Death of Polar Bears Greatly exaggerated

This is the name of the article in todays Calgary Herald. For those who doubt authenticity it is written by Don Braid, Tuesday March 6th, 2007. Page A3.

I will not re-write the entire thing but the short form is that the supposed endangered canary in the coal mine of Global Warming is not only surviving this envirnomental onslaught but is in fact thriving.

For years environmental groups and biologists have been saying that the population is shrinking and they will be gone soon. In the meantime the inuit have been saying the population is growing. Who was right? big shocker here, the inuit. As government bioligist put it. "there are not just a few more bears, there are a hell of alot more bears".

I would like to see Suzuki's rebuttal.

I would like to see Suzuki's rebuttal.
Yeah, me too!

Sounds much the same as the Alberta Grizz population. Special interest groups say 800 bears in the province. Hunters and outdoors people say no way there is only 800 bears...Wonder who is right?????

Funny thing is that these groups had pegged the polar bear population at 800 animals. Seems like a popular number.

I'm afraid we'll be waiting a long time for Suzuki to argue the science. Like many other AGW cult members they are all singing the same tune. Keep your mouth shut about the science and try and silence anyone that wants to debate the false science behind AGW. They only want to try and instill fear in little kids and anyone else who will believe their lies in the hopes of convincing a majority of people to vote some money and power their way.

From SCI.......


Safari Club International Testifies In Opposition of Listing of Polar Bear Under the Endangered Species Act



Safari Club International continued its fight to stop the proposed listing of the polar bear as a “threatened” species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act by testifying at a hearing held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on March 5, 2007 in Washington D.C. The FWS is concerned that, within the next 45 years, the alleged impacts of global climate change will put the species as a whole in danger of extinction. Such a listing could mean the end of the importation into the United States of trophies of polar bears legally hunted in Canada, unless the FWS adopted special rules and permits allowing the import.



SCI argued that the FWS cannot make a “threatened” finding because there is too much scientific uncertainty about the nature and extent of global climate change, the future impact of any climate change on the arctic ecosystem, and how the polar bear as a species will adapt to any changing conditions. SCI explained that before making a ‘threatened’ listing, the FWS must have some high level of certainty about these future events. This certainty is lacking.



SCI also commented that sport hunting of polar bears in Canada brings significant dollars to local native communities and to conservation and management efforts. Currently polar bear populations overall are healthy and in many places thriving. Sport hunting of polar bears only occurs under strict quotas issued by Canadian provincial governments. The FWS currently allows imports only of bears taken from sustainably managed populations. At the hearing, Doug Burdin, Litigation Counsel for SCI, testified, “Sport hunting, especially by U.S. hunters, brings significant dollars to remote native communities in Canada. To go along with the intrinsic value these people place on the polar bear, this economic benefit makes the polar bear valuable to these people, encouraging them to better conserve and manage the bear.”



Kevin Anderson, Chairman of SCI’s Legal Task Force, explained one of SCI’s interests in this matter, “It is important that we battle the misuse of the ESA to try to solve climate change problems -- these tasks should not fall to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Some environmental groups pushing the ESA listing have admitted that their goal is to force the U.S. government to deal with climate change. This simply is not