Polar bears not declining

[Stoner]

Despite what you hear from Al Gore, Moveon.org and these other braindead libs, polar bears are not declining and becoming extinct. No, just like man-made global warming, it's just another political-driven conspiracy theory.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml

[Elrathin]

It's funny that you keep mentioning Al Gore, however, it is scientists that are also saying it. Scientists that I might add that are a helluva lot smarter than you.

[Drocket]

All that means is that the bears are moving to new regions, trying to survive. The number of bears in a small river area is in no way an accurate assessment of how the species is doing over all. Study after study after study has shown a significant decrease in the number of bears overall, and the bears that survive are (surprise, surprise) moving to new regions as their previous habitats becomes unlivable.

[Stoner]

All that means is that the bears are moving to new regions, trying to survive. The number of bears in a small river area is in no way an accurate assessment of how the species is doing over all. Study after study after study has shown a significant decrease in the number of bears overall, and the bears that survive are (surprise, surprise) moving to new regions as their previous habitats becomes unlivable.


Nice opinion but unfortunatly scientists disagree.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Ahh man that is just to bad.
2. Dang Neolibs got nothing to lament up in the North Pole.
3. Well they could lament Santa Clause I guess.
4. You Neolibs been real naughty, you ain't getting nothing next Christmas!
5. Gets easier every day to slam a Neloib.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Elrathin]

5. Gets easier every day to slam a Neloib.


It's far easier to slam Neocons.

[Stoner]

5. Gets easier every day to slam a Neloib.


It's far easier to slam Neocons.


Wow, so you just said the opposite of what Chess said. Way to be original!!!!!

[Elrathin]

Wow, so you just said the opposite of what Chess said. Way to be original!!!!!


/yawn wake me when you actually have something intelligent to say.

[lily]

Stoner..........did you read the entire article, or just the print under the pictures?

[piratemonkey]

Nice opinion but unfortunatly scientists disagree.


Umm...

You mean these scientists... from YOUR article?
"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."

Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson's Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said.

"They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson's Bay," he added. He and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of 'habitat loss'. "The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. "We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years.

"To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant."

Say it with me, Stoner.

A-n-e-c-d-o-t-e

Wow. Show us that the thermostat in your house is set for 60 degrees and tell us there's no global warming in your house. :rolleyes:

[piratemonkey]

Summary of Stoner's anti Global Warming argument:

I feel a chill.

Therefore, global warming is liberal crap.

[Stoner]

ESA LISTING NOT NEEDED FOR POLAR BEARS

Environmental activists have presented only one academic study that shows any negative effect of warming temperatures on polar bears, and only anecdotal evidence of bears drowning and eating each other, says H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Other, more comprehensive research suggests the plight of that one population does not reflect the polar bear population trend as a whole:

Since the 1970s, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers increased dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears -- a higher polar bear population than has existed at any time in the twentieth century.

Scientists believe polar bears thrived in the past in temperatures even warmer than at present -- during the medieval warm period 1,000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada says the polar bear population in Canada alone has increased 25 percent from 12,000 to 15,000 during the past decade, with 11 of Canada's 13 polar bear populations stable or increasing in number.
Groups such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have written on the threats allegedly posed to polar bears populations from global warming.Â*Â*But their analysis isn't supported by the data, says Burnett:

Only two bear populations -- accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total number of bears -- are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region.

By contrast, another two populations -- about 13.6 percent of the total number -- are growing, and they live in areas where air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.

As for the rest, 10 populations representing about 45.4 percent of the total number of bears are stable, and the status of the remaining six populations is unknown.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ID=14207

[Buck Laser]

Stoner posts his bullshit rebuttal from the "National Center For Policy Analysis," a private lobbying organization. Here's what they say about themselves:
"The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation."

Yep, nothing like quoting an objective source!:P

[Labrocca]

Stoner posts his bullshit rebuttal from the "National Center For Policy Analysis," a private lobbying organization.Â*Â*Here's what they say about themselves:
"The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation."

Yep, nothing like quoting an objective source!:P



I don't understand how that refutes their statements Buck. Are you saying they are lying that bear population has increased since the 70's?

Glancing over some other Polar Bear sites I see consistent statements that seem to agree with the article Stoner posted.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

Polar bears are a potentially threatened species living in the circumpolar north. They are animals which know no boundaries. They pad across the ice from Russia to Alaska, from Canada to Greenland and onto Norway's Svalbard archipelago. No adequate census exists on which to base a worldwide population estimate, but biologists use a working figure of 20,000 to 25,000 bears with about sixty percent of those living in Canada.

