WOW look at the SIZE of that seal! (photo added by Anthony, not NYT)
By SARAH PALIN
Published: January 5, 2008,
Juneau, Alaska
ABOUT the closest most Americans will ever get to a polar bear are those cute, cuddly animated images that smiled at us while dancing around, pitching soft drinks on TV and movie screens this holiday season.
This is unfortunate, because polar bears are magnificent animals, not cartoon characters. They are worthy of our utmost efforts to protect them and their Arctic habitat. But adding polar bears to the nation’s list of endangered species, as some are now proposing, should not be part of those efforts.
To help ensure that polar bears are around for centuries to come, Alaska (about a fifth of the world’s 25,000 polar bears roam in and around the state) has conducted research and worked closely with the federal government to protect them. We have a ban on most hunting — only Alaska Native subsistence families can hunt polar bears — and measures to protect denning areas and prevent harassment of the bears. We are also participating in international efforts aimed at preserving polar bear populations worldwide.
This month, the secretary of the interior is expected to rule on whether polar bears should be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.
The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, has argued that global warming and the reduction of polar ice severely threatens the bears’ habitat and their existence. In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act. And there is no evidence that polar bears are being mismanaged through existing international agreements and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The state takes very seriously its job of protecting polar bears and their habitat and is well aware of the problems caused by climate change. But we know our efforts will take more than protecting what we have — we must also learn what we don’t know. That’s why state biologists are studying the health of polar bear populations and their habitat.
As a result of these efforts, polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been relatively stable for 20 years, according to a federal analysis.
We’re not against protecting plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska has supported listings of other species, like the Aleutian Canada goose. The law worked as it should — under its protection the population of the geese rebounded so much that they were taken off the list of endangered and threatened species in 2001.
Listing the goose — then taking it off — was based on science. The possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. This is simply not justified.
What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven effects of climate change.
The Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned for the polar bear to be protected, wants the listing to force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases. But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act itself actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues.
Such limits should be adopted through an open process in which environmental issues are weighed against economic and social needs, and where scientists debate and present information that policy makers need to make the best decisions.
Americans should become involved in the issue of climate change by offering suggestions for constructive action to their state governments. But listing the polar bear as threatened is the wrong way to get to the right answer.
“What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven effects of climate change.” So, at least in the above article, the warming alarmism to Palin is justified, so it’s difficult to see her skepticism there. Does she just change the message to suit her audience? I find her other political views, at least what I’ve seen so far abhorrent, and in any case, it is idiot McCain who would be president. We’ve had an idiot president for the past 8.
Jim:
What kind of argument is that? Are or are there not 5000 Polar Bears in Alaska? Are there or are there not limits on the number of Polar Bears that can be killed in Alaska? Polar Bears are simply not endangered.
Don’t you realize that you people want to put polar bears on the list to stop drilling for fossil fuels! Under what conditions would you allow drilling for oil in Alaska? Do you know what conditions she is pushing for?
Your extreme position is going to lose especially if heating oil is $4 to $5 a gallon in NE, NW and Mid-West. It would be best to push for realistic protection rather than flat prohibitions. But don’t tell me, you live in California or somewhere where it never sits below 0C for 20 or 30 days in a row.
I met a hungry polar bear,
the meeting short and fatal.
He killed me dead;
I don’t deny.
But to digest?
Not able!
Jeff; Alaskan natives do hunt whales. Called belugas.
I can’t believe how dumb we as Americans have become.
Speak for yourself, Jim. Like it or not, we do need oil. Our reliance on imported oil, when we have huge reserves available here in the U.S. certainly strikes me as dumb.
This is either:
A) An absolutely BRILLIANT political strategy.
B) An absolutely STUPID political strategy.
I can’t tell which right now.
“Now we are approaching $200 a barrel.”
BTW, have you checked the price of oil in the last month?
Sarah “Plain and Tall” Palin?
