our own survival. It means hard times will come like we have not seen for a generation and a half but that we will make it through and in the end be better off. So yes save the bears replace fuel sources and change how we live. If saving the bears means less fishing then perhaps ti is telling us that we have already over reaped our existing supplies and we need to take a new look at what we are doing.
Do we need to eat fish from Alaska(all of the north)? Could we farm more fish in fields and ponds that now sit empty and unused? Do it mean we place laws to keep a better balance in whales fish seals and bears by limited hunts on all?
Post Date: 6th Aug, 2008 - 1:44pm / Post ID: #
Alaska sues over listing polar bear as threatened
I will go along with a state law passed by Alaska to help protect the polar bear but I still say they need to be on the protected list. Noone forced someone to build a community in their territory. If the homes were built in the polar bear territory then they knew full and well that they may be living with bears. It is like other states who keep taking more and more wild areas from the animals then act surprised when those wild animals are in their yard.
I am and will continue to fight to keep the polar bear on the endangered species list.
Alaska sues listing polar bear threatened
Most of the people who live in the polar bear habitat are either subsistence hunters and live off the land (and sea) or are fishermen by trade. If the fisheries are restricted these people would have no way to make a living.
Ktoran wrote:
| QUOTE |
| If the homes were built in the polar bear territory then they knew full and well that they may be living with bears. |
It's hard to say. We are talking about Inupiat and Y'upik villages that have been there for hundreds, even thousands of years. Who is to say who's territory it was first?
Edited: alskann on 6th Aug, 2008 - 10:15pmAlaska sues listing polar bear threatened Sciences Education Art Writing & UFO
True just like our east coast friends. I think the reality is times are changing and people better be preparing for it now! I hope they can continue fishing but I do not think that will last another generation as a staple for a area as an income unless they start fish farms.
TOPIC: Alaska sues over listing polar bear as threatened