Tougher Protections Sought for Polar Bear

(AP)  With global warming shrinking Arctic sea ice that polar bears depend upon for survival, the United States is seeking to remove another major threat: international trade in the bears' fur and other parts.

In a proposal filed this week, the Interior Department asked other countries to support a ban on the commercial trade of polar bears and to strictly regulate trophy hunting. The request, if approved, would give the bear the most stringent protection afforded under an international convention to protect endangered species.

It would also upgrade protections for the bear internationally for the first time since 1975, when the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, required export permits for the polar bear.

Since then, mounting scientific evidence has shown that Arctic sea ice is melting and suggests that global warming may cause the disappearance of summer sea ice in 30 years.

In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming. The determination made all but subsistence hunting illegal.

The U.S. pitch argues that the loss of sea ice could make the toll of trade and hunting on the bear worse.

"The underlying melting of the Arctic ice is an issue no single country can address," said Tom Strickland, the Interior Department's assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks. "This is part of a comprehensive approach to try to provide additional protection for this important, iconic species."

Data available on polar bear trade shows that since the early 1990s the market for polar bear carcasses and parts has increased. From 1992 to 2006, approximately 31,294 live polar bears, carcasses or parts were exported to 73 different countries, according to data collected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

Skins are the most popular export item, and Canada is the largest commercial exporter.

Environmentalists said Friday that they hoped the proposal, which will be voted on by 175 nations in March at a CITES meeting in Doha, Qatar, will end the Canadian hunt, by requiring trophy hunters to also get an import permit.

"Picking off animals in the most important population one by one is dangerous. It's time to end the hunt and trade there," said Andrew Wetzler, director for wildlife conservation at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Besides polar bears, the U.S. is also proposing trade restrictions for six shark species, more than 30 coral species and is backing a bid by Monaco to ban commercial trade for the Atlantic bluefin tuna.

[Sloughfoot]

He, he he, way to go posters. Some of you are having way to much fun toying with the ignorance and sensitivety of others. (Don't fret about my spelling cause if you don't get the drift, you've missed the point.)

[troutfishyman]

by debinok1 October 17, 2009 3:39 PM EDT
by troutfishyman October 17, 2009 1:22 PM EDT
PS
I find it ironic that you reference Darwin, when you probably reject his central thesis of evolution. Go figure.


Whether I accept or reject his central thesis is irrelevant. We have eight species of bears in the world, at this time six are in danger of extinction, while two are thriving. That alone suggests that the two that are thriving may be on the brink of an evolutionary break.


You moron, they are on the verge of extinction due to the actions of humans. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. The two that are "thriving" most likely live in an ecosystem that has not YET been impacted.

[debinok1]

The two that are thriving are doing so despite the extreme impact on their ecosystems due to the actions of humans. That is the point, Moron.

[debinok1]

by troutfishyman October 17, 2009 1:22 PM EDT
PS
I find it ironic that you reference Darwin, when you probably reject his central thesis of evolution. Go figure.


Whether I accept or reject his central thesis is irrelevant. We have eight species of bears in the world, at this time six are in danger of extinction, while two are thriving. That alone suggests that the two that are thriving may be on the brink of an evolutionary break. By delaying the extinction of the other six, we may be causing a detrimental delay in their evolutionary process. We continue to play God, and try to affect outcomes when we have no idea of the consequences. Where would we be if, somewhere along our evolutionary path, someone had protected and reestablished a part of our species destined for extinction? We would have continued to fight for survival against a lesser species and possibly lost that fight, while the lesser species evolved instead. We have no idea why nature does what it does, maybe it knows better than we do, and maybe we should leave it alone.

[troutfishyman]

PS
I find it ironic that you reference Darwin, when you probably reject his central thesis of evolution. Go figure.

[troutfishyman]

by debinok1 October 17, 2009 1:09 AM EDT
How quick people are to accept Darwins theory of Evolution, yet they forget there was another half to his thesis that made a whole, Survival of the Fittest. According to him in order for a species to evolve, only the fittest of that species would evolve, the others would simply die off.



We are talking about possible extinction of an entire species, not merely some "others" dying off.

