Famous photoshopped polar bear image: Ursus Bogus – click the bear for the story behind this faked image
If the summer season is any indication of what we have in store for us, this October and November there will be prodigious numbers of polar bears in the Churchill region…Another uncharacteristic trend was the frequent sightings of polar bear mothers with triplets in tow. It will be interesting to see how many of these family units are spotted in the willows and snowdrifts over the coming two months out on the tundra. It surely sets up to be a banner year for the polar bear census.
So, who are you going to believe: a professional conservationist outfit that is actually in situ observing polar bear critters all over the place, or some bureaucrat bent on controlling your tailpipe and windpipe?
WASHINGTON — A federal judge ordered the Obama administration on Wednesday to review whether polar bears, at risk because of global warming, are endangered under U.S. law.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan wants the Interior Department to clarify a decision by the administration of former President George W. Bush that polar bears were merely threatened rather than in imminent danger of extinction.
…
“The court is not accepting the Fish and Wildlife Service argument that extinction must be imminent before the bear is listed as endangered,” said Kassie Siegel, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, an Arizona-based group that challenged the polar bear listing.
Reed Hopper, an attorney for the California-based Pacific Legal Foundation, which opposes protections for the bears, called the ruling disappointing.
Full story here at Canadian Press
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mick J.
Is it being removed because it is a form of advertising?
Find an science article that shows polar bear increases for a particular area like the Davis Strait, where very little hunting is occurring. Try these and see if they go through.
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2007/articles01/davis.htm
http://www.nnsl.com/northern-news-services/stories/papers/sep17_07bear.html
The above article is particularly interesting as it projects nubers would rise even further if hunting was restricted.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/975_davis_strait_bear_numbers_healthy_but_could_decline/
vigilantfish:
I enjoyed your post.
Sorry for the use of ‘could’, ‘may’ and ‘may be’ statements, I want the audience to reach their own conclusion rather than preach to them. Use of softer language gets more people to look at what you post.
johnmaguire:
I appreciate you looking at the stuff, everyone should always test the source material for reliability and make your own judgement as to reliability. I appreciate your comments. My politics- anarchist, I do not trust anyone, hence the conditional language.
vigilantifish:
I do not have enough data or research information to directly address your MWP question. The usual response I have seen to the MWP question is one of rate of change. Because the rate of the MWP was more gradual than what we are seeing currently the bears may have had more time to adapt, but all of this is a lot of guess work as there does not appear to be a lot of data on the conditions in the arctic during this period of time. Also, I doubt the hunters of the MWP era had the ability to harvest as many bears as we can today. It is possible that only a small population survived the MWP and that they were able to repopulate during the more favorable conditions of the LIA, but I have seen no data on this. It is possible that the MWP was not as severe in the arctic as currrent conditions – just don’t know.
I have not seen any studies that discuss the population of polar bears during the MWP or the affect on arctic ice in the polar bear habitat during the MWP. Please post what you have.
Your question is a good one, but there does not appear to be much data with which to draw any conclusions or provide any answers. You need not limit the time period for analyzing survival as the bears have been around for about 200,000 years, so the question is really how did they make it this far through all the natural climate changes. Sad to think that humans could eliminate them through mis-management like we were doing with unregulated hunting when the numbers dropped below 10,000.
The point I was making is that there are clearly populations of bears that are being negatively affected by warming (please note that I am not making any statement as to the cause of the warming, only that it exists and should not be ignored in making decisions on bear management) and over-harvesting and that these populations deserve more protection. Before we go crazy and try to use the decline in bears as a reason to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we should work on the more direct impact we have on the bears from harvesting and other negative changes to their environment.
My purpose was to counter the impression that a single set of observations by a travel guide in Churchill was proof that all is well with the bears, which seemed pretty silly. Some of the commentators appeared to seize on this advertisement as proof of something, which was not supportable and I sought to provide a source of data to refute this.
There is a qualitative difference between an extinction caused by human influences and one caused by non-human causes. While it is difficult to provide a proof that CO2 emissions are harming the bear populations, it is easy to see the affects of harvesting. Lets work on limiting harvesting to reasonable levels depending on environmental conditions as the first step to helping the bears instead of denying that there is a problem in some of the bear populations.
Thank you for reading the post.
vigilantfish:
I liked the recipe.
I have noted that a number of people use “natural variability” as a statement to prove that humans are having no influence on climate or to say that the influence is so small that we should just ignore it. I do not find these statements very convincing or comforting. There is no question that climate varies over time, but what does this prove?
The question is how human activities are affecting these processes.
I do not find it credible that after all the changes in land use, building artificial lakes, pumping out groundwater, agricultural practices, fishing practices, particularly in the ocean, building of cities, paving of roads, the increase in human population over 6 billion and the changes we have made and continue to make to ocean and atmosphere chemistry that there is no negative consequence to these changes. We have clearly affected the environment and climate in the past (ex. the dust bowl) and have driven species to extinction.
I am also wary of the so called “solutions” being offered up by groups as their solutions appear to fit the particular political or economic agenda of the group more than they accomplish any real change.
For now, I will satisfy myself with debunking the extreme claims made on both sides of this discussion and providing links for people to information to possibly make a more informed decision, although, it appears that people (me included) are only interested in information that fits their pre-conceived view and do not challenge items that fit that view with the same rigor as information that is contrary to their view.
