|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 14, 2008 14:27:30 GMT -5
It's official: the Secretary of the Interior just announced that the Polar Bear is Threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. He went on to advocate for change to ESA and its regs to allow for consideration of economic and social issues (failing to mention the God Squad's power). Reports also say that activists dressed as bummed out polar bears were at the announcement. www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/14/polar.bears.listing/index.html |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 14, 2008 15:33:48 GMT -5
Can't we just airlift them all to the Antarctic, where the sea ice is expanding?  Bully news for the polar bear, to be sure (won't save the Dharma ones though). But I'm hard pressed to figure out how an animal gets on this list when it's population has increased from under 5,000 less than 50 years ago to 20-25,000 today. If you want to say any animals with populations under 25,000 should be on it, OK, but I'm not really seeing this one backed up by much evidence. Then again, I am probably a science denier, so what to I know? |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 14, 2008 16:46:17 GMT -5
If we airlifted them down south, we'd finally have polar bears and penguins living together like in cartoons!
Boz - the definition of Threatened is distinguishable from Endangered in that Threatened just means that it is likely to become Endangered in the near future as a result of, in this case, loss of habitat. Also, the sheer number of individuals in a species doesn't determine its status.
The two agencies that administer listed species -- Fish&Wildlife Service and NOAA -- have more information on that. Here's what FWS says:
"What is the Difference Between Threatened And Endangered Species?
If we determine that a species is on the brink of extinction, we list it as endangered. If a species is experiencing serious threats that may eventually lead to its extinction, but the situation is not yet critical, we classify it as threatened...Animal species listed as threatened do not have automatic protection under the Act" unlike endangered species, which have strong protection. Generally, though, agencies protect threatened species pursuant to ESA Section 4(d).
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 14, 2008 18:21:54 GMT -5
Let's capture them all and put them in zoos where they will not be threatened.
|
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on May 14, 2008 20:39:23 GMT -5
Just checking, but we have successfully breeded Polar Bears in Zoos right?
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 14, 2008 22:05:40 GMT -5
Hey, everyone go easy on Coast2Coast. We should all understand that this is a sensitive issue for him, since Californians killed off all their grizzly bears save the one on the state flag some time ago.
Serious question: who are/what is the God Squad?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 14, 2008 23:01:41 GMT -5
All I know is polar bears will have no problem killing you and everyone you care about.
At least that's what a scientician told me once.
;D
(thanks for the clarification on the different categories though)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2008 8:03:35 GMT -5
...(won't save the Dharma ones though). Beat me to it, bastard... |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 15, 2008 10:13:38 GMT -5
...(won't save the Dharma ones though). Beat me to it, bastard... Yeah, some polar bears seem quite adept at adapting to warmer climates. So why the need for federal protection? |
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on May 15, 2008 10:19:40 GMT -5
Yeah, some polar bears seem quite adept at adapting to warmer climates. Well if that is the reasoning you are going to adopt... |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 15, 2008 12:33:34 GMT -5
Yeah, some polar bears seem quite adept at adapting to warmer climates. Well if that is the reasoning you are going to adopt... That's what Jacob told me. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on May 15, 2008 14:14:26 GMT -5
It's official: the Secretary of the Interior just announced that the Polar Bear is Threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. He went on to advocate for change to ESA and its regs to allow for consideration of economic and social issues (failing to mention the God Squad's power). Reports also say that activists dressed as bummed out polar bears were at the announcement. www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/14/polar.bears.listing/index.htmlC2C - Do you think that there will be a last minute God Squad decision on the polar bear before the Bush administration leaves? I could see it happening, but don't know what end it would serve as a Democratic EPA would just reverse the determination. The real issue here is the scope of the territory that needs to be protected if the polar bear is determined to be threatened. Also does the ESA give standing to groups to challenge these determinations? |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 22, 2008 6:09:26 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 22, 2008 7:12:40 GMT -5
Very few people in Alaska like the listing. I know the Congressional delegation is against it because it gives standing to a whole host of lawsuits to stop any kind of resource development from a whole bunch of enviro-special interest groups www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/412567.html |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on May 22, 2008 7:23:24 GMT -5
Let's capture them all and put them in zoos where they will not be threatened. The National Zoo - Animals check in but they don't check out. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 23, 2008 10:54:02 GMT -5
Ha! Thanks, Austin. Too true .... Gotta love the California flag: it's not a republic and there are no grizzlies there!
From wikipedia:
"The God Squad is a committee composed of seven cabinet level members: Administrator of EPA, Administrator of NOAA, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, a representative from the state in question, and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Army, and Interior. This committee has the authority to allow the extinction by exempting a federal agency from Section 7 requirements. In order to exempt a species, five of the seven members must vote in favor of the exemption. The following conditions must be met in order to consider a species for exemption:
1. there must be no reasonable alternative to the agencies' action
2. the benefits of the action must outweigh the benefits of an alternative action where the species is conserved
3. the action is of regional or national importance
4. neither the federal agency or the exemption applicant made irreversible commitment to the resources.
Also, mitigation efforts must be taken in order to reduce the negative effects on the endangered species."
Tough to say, St.Pete. Given the tenor of the Secretary's announcement and the reasons you provided I doubt it, but if pressure from Alaska keeps getting bigger they might consider it. As for standing, the answer is yes with a large asterisk; the ESA allows for citizen suits, but the burden of proof for plaintiffs is rather stringent. Check out Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), which lays out the parameters for standing. Basically, the Court held that plaintiffs must suffer a "concrete, discernable injury" (as opposed to conjectural) in order to satisfy the Constitution's requirements. There's also a redressibilty issue at play; i.e., there must be an injury-in-fact and the court must be able to issue a decision that will redress it.
As to easyed's comments, I can see why Alaskans are concerned; the listing does open the door to legal challenges that could significantly affect development of oil and gas resources, and Alaskans overwhelmingly favor development of those resources. However, it's still very unclear what, if any, protection Secretary Kempthorne and the Bush admin will give the polar bear (threatened species do not get automatic protection under the Act), and what area of habitat will be affected, so it's premature to speculate that oil & gas development will be significantly impacted on the northern slope.
Cynically, another aspect of this that I just thought of is this: what if the listing is a ploy to apply pressure to Russia regarding its recent activities and apparent intentions in the Artic? The listing specifically applies to sea ice, not land. I'm probably crazy, but that would add an interesting dimension, wouldn't it?
|
|