In areas where long-term studies are available, populations are showing signs of stress. Canada's Western Hudson Bay population has dropped 22% since the early 1980s. The declines have been directly linked to an earlier ice break-up on Hudson Bay. A long-term study of the Southern Beaufort Sea population, which spans the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada, has revealed a decline in cub survival rates and in the weight and skull size of adult males. Such declines were observed in Western Hudson Bay bears prior to the population drop there. Another population listed as declining is Baffin Bay. According to the most recent report from the Polar Bear Specialist Group, the harvest levels from Nunavut when combined with those from Greenland (which were thought to be much lower than they actually are) has resulted in this shared population being in a non-sustainable harvest situation, meaning the population is at great risk of a serious decline. The harvest is thought to be several times above what is sustainable.

Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased population, although the increased presence on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes in the bears' distribution patterns. Data is needed to understand the change. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states, "In the declining polar bear population of Canada's Western Hudson Bay, extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat."

Climate change is the main threat to polar bears today. A diminishing ice pack directly affects polar bears, as sea ice is the platform from which they hunt seals. Although the Arctic has experienced warm periods before, the present shrinking of the Arctic's sea ice is rapid and unprecedented.

In the 1960s and 1970s, hunting was the major threat to the bears. At the time, polar bears were under such severe survival pressure from hunters that a landmark international accord was reached, despite the tensions and suspicions of the Cold War. The International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears was signed in Oslo, November 15, 1973 by the five nations with polar bear populations: Canada, Denmark (Greenland, Norway, the U.S., and the former U.S.S.R.

The polar bear nations agreed to prohibit random, unregulated sport hunting of polar bears and to outlaw hunting the bears from aircraft and icebreakers as had been common practice. The agreement also obliged each nation to protect polar bear denning areas and migration patterns and to conduct research relating to the conservation and management of polar bears. Finally, the nations agreed to share their polar bear research findings with each other. Member scientists of the Polar Bear Specialist Group now meet every three to four years under the auspices of the IUCN World Conservation Union to coordinate their research on polar bears throughout the Arctic.

The Oslo agreement was one of the first and most successful international conservation measures enacted in the 20th century. Its legacy continues today, with member scientists from each nation continuing to work together in face new threats to the bears including climate change, pollution, industrial activities, and poaching.


Seems to read to me the same as the other posts from Stoner. Playing with words like "potentially threatened" doesn't mean threatened. The figure quoted for the bear population is consistent with Stoners quotes. Obviously if ice shelfs are melting it would cause the bears to relocate. That in and of itself does not constitute a direct threat to the bears as huntind did in the 60s and 70s. The bears are not actively hunted anymore at the same rate as then. So far I see 2 locations where bear population is declining...so what. People move...so do animals. Even regular non-threatened animals move around to find more food or to mate. Doesn't seem unnatural to me.

[AlonzoMourning23]

One key issue with ice melting though is it directly interferes with the main method of hunting for polar bears. They will often spend hours waiting at holes in the ice, knowing that eventually a seal will come up for air and will need to use the hole. Also, the average weight of polar bears has dropped and infant mortality has risen. The reduction in hunting may have caused a temporary spike in population, the population risks being unsustainable.

The fear is of a quick collapse.

[Labrocca]

Also, the average weight of polar bears has dropped and infant mortality has risen.

Could not the rise in bear population and the sharing of bear hunting grounds also contribute to the lowering of weight. Plus if they are moving to warmer areas to search for food and such then wouldn't losing weight be natural? Isn't their fat to help them deal with the cold and to store food overall?

[wonder cow]

Here's how we should all decide such matters:

Align ourselves with a political ideology.

Pick through the "science" and choose what best syncs with the tenets of our chosen political ideology.

Because, after all, polar bears are quite naturally a political issue. You don't think polar bears would politicize the fate of humans if they could? You damn right they would.

[piratemonkey]

From you own quote:


http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/


Climate change is the main threat to polar bears today. A diminishing ice pack directly affects polar bears, as sea ice is the platform from which they hunt seals. Although the Arctic has experienced warm periods before, the present shrinking of the Arctic's sea ice is rapid and unprecedented.

[lily]

Here's how we should all decide such matters:

Align ourselves with a political ideology.

Pick through the "science" and choose what best syncs with the tenets of our chosen political ideology.

Because, after all, polar bears are quite naturally a political issue. You don't think polar bears would politicize the fate of humans if they could? You damn right they would.


LMAO