With great power comes great responsibility. Humans have within their power to cause many species to go extinct through destruction of ecosystems. We see that unfolding before us right now.

[ubrew12]

Its not well reported that the earth is going through an extinction event right now, but it is. The number of species crashing since humans started large-scale international trade and species introduction, and since we started cutting down all the forests, rivals other major extinction events throughout history. OK, not THAT bad, but getting there. Its so unnecessary today because our understanding of science has progressed to where we don't need to lean on earths natural biodiversity as much as 100 years ago, to support our civilization. Earths natural biodiversity is unique in the solar system, maybe the universe, and is worth maintaining. What we're seeing is a little like the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Nobody but a few librarians missed it at the time. Later, and throughout history, the number of things that had to be re-invented and re-discovered grew and it was seen as the monumental shame it really was.

[debinok1]

How quick people are to accept Darwins theory of Evolution, yet they forget there was another half to his thesis that made a whole, Survival of the Fittest. According to him in order for a species to evolve, only the fittest of that species would evolve, the others would simply die off. It stands to reason by his theory, that the survivors of the evolutionary process will be those most able to adapt to their changing enviroment. Given that thought process it is entirely possible that the polar bear, regardless of how beautiful, is not the fittest of the species and is therefore destined to become extinct. It is also entirely possible that by delaying the extinction of certain branches of a species, we are in fact delaying the evolution of another.

[ubrew12]

debinok1 said: "It is also entirely possible that by delaying the extinction of certain branches of a species, we are in fact delaying the evolution of another. "

The entire planet could become unfit for life within a century. What does your flippant interpretation of Darwin have to say about that? The Polar Bear is supremely adapted to an ice-bound Arctic. Are you saying that ice-bound Arctic's are now passe? Unusual? Saying that Polar Bears are no longer 'fit' for the Arctic, because its lost all its ice, is like saying that humans that die of emphysema caused by air pollution were supposed to die, being less 'fit'. Yours is entirely the pathway by which Darwinism was turned into social Darwinism and, later, holocaust, and why white settlers felt justified in taking Indian lands.

[titletrack]

Ubrew12, again with the whining. Look at the bright side, at least you will be dead before the earth can no longer sustain life.

[ubrew12]

How long does it take to evolve a Polar Bear? Its been THAT long since the Arctic was ice-free in the summer (they are designed to hunt on the ice for seals in the summer and hibernate in the winter). Yet, yesterday's news was that the Arctic will be completely ICE FREE in the summer in 10 years. The new 'protections' afforded to the Polar Bear are a joke. Kill their home, but offer them a cage for their DNA. Will we be doing that with the Afghan's next?

[ubrew12]

SkirtLifter said: "Meteorologist can barely get a five day forecast correct. What makes you think they can get a ten year forecast correct?"

Meteorologists don't make 10 year forecasts, climatologists (and glaciologists) DO. Meteorologists have to deal with the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations, translating pressure gradients into velocities with the added problem of viscous loss through turbulence. Meteorology gave birth to the science of 'chaos theory', due to this nonlinearity. Integrating equations over larger time periods allows climatology and glaciology to avoid these nonlinearities.

Why post, if you don't know something as simple as 'meteorologists don't make 10 year forecasts'? Are you proud of your ignorance, and want the rest of the country to join you in its celebration? You know, in the rest of the world, when someone doesn't know sh*t about a subject, they shut the fvck up. Only in America...

[titletrack]

How unhappy Ubrew12 must be. If only he would turn off his computer and conserve energy to combat global warming. I am deeply concerned for you Ubrew12.

[ffotoragg]

all animals on this planet need protection--(except for the cattle, chicken, and pork industry)----humans are the most destructive animal on this planet--and none of the rest of the animal population has any say in what we make up our minds to do --so to act as responsible human beings, yes!!! please protect the polar bears! what are we going to say if we don't, and grandkids ask us why we CHOSE to let them become extinct? 'Oh we didn't know that was going to happen--or
We just didn't care??????'

[titletrack]

Boo hoo! Animals (including humans) will adapt or die. As for me, I am for the humans. Go humans!

[titletrack]

Boo hoo! Animals (including humans) will adapt or die. As for me I am for the humans. Go humans!