The “polar bear” issue appears to be sufficiently small that I can understand it and is within our grasp to do something about by regulating harvesting (I do not see a need to stop all harvesting at this time) with minimal disruption to the world economy so I tend to get over involved in these discussions.
Please send any info you have on the MWP and its impact on the polar bears and I will digest and address it.
From vigilantfish on October 21, 2010 at 2:24 pm:
“Necessity is the mother of invention.” I had run out of milk chocolate in bar form and didn’t feel like noshing on plain semi-sweet chips, which was the remaining available chocolate.
Full-sweet milk chocolate could be used, as well as unsweetened chocolate. Despite the cup of sugar, the sweetness isn’t that noticeable, which will change with a different sweetness of chocolate. Fresh and barely cooled, the taste is almost plain.
Update to Polar Bear Decoy Bait research: Refrigeration yields a moister denser consistency, with more noticeable sweetness. It is also apparently addictive. Further research is indicated, again.
Ben D.
You are wrong. All federal judges have a lifetime tenure, unless they are impeached.
Will Crump says:
October 21, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I regret that I have no data on polar bears during the Medieval Warm Period. The point I was trying to make is one that is frequently made here: we don’t have a long enough record of weather phenomena using measurement devices, nor of the effects of natural climate and other change to be able to definitively argue that current weather anomalies are in any way unusual. One of the lessons learned by Charles Darwin in his voyage of exploration was that Charles Lyell’s theory of geological change, uniformitarianism, did not necessarily mean that geological change was gradual and barely noticeable. This was the assumption made by his contemporaries who were arguing that the dramatic features of the earth had been shaped by a much more violent and catastrophic past (in keeping with a distorted version of Biblical geological time). When Charles Darwin experienced the 1835 earthquake near Concepcion, Chile, he witnessed enormous geological shifts, with up to 11 ft of uplift in places. The evidence from Europe for the end of the Medieval Warm Period was that the temperature drop was sharp and sudden, not a gradual change. Those who argue that the polar bears are endangered by climate change are highlighting the supposedly unprecedented rate of change supposedly caused by CO2. There simply is not a long enough record, since most temperature series go back only into the early 1800s (1830s in Canada), to justify these claims. Human beings have also already saved a number of species of plants and animals from extinction, as has been done by centres such as Kew Gardens in London with several naturally isolated island plants, which have been subsequently reintroduced into the wild, and no doubt could do the same with polar bears. It is quite dubious that so-called anthropogenic climate change will precipitate such a need, as natural temperature fluctuations due to oscillations in oceanic currents and other systems will probably soon reverse recent trends of the past few decades.
Speaking of politicizing things, I was a student of Ian Hacking’s for one wonderful year (he’s an eminent philosopher of science). He one told the tale of how he was visiting Michel Foucault in the South of France, and learned that Foucault was disturbed by a proposed development that would destroy his view. The pair got drunk one night and went out and planted Foucault’s cactus collection in the undeveloped terrain below Foucault’s garden – and Foucault successfully later argued with authorities that development would imperil the very rare cactus varieties found in those lands.
You walk a precarious tightrope in trying to declare that you have somehow, by ‘debunking’ the ‘extreme’ claims of both sides, eliminated a political stance in the sources you seek to defend. Politics comes in many different varieties.
Rattus Norvegicus said on October 21, 2010 at 7:55 pm:
Gary Turner agrees, since he said that back here.
Thank you for reading the comments before replying.
Would you like to try some homemade baked goods?
☺
“How is it scum such as him are allowed to cause such trouble?”
Because this is America. Freedom is messy. In America, we allow wrong, evil people to present their case. In America, we hope that citizens are open minded enough to make the right decision. We depend on the intelligence of fellow Americans to vote to protect our individual freedoms. That doesn’t always work, but usually Americans are level headed.
Will Crump says:
October 21, 2010 at 12:54 pm
p.s.
We definitely should not believe anyone that is trying to advance a political agenda, be they promoting AGW or denying the possibility of AGW.
I agree Will, it’s desperately sad when posters use this excellent site to advance their hard right wing agendas (or occasionally left) . This is probably the most active independent scientific website and is wonderfully influential. There are many people who would like to see the back of it. One way of doing that is to use it to publish obsessive political ideas, and to insult those who point our that our cause is not based in political beliefs, right or left, but on the evidence published by determined researchers who will not be browbeaten. Lets keep it like that and keep the those who would undermine our cause for their own reasons at arms length.
Science, like religion is an evil mix in politics. we have seen the results of religion and politics in Iran, lets be on our guard to make sure it does not happen with science and politics.
10 unarmed conservationists versus 1 unarmed polar bear. I know where my money is.
Now, give me the chance to place the bet someone.
DaveE.
DesertYote says:
October 21, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Gareth Phillips
October 21, 2010 at 9:29 am
I am not call the CBD Marxist because they are enviro-wackos. I am calling them Marxist because they are Marxist, that is the founders are real honest to goodness Marxists. They literally want the destruction of property rights and capitalism. Why don’t you do some research or are you dense? They don’t care about environmental issues unless they can use it to push a Marxist agenda. This organization started in my State. I became aware of them when I got involved with wolf recovery 15 years ago. I have been keeping tabs on them every since.
Apologies for upsetting you Mr.Yote, but I have copied the CPD history below, but there is no mention of your state Marxist group or the events you you have related. Possibly seeing as you have been closely monitoring this dangerous revolutionary group with it’s roots in your state ( I assume this is the USA?) perhaps you can point me to independent or reliable evidence of the Marxist agenda of this group? As a student in my younger days of political thought I must confess I had entirely overlooked this particular revolutionary group. If you have any evidence of dangerous activities you may also wish to update your local policeman to these events. While most Marxists in the west own more to Dave Spart than to Shining path, you can never be too careful.
I suspect personally that the global warming industry is a capitalist scam, but with China being the most elegant expression of a Capitalist country in existence, but claiming to be Marxist/Maoist it’s all very confusing once politics is thrown into this witches brew.
P.S. I’ve always found it a strange terms to call the hunting of Polar bears, wild cats and and other carnivores “a harvest” I’d always assumed we harvest food, or maybe this is another example of English being a sneaky tongue!
best wishes, G.
The Earth’s biological resources are vital to humanity’s economic and social development. As a result, there is a growing recognition that biological diversity is a global asset of tremendous value to present and future generations. At the same time, the threat to species and ecosystems has never been so great as it is today. Species extinction caused by human activities continues at an alarming rate.
In response, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) convened the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Biological Diversity in November 1988 to explore the need for an. international convention on biological diversity. Soon after, in May 1989, it established the Ad Hoc Working Group of Technical and Legal Experts to prepare an international legal instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The experts were to take into account “the need to share costs and benefits between developed and developing countries” as well as “ways and means to support innovation by local people”.
By February 1991, the Ad Hoc Working Group had become known as the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. Its work culminated on 22 May 1992 with the Nairobi Conference for the Adoption of the Agreed Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Convention was opened for signature on 5 June 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio “Earth Summit”). It remained open for signature until 4 June 1993, by which time it had received 168 signatures. The Convention entered into force on 29 December 1993, which was 90 days after the 30th ratification. The first session of the Conference of the Parties was scheduled for 28 November – 9 December 1994 in the Bahamas.
The Convention on Biological Diversity was inspired by the world community’s growing commitment to sustainable development. It represents a dramatic step forward in the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.
Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2010 at 12:42 am
Boy you are thick. Its their actions that speak louder then their propaganda. I think you’ve drunk a bit to much of the kool-aid 🙁 Don’t you get it? Many environmental activists are Marxists. Environmentalism is just a propaganda ploy. I realize, as a European, you are at a bit of a disadvantage because of the total saturation of your culture with anti-American and anti-capitalist propaganda ( I lived in Germany a few years in my youth). And that has molded you guys into developing a distorting world view that prevents you from seeing propaganda for what it is. Your argument that environmentalists can’t be Marxist because Marxism is bad for the environment is just plain silly.
And no, I am not upset. I deal with blind ignorance every day. I am use to it.
vigilantfish says:
October 21, 2010 at 8:42 pm
My limited purpose in posting to this thread was to cast doubt on the validity of the impression left by the original post that a conservationist had proved that polar bears in the Hudson Bay area were expanding. This initially struck me as odd since this population referred to in the article is known to be under stress from warming and harvesting.
Upon checking the source being quoted above, it appeared that the source was more in the nature of an advertisement by a tour group than a peer reviewed research paper evaluating the health of the polar bears. That so much reliance was being placed on such a weak source made me suspect that this post was being used to advance a political agenda rather than to provide an accurate assessment of the status of the bears. The impression that a particular political agenda was being advanced by this post was reinforced by the inclusion of a reference to a legal dispute about the status of the bears under the endangered species act.
Upon checking a number of research papers it became clear that the actual picture of polar bear health is more complex than the picture portrayed in the original post, with some populations being stable or expanding and others in decline or showing indications that they are likely to decline. The Hudson Bay group of bears being referred to in the travel group’s article was noted as being under stress. A number of references were provided which indicated that some polar bear populations were doing well and other populations were showing signs of stress, or were declining, or considered likely to decline.
Direct quotes were provided from Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a polar bear researcher who does not support the view the human activities are causing the arctic warming, that show that current conditions and harvesting levels are having a negative impact on some of the bear populations.
I am not suggesting that anything I have posted resolves the issues being raised in the legal dispute, which appears to be more about the political agendas of the different groups involved in the dispute than it does about the future health of the polar bears. Rather, I am providing information that casts doubt on the reliability of the impression left by the original post that polar bears are not being affected by warming in the Hudson Bay area.
To your most recent points:
I do not follow why a lack of data on the MWP justifies any conclusions with respect to the current or future health of the bears. The experience of the near extinction of the polar bears in the first half of the 20th century due to the use of technically advanced hunting methods is warning enough that the bears need some form of protection. This does not mean that a total ban on harvesting is needed, only that it be done in a manner that does not cause individual bear populations to decline.
I am at a loss as to why you think that a sudden temperature drop at the end of the MWP in Europe has any meaning to the management of polar bears in the arctic today.
Likewise, the Darwin reference appears to have little relevance to polar bears. What do you think Darwin’s impression would be of the current status of the species he first encountered on the Galapagos islands if could be there today?
Much of your post appears to be based on a rather vague and not well documented or referenced belief that conditions in the arctic for the bears will improve in the future. I hope they do improve, but could you provide a reference to a peer reviewed research paper that supports this view and makes a specific projection with respect to a recovery of the ice so we can test this hypothesis against future observations?
I have the read the recent post about the Russian book which was posted under the title “Ice Rebound Predicted”. I would have preferred the post use the actual title of the book “Climate Change in the Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas” as the headline in the post does not accurately convey the coverage or purpose of the book. The original post about the book does not appear to be an accurate portrayal of its contents. While the book offers important survey information concerning the Euarasian shelf, the book does not establish a prediction with any level of confidence that an Arctic wide recovery of the ice is about to occur. Additionally, there appears to be some weaknesses in attempting to rely on this book as support for saying that a rebound of all of the ice in the arctic will occur in the next few years. These weaknesses are detailed in the quote below.
With respect to the current state of the arctic ice and the possibility of future changes to that state, please read the following post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/21/summer-2010-in-the-arctic-and-other-sea-ice-topics/
which makes the following observations with respect to the book “Climate Change in the Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas”
“For example, there was post earlier this week (October 16) [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/arctic-ice-rebound%c2%a0predicted/ ] about a recent book on longer-term sea ice changes in the 20th century. I read through this book earlier this year, so I’m familiar with it. As the title (“Climate Change in the Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas”) states, the book analyzes data only the Russian shelf regions of the Arctic – it doesn’t include the central Arctic or U.S./Canadian Arctic, where a significant portion of the decline has occurred over the past decades. Their conclusions are drawn from data through only 2003, so with the recent low years since then, the observed patterns of variability may no longer hold. (There is a final section in the book on 2003-2008 sea ice conditions, but these data are discussed independently and are not incorporated to update their analyses earlier in the book.)
The book only superficially examines ice thickness changes (again only in the Russian shelf regions) and does not examine the recent thickness data from ICESat or the ice age fields. Finally, as it states in conclusion #2: “These cyclic oscillations of sea ice extent were superimposed on the background consisting of a negative long-term linear trend that characterizes gradual decrease of sea ice extent during the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century.” In other words, even in the Russian data, there is a decline. The authors suggest this decline could be indicative of a longer cycle, but admit that such a conclusion can only be “conjectured”.
So while the book provides useful data (Russian information is often difficult to obtain), their conclusions about reasons for the changes in overall Arctic sea ice and the state of sea ice in the coming decades are more limited than the book seems to suggest. Andy Mahoney (a former colleague of mine at NSIDC) and others also analyzed the Russian data in a paper published in 2008 (Mahoney et al., 2008 – a brief summary is here).”
If you believe that the future of the bears is secure because:
“Human beings have also already saved a number of species of plants and animals from extinction, as has been done by centres such as Kew Gardens in London with several naturally isolated island plants, which have been subsequently reintroduced into the wild, and no doubt could do the same with polar bears.”
Then no amount of information on the current status of the bears or the ice matters to you. I would appreciate, however, if you could provide a single example of where Kew Gardens has saved a species from extinction where the extinction was not directly caused by humans or by changes to the environment and habitat associated with human actions as I was not able to find any such examples.
Why are we worried about these mamalian sharks? If they go extinct then we’ll just have to hunt more seals and feed them into our food chain (pun intended). Polar bears are merely a sub species of the Brown bear which has adapted to Arctic conditions. No particular diversity will be lost if they dissappear. If they survive then so be it; if they don’t then so be it. Most of the species that mother earth has produced are now extinct; is the polar bear another candidate? Would we miss them? The seals wouldn’t.
Will Crump
October 22, 2010 at 9:17 am
The paper you refer to regarding the Hudson Bay polar bear populations is deliberately misleading. The actual numbers have not decreased, it is models that show a problem, not the real data. The indicators that they have seen that they have used to indicate population stress do not. The paper also very carefully completely ignores the know history of the population. The main reason for the bears to be in the area year round, is human trash. So the only real stress on the bears is people doing a better job of managing their garbage.
Environmentalist have been doing agenda driven pseudo-science a lot longer the climate activists. I think they are much better at it. Also, their schooling does a much better job of insuring that only those with the correct viewpoint can graduate and find jobs, so they don’t have to worry so much about contra-narrative studies.
Insanity takes many forms.
Desert Yote:
I have noticed that there have been people and groups that attempt to attack this research, but I have not find a refutation of it by a climate scientists in a peer reviewed paper.
Can you help me by providing such a link?
In the meantime, I will keep looking on my own.
Desert Yote:
I have read the analysis by the business and economic group headed by Scott Armstrong is this what you are referring to?
These people are not polar bear researchers.
There is a rebuttal to the Armstrong paper at:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1594648.1594654
Rebuttal of “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit”
Steven C. Amstrup US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Hal Caswell Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Eric DeWeaver Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Department, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742
Ian Stirling Wildlife Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, Edmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5, Canada
David C. Douglas US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Juneau, Alaska 99801
Bruce G. Marcot USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon 97205
Christine M. Hunter Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Abstract:
“Observed declines in the Arctic sea ice have resulted in a variety of negative effects on polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Projections for additional future declines in sea ice resulted in a proposal to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act. To provide information for the Department of the Interior’s listing-decision process, the US Geological Survey (USGS) produced a series of nine research reports evaluating the present and future status of polar bears throughout their range. In response, Armstrong et al. [Armstrong, J. S., K. C. Green, W. Soon. 2008. Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit. Interfaces38(5) 382–405], which we will refer to as AGS, performed an audit of two of these nine reports. AGS claimed that the general circulation models upon which the USGS reports relied were not valid forecasting tools, that USGS researchers were not objective or lacked independence from policy decisions, that they did not utilize all available information in constructing their forecasts, and that they violated numerous principles of forecasting espoused by AGS. AGS (p. 382) concluded that the two USGS reports were “unscientific and inconsequential to decision makers.” We evaluate the AGS audit and show how AGS are mistaken or misleading on every claim. We provide evidence that general circulation models are useful in forecasting future climate conditions and that corporate and government leaders are relying on these models to do so. We clarify the strict independence of the USGS from the listing decision. We show that the allegations of failure to follow the principles of forecasting espoused by AGS are either incorrect or are based on misconceptions about the Arctic environment, polar bear biology, or statistical and mathematical methods. We conclude by showing that the AGS principles of forecasting are too ambiguous and subjective to be used as a reliable basis for auditing scientific investigations. In summary, we show that the AGS audit offers no valid criticism of the USGS conclusion that global warming poses a serious threat to the future welfare of polar bears and that it only serves to distract from reasoned public-policy debate.”
DesertYote says:
October 22, 2010 at 7:46 am
Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2010 at 12:42 am
Boy you are thick. Its their actions that speak louder then their propaganda. I think you’ve drunk a bit to much of the kool-aid 🙁 Don’t you get it? Many environmental activists are Marxists. Environmentalism is just a propaganda ploy. I realize, as a European, you are at a bit of a disadvantage because of the total saturation of your culture with anti-American and anti-capitalist propaganda ( I lived in Germany a few years in my youth). And that has molded you guys into developing a distorting world view that prevents you from seeing propaganda for what it is. Your argument that environmentalists can’t be Marxist because Marxism is bad for the environment is just plain silly.
I do find it interesting that you could not find any support for your odd ideas, and you insult instead. You may have great difficulties understanding the principles of debate, but when you resort to name calling it’s generally a good indication that you have lost the plot. I’m aware that politics in the USA are much more right wing than in Europe, but that does not mean that we are any less skeptical. Try reading the posts that come from the UK. Lots of them eh! And we are part of Europe. Just because we oppose the current climate change dogma does not make us fascists, and supporting the dogma does not make one a Marxist. I suspect you don’t quite understand the meaning of Marxism, it’s understandable because many dictators didn’t either. By the way I did not say a characteristic of Marxism is that it is not environmental, my point was that in keeping with many totalitarian systems, it does not care. The only object is the maintenance of power and everything else is subservient to that end. Bit like any political system. You are right, many left wingers are environmentalists, though most Marxists I know are not. However I sure many on the extreme right of politics such as the Tea party are also environmentalists, even if it’s just to the extent of having enough animals to shoot each season.
I did not quite get your joke, what is Koolaid? is it like Tizer or Lucozade or some sort of squash? It obviously has some sort of in-joke, but it’s not my culture so it’s gone over my head to be honest. Good to hear you spent time in Germany, I guess in the forces? Interesting that you found one of the worlds most successful economies saturated with anti-capitalist propaganda. I wonder who it was aimed at? I also spent many happy months riding my motorcycle around the United States and found it strange that so few citizens had travelled outside that great country, so I would imagine having experiences of each others cultures we are in the minority.
Can I also recommend “Teach yourself Marxism” I found it useful and is a helpful primer if you are interested in learning some political philosophy. Compare it with a primer on Fascism, and note the similarities.
heres a link.
http://www.amazon.com/Teach-Yourself-Marx-General-Reference/dp/0071496955
BS Footprint says:
October 22, 2010 at 11:06 am
pat says:
October 20, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Louise has a new angle today:
20 Oct: UK Telegraph: Louise Gray: World must start putting a value on
nature
Natural goods and services, such as the pollination provided by bees or
filtration of water by wetlands, should be included in a nation’s economic
value in the same way as GDP, according to a major new United Nations
report.
Insanity takes many forms.
Reply
Yes I saw that, personally I rather felt it supported the idea that the climate change dogma is about money more than anything else.
DAVIS STRAIT POLAR BEARS
These bears sure stir up a lot of controversy.
Here is the 2006 to 2011 plan for the Davis Strait polar bears: http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/…/polar_bear_mgmnt_plan.pdf
The controversy in the Davis Strait appears to be over economic harvesting of the bears v. sustaining the number of bears. While the bears had been increasing in number, they may be decreasing due to loss of sea ice and due to harvesting. A 2007 survey indicated 2,012 bears with the targeted population number set at 1,650. I did not find when the next survey was due to occur.
This October 2009 article indicated that Davis Strait bears may be in decline.
NEWS: Nunavut October 12, 2009 – 1:58 pm
Davis Strait bear numbers healthy, but could decline
“The population, having increased substantially over the last three decades, is now at the point of decline”
JANE GEORGE
The Davis Strait polar bear population is more numerous than originally thought, a recent Government of Nunavut survey reveals, but may just be the boom before the bust.
The survey report, led by Government of Nunavut biologist Elizabeth Peacock, says that the bear population in the area will drop even if the quota remains the same.
The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board received the report at its recent meeting in Iqaluit.
The NWMB now plans to call a public hearing on a possible change to Nunavut’s annual polar bear quota of 46 in the Davis Strait.
There are 2,142 polar bears in the Davis Strait population, according to GN’s three-year survey, carried out between 2005 and 2007.
“The DS polar bear subpopulation is currently abundant and healthy,” says a background document from the GN that was tabled with the NWMB.
The survey report’s findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, in northern Nunavik, and the northern coast of Labrador, are growing in number.
Inuit hunters had already revised the Davis Strait population estimates 10 years ago from 850 to 1,400, then up to 1,650 in 2004, based on the number of polar bears they encountered on the land.
“Earlier figures were underestimates,” the survey report admits.
The numbers of polar bears have increased due to a population explosion among harp seals and the relatively low harvest rate of about 60 bears a year, the survey report says.
Although polar bear numbers in the Davis Strait have increased, the report’s authors also predict these numbers will decline — even without more hunting.
That’s because survival rates are down at the same time as the harp seal population is decreasing and sea ice cover shrinks.
The survey was carried out “just after a peak in population numbers,” suggests a background document tabled at the NWMB.
While Peacock, who has recently left the GN for a new job in Alaska, says in the report that “it is unknown if this decline will continue,” she still concludes that the Davis Strait polar bear population will drop.
“We conclude that the population, having increased substantially over the last three decades is now at the point of decline,” says the survey report.
If the quota remains the same, the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait will reach 1,650, the current target figure for the population, in 2012, but then it will decline to 1,400 in 2016, says the report.
If the quota is raised to 85 bears (by adding 20 bears to the number already hunted), the population will be only be 1,200 in 2016, it says.
If there was no hunting at all in the Davis Strait, the numbers of polar bears would rise to 1,950 in 2016, it says.
To estimate population size, annual survival and population growth, biologists relied on analysis of their population data from 1974 to 2007 and the results of the mark-recapture-recovery survey from 2005 to 2007.
The survey saw about 800 polar bears marked and recaptured every year over this three-year period.
Every polar bear observed was captured, “providing capture was safe for bears and crew,” says the survey report.
The polar bears were “immobilized” with tranquilizer darts, given a capture number on an ear tag and lip tattoo and measured. A premolar tooth was also pulled to help aging of the animals.
A public opinion poll, conducted by the GN researcher Moshi Kotierk, also looked at 130 Nunavut households, finding that most hunters feel there are “many polar bears” in the Davis Strait and more than they would prefer.
As it stands now, the Nunavut communities of Pangnirtung, Iqaluit and Kimmirut share 46 tags annually.
Labrador hunters take about six Davis Strait polar bears a year.
Nunavik hunters hunt as many Davis Strait bears as they want, averaging a take of about 12 over the past five years.
Greenland has a quota of two, but didn’t take any polar bears at all from the Davis Strait between 2005 and 2007.
There is little sport hunting in the Davis Strait, and no polar bears were killed by non-Inuit hunters in 2008-09.
In an April 2010 update the politics continued:
POLAR BEAR POLITICS
OTTAWA | April 1, 2010
http://www.capitalnews.ca/index.php/news/polar-politics
“The defeat of an American proposal to ban the international trade of polar bear products was met with relief by Canada’s Inuit, who say threats to the iconic northern animal have been overblown.
The U.S. proposal was rejected at a meeting in Qatar in mid-March of the 175 countries signed to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The U.S. was trying to have polar bears transferred from Appendix II of the convention, which lists species not yet threatened with extinction, to Appendix I, reserved for the most endangered.
That reclassification would have banned Canadian exports of products like rugs and effectively put an end to commercial polar bear hunting.
Mary Simon, president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, said in a statement that the proposal was “unwarranted and unacceptable.”
“This is yet another example of government bowing to pressure from animal rights and environmental lobbyists with their own selfish and narrow agendas,” the statement read. “It is an attack on our rights, culture, hunting practices, conservation and management agreements, and our local economies as an indigenous peoples of the Arctic.”
There are between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears worldwide and about 60 per cent are in Canada. Nunavut’s wildlife management system puts the total allowable harvest per year at 3.5 per cent of the population or between 430 and 530 bears. Tags are given to communities to be divvied up between commercial and subsistence hunts.
Canada is the only country that allows commercial hunts, which must be led by Inuit guides. They were popular with American hunters until the U.S. banned the import of polar bear products into their country in 2008.
Simon Awa, Deputy Minister of Environment for Nunavut, says the loss of American hunting clientele has been “devastating” for Inuit communities who depended on the hunt for income.
“Especially for the hunters who don’t know any other ways of earning income because they have been brought up as a hunter,” Awa says.
Livelihoods in peril
Ryan St. John learned how to hunt polar bears from his uncle. He shot his first one at 17. Now he and his wife run Henik Lake Adventures in Arviat, Nunavut, offering guided hunts.
Polar bear hunts once injected about $300,000 into the community, St. John says. The people who worked the hunts – guides, cooks, supply runners – all made enough money during the hunting season to sustain themselves for the rest of the year.
He says that all but dried up when the American import ban was implemented “The people that were involved, now they don’t have the money for snowmobiles, ATVs, guns – the things they need to support their subsistence lifestyle,” he says.
Andrew Derocher, a researcher from the University of Alberta who studies the movement patterns and distribution of polar bears in Canada’s north, says hunting and international trade of the animals “is not a threat in any way, shape or form.”
Climate change, he says, is the real threat to the marine mammals.
“It was a bit of a red herring,” says Derocher. “I think this was probably seen as a clever move… to deflect the issue: ‘If we get people to focus on the issue of harvest, then we don’t have to address the issue of climate change.'”
In its proposal, the U.S. acknowledged that habitat loss due to climate change is the main threat to polar bears but expressed concern that hunting would compound those effects.
What’s in a name?
A motivating factor behind both the CITES proposal and the import ban is the U.S. categorization of polar bears as “threatened” under their Endangered Species Program. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada lists polar bears as of “special concern,” meaning they may become threatened or endangered.
While he disagreed with the trade-ban proposal, Derocher says when it comes to their seemingly more serious classification, “the Americans got it right.”
“The reason we’ve got a difference is because Canada dropped the ball,” Derocher says.
Dr. Jeff Hutchings, chair of COSEWIC, says differences between the two assessment systems make a comparison misleading. Canada, for instance, has three categories for species at risk – special concern, threatened and endangered – while the U.S. recognizes only the latter two.
“People get caught up in labels,” Hutching says. “At the end of the day, people are better served to expend their energies doing what they can to protect polar bears.”
St. John says polar bears don’t need protection from hunters. Nunavut’s wildlife management system is one of the best in the world, he says, and ensures that hunting is sustainable.
He says he has seen the effects of climate change on polar bears. They have moved further north as the south warms, causing sea ice – polar bears’ hunting ground – to melt earlier and freeze later.
But he doesn’t think polar bears are in any immediate danger.
“Animals are resilient. They’re not going to roll over and die because it’s warm further south and they can’t get to their food source,” St. John says.
Awa agrees.
“I always try to emphasize that as long as the earth’s axis remains about the same, the Arctic will always have a winter,” he says. “And the polar bears will adapt.”
There is also a controversy over the listing status of the bears by Nunavut.
IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group response to Nunavut listing decision.
10 June 2010 | News – News story
The IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) is concerned about the Government of Nunavut’s recent decision not to support the proposed listing of polar bears as a Species of Special Concern under Canada’s Species At Risk Act. In justifying this position, the Government of Nunavut stated that Inuit knowledge and science corroborate that polar bears in Nunavut are “thriving” and “will adapt to changing and severe climatic conditions”. The PBSG believes this position is contrary to all available evidence, and will not lead to the best possible conservation of the species.
As an IUCN SSC member specialist group comprised of up to 25 technical experts from the five polar bear range states, the PBSG is the single most authoritative source of information on the world’s polar bears. Its official charge is to produce and compile scientific knowledge about the world’s polar bears. The PBSG provides independent scientific advice to decision-makers and management authorities and is the official scientific advisory group to the parties of the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears.
The PBSG has reviewed the science surrounding polar bears and climate warming. Although the PBSG recognizes that climate change and the subsequent impacts on polar bears will occur at different rates and times throughout the circumpolar Arctic, it has concluded that unabated global warming will ultimately threaten polar bears everywhere. The loss of sea ice habitat (upon which polar bears depend for feeding, traveling and mating) associated with climate warming poses a significant and ongoing threat to the conservation of the species. There is no scientific evidence to support the suggestion that polar bears will adapt to the pace and scale of current and projected habitat loss.
The polar bear is currently listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ and was recently listed by the United States as “Threatened throughout its range” under the US Endangered Species Act. These listing decisions were based on extensive reviews of the scientific evidence suggesting a significant loss of sea ice habitat projected or observed over a period of three generations (up to 45 years). Co-managed subpopulations in Davis Strait, Southern Hudson Bay and Western Hudson Bay, which are shared by Nunavut, have been designated as Vulnerable or Threatened under provincial legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, and Manitoba. Furthermore, Greenland shares three polar bear populations with Nunavut: Kane Basin, Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. In 2007, Greenland designated these populations as Vulnerable on its Red List. These designations were underpinned by observed and projected impacts of climate warming.
At their March 2009 meeting in Tromsø, Norway, the five polar bear range states expressed deep concern over the accelerating rate and extent of changes in the Arctic induced by climate warming. They unanimously agreed that the impacts of climate change and the continued and increasing loss and fragmentation of sea ice – the key habitat for both polar bears and their main prey – constituted the most important threat to polar bear conservation. In accordance with that finding, the PBSG passed a resolution in July 2009 recognizing that Environment Canada’s proposal to formally list polar bears as a species of Special Concern was based on a report that failed to account for the projected effects of global warming and was therefore excessively optimistic in its conservation outlook relative to similar reports used to inform the listing decisions of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2008) and the IUCN (Schliebe et al. 2008). In 2009, the PBSG also resolved that “Polar bear range state governments and designated authorities agree to consider the current and likely future impacts of global warming in all management and planning affecting polar bears and their key habitats.”
In concert with the above referenced findings and resolutions, the PBSG encourages the Government of Nunavut to re-examine its position and adhere to the international Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, which states: “Each contracting Party shall… manage polar bear populations in accordance with sound conservation practices based on the best available scientific data” (Article II). We similarly urge the Canadian Government, through its Species At Risk Act, to use the best available science in developing a responsible conservation strategy for most of the world’s polar bears.
The Inuit hunters, of course, want a higher quota.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Nunatsiavut Hunters Calling for Higher Polar Bear Quota
The possibility of increasing Nunatsiavut’s polar bear quota was up for discussion during a meeting of three Inuit regions.
Representatives from Nunavik, Nunavut and Nunatsiavut came together to discuss the Davis Strait polar bear population.
Jamie Snook is the Executive Director for the Torngat Secretariat.
He says11 representatives from Labrador attended the first ever Davis Strait Polar Bear Interjurisdictional Meeting.
The attendees included local hunters, government representatives and members of the Torngat Wildlife and Plant Co-management Board.
They met in Kuujuaq, Nunavik, last week.
Snook says they discussed the current state of the Davis Strait polar bear population and management of the polar bear hunt.
The Davis Strait polar bear population is the highest and most densely populated of any other.
They discussed the science behind the population and shared traditional knowledge on polar bears.
Safety concerns about the high number of polar bears were also discussed.
A resolution was passed during the meeting to increase Nunatsiavut’s polar bear quota by six bears.
The proposed increase would bring Nunatsiavut’s quota to a total of 12 polar bears.
The resolution was supported by all three Inuit regions involved.
Snook says that the participants will now bring the recommendations to their respective governments in hopes of increasing the quota.
He adds that the meeting was a huge success and they hope that it is something that will happen again in the future.
Will Crump
October 22, 2010 at 2:14 pm
You have dug up some interesting stuff. The Elizabeth Peacock study is pretty important for setting the tone of PBSG. I personally find problems with it, though I have not run across any studies that refute it. That is not too surprising as most of the science suffers from agenda-itis. Currently, the PBSG has all Polar Bear science wrapped up. If you read through the information on their website, you might notice a few things. The one that I find most interesting is the lockstep mentality of its members with a strong desire to stay on message. Their response to the Nunavut Nation is a perfect example of what I am talking about, consensus science at its best. Contrast that with the literature found on some of the other specialty groups websites.
The problems I have with the current studies that are being promoted as demonstrating that Polar Bears populations are declining are twofold. One they suffer from selection bias in collection of data(calculated birth and survival rates) and in the design of the models used to analyze the data. Second, they ignore the garbage issue. These southern populations would not even be at their current levels without human trash. The last study I recall that dealt with this issue was done way back in the eighties. I can’t for life of me remember the authors involved.
If I have some time tonight, I will do some digging around, though to be truthful, I doubt I will find what I am looking for. Most of the accessible literature is pretty one sided, and too much of it is behind pay-walls 🙁
@gareth Phillips
Mister, we could use a man like senator McCarthy again!
Gareth Phillips says:
October 22, 2010 at 12:32 pm
First, after I submitted my last post, I thought to myself, “hope he’s not in the UK”, then I looked at your name, damn. I am well aware of the conservative movement in the UK, though from the language you use, I am assuming that you see the world via a socialist world view. That whole left-wing right-wing thing is a fallacious dichotomy promoted by socialist. They are just the two sides of the socialist coin. As you noted, there is a lot of commonality between fascism and Marxism.
Second, many of my friend accuse me of playing too rough. I get frustrated when people don’t see what I think should be obvious. The CBD has a long and storied history. They have been at the center of virtually every environmental lawsuit in the US for the past decade. California is a developmental basket case because of then. Ever here of the Delta Smelt? It should be trivial for you to find the facts for yourself.
BTW, did you bother to Google the CBD? If you did, didn’t you notice something very peculiar? Or do you think it is natural for the first seven links to be to the CBD website itself, followed by a couple of CBD owned propaganda sites and an article on the far left wing huffpo?
Third, I am quite familiar with political philosophies of all stripes, and am surprising well read for an American. I tend to be a bit bombastic in my anti-socialist rhetoric, but that is not because of ignorance. In fact, when I get a fact wrong, I usually appreciate being corrected because I hate being wrong. Holding a wrong fact is like walking around with ones fly down. Being told about it is embarrassing but better then walking about obliviously. If I have any question regarding Marxism ( or any philosophy for that matter) I have a room-mate with a master in philosophy from Columbia University to ask questions of. Though, I might take a look at the book you recommend, but I have a resent work on canine evolution to get through first. It is even denser then Marxist writings! As I consider Marxist to be the enemy of mankind, I have taken care to learn their tactics. Its not hard to do, just need to spend some time around the University.
Fourth, … just goes to show how resilient the Germans work ethic can be. Though they don’t have the history of the quest for freedom that you guys in the UK have, so I worry about them.
Fifth, “Drinking the Kool-aid” means to be blinded by ideology, or to accept the propaganda as truth.