Bruce Cobb (04:47:22) :
““What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven effects of climate change.” So, at least in the above article, the warming alarmism to Palin is justified, so it’s difficult to see her skepticism there. ”
Notice that she didn’t say “Anthropogenic CO2 Induced Climate Change”. I don’t think anyone disagrees that the world should be concerned about any negative effects of non-Co2 anthropogenic or of natural changes to climate.
My understanding is that she has reviewed the science and made the 98% most likely interpretation (nothing can be 100%) that Anthropogenic CO2 is not a concern beyond perhaps a 1 degree of warming (which would probably be beneficial BTW).
Also, I believe that she was focusing on the Polar Bear listing issue, and didn’t want to pollute the focus by raising the ire of the A-CO2-GW church and it’s followers. Her statement appears to be very careful and logical. Think about it, she said “…the proven effects of climate change.” Anyone who wants to come back on her and try to say “gotcha” will probably have to explain what effects are actually proven and she”ll probably eat their lunch on that.
And if they go too far, don’t forget that not unlike the Polar bear, a Barracuda is also carnivore.
For what it’s worth, selling the State’s Jetliner was a silly political move. Alaska is a big state with few roads, that’s a long way from the lower 48. I can see a real need for a state like the to own a jet.
As far as, the eskimo way of life goes, Jeff, understand that the Native Americans are supposed to be treated as a depent nation with in the United States, although our government’s track record of leaving them alone has been exceptionally poor. Understand that a nation is something separate than the government or State and something different than the country. Up until the 1860s only whites were considered American Citizens, then only blacks and whites were considered citizens up until the 1940s. It really was not until after WW2, that other ethnic groups were given citizenship status in the United States. Not even American Indians were considered citizens until the 20th century. Even today, when you drive through Oklahoma or Arizona, you will see signs on the highway, “Now entering X-tribe Nation.”
I, for one, do not wish to molest other cultures and bring the entire world into one uniform standard of being. On the same token, I wish, the multi-culturalists would leave my culture alone and quite trying to change western civilization to be some sort of indistinct degenerate corporation of many different people. Perhaps, I am stuck in the 21st century with a 19th century mindset, but honestly believe that everyone would be much better off if cultural engineers did not exist at all.
I met Sarah Palin a couple of years back, on a trip to Fairbanks. I was most impressed. I don’t agree with her on everything, but she has done a reasonable job as governor. (with a 90% approval rating)
While she doesn’t have a lot of experience, she did enter politics about 5 years before Mr. Obama. Her conservative credentials should endear her to that side of the Republican party.
If she expresses any doubts about AGW theology, that’s a big improvement.
A video podcast of Sarah Palin speaking to Maria Bartiromo of CNBC about the North Slope and ANWR is available at: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/great_sarah_palin_interview.html
Sarah seems to have a level head. She advocates using science and common sense to make decisions rather than scare tactics and imposing taxes and fees in the name of global warming. In the future, I think we’ll see that she does not run off at the mouth in an emotional tantrum when things don’t go her way. I’d rather have her making big decisions than those other two boobs.
Jeff Alberts,,,
Do you really believe the nonsense you post about the Inuit people?
Go up North and spend some time with this people and see the traditional ways and the new ways blended together, they are proud and strong people living in some of the harshest conditions on the planet.
Their sense of tradition and community is a matter of survival as is the basic need to hunt and fish the ocean, streams , ice and land, they harvest whales and seals and polar bears and caribou, they as tradition dictates waste nothing and know better about sustainability than any of us who pop into the food store, everyday if we want.
So are you mad at the status as indigenous people they enjoy, the concessions given to them for self government or that they live a simplier life than you could and thrive in an environment that would surely claim most of us?
“McCain, step aside. Palin for President. McCain for VP.”
That sounds like an improvement to me.
BTW regarding her lack of experience; The so-called experienced ones created a $9 trillion national debt and $45 trillion in unfunded future liabilities and got us into a war there was no reason to fight, against a country that did nothing to us.
I’m glad she has no experience in doing such things.
However there is much to be learned about her before I would consider her a worthy candidate. And I would only support this ticket on the presumption that she might one day be president. I don’t support McCain.
I just watched the video edcon linked to at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/08/great_sarah_palin_interview.html
Wow a politician who is articulate, intelligent and makes reasoned and logical arguments. I must be dreaming.
Are you guys McCain supporters in drag?
Hillary got over you a long time ago
And where exactly do you propose we get our succulent bear meat from?
The arctic sea ice is their habitat. It will soon be gone in the summertime.
The extent of arctic sea ice was the smallest since observations began, and this years is at least the second smallest and has a slight chance of becoming the smallest.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Numbers have increased temporarily because mass slaughter of their prey has been stopped. The experts at the department of the Interior believe they are endangered and made the recommendation that they be put on the list.
Sarah Palin is not interested in the science of anything. For her ideological beliefs and religion are more important guides to public policy than science and law. She believes that a religious belief creationism should be taught alongside the theory of evolution.
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
Eric Adler (13:07:52) wrote
“The arctic sea ice is their habitat. It will soon be gone in the summertime.
The extent of arctic sea ice was the smallest since observations began, and this years is at least the second smallest and has a slight chance of becoming the smallest.”
Eric before you post here, you would do well to read the abundant info on the historical trends in arctic sea-ice variability. Your statements are either taken out of context or some of Jim Hansen’s NOAA exaggerations and distortions. And BTW, it ain’t going to happen this year considering the current state of arctic sea ice.
Further, “Numbers have increased temporarily because mass slaughter of their prey has been stopped. ” Do you know how long the Marine Mammals Act has been around? No one has been slaughtering seals, sea lions and walruses for decades now. And doing better than a 400% increase in population and having 13 of the 15 DPSs of Polar bears being way up in the last 20+years is hardly a temporary aberration.
All I’m saying is that for them to hunt with methods introduced by European settlers and modern society, and then call it tradition, is a sham.
Why aren’t the enviro nuts attacking them for what they do, of the species they’re hunting are truly endangered. Whatever happened to save the wales?
I’m with Ed Scott, “I am surprised that you would post a picture of a Navy submarine destroying Polar Bear habitat.”
haha Good catch, Ed.
Cheers,
Tom
morningcupofcoffee.com
I sadly think this will bite McCain in the butt. She has three strikes against her (whether or not she is at fault for them).
One, she is under investigation for pulling an old boys trick on someone she didn’t like anymore. That makes her part of the old Republican bad boys club.
Two, she is against full fledged family planning as a private right of US citizens (and I believe families worldwide), and will campaign to end those rights.
Three, she is tangled up in religiosity and matter of law, thinking the two can and should mix, and will campaign to bring that mix about.
Otherwise I think her common sense approach for Alaska on other issues fits right in with the way many people think. And I think she could fill out the remainder of a presidential term should something incapacitate McCain. Bidon wouldn’t need as much help but she could muddle through and she is bitchy enough to tell overbearing advisors to put it where the Sun don’t shine.
Pamela Gray (14:19:41) wrote: ” One, she is under investigation for pulling an old boys trick on someone she didn’t like anymore. ”
Let’s see now, because she’s under investigation for an ALLEGED incident, she’s part of the “Old Boy’s Club”?
First of all, what is she allegedly being investigated for? This is the first of it.
Pamela also wrot: Two, she is against full fledged family planning as a private right of US citizens (and I believe families worldwide), and will campaign to end those rights.”
Granted she’s pro-life, but in the Untited States, we all have our own individual positions. But isn’t it quite a stretch to say “she is against full fledged family planning”? Is there any source for that info… or is it just something you heard.
Finally Pamela wrote” “Three, she is tangled up in religiosity and matter of law, thinking the two can and should mix, and will campaign to bring that mix about.”
Any source on that claim? Quite fraknly, all three seem to be talking points right from the Obama playbook!
Jack Koenig, VERY Independent Voter
Governor Palin makes herself “bearly” comfortable in her office in Anchorage. Lunch is on the coffee table.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30palin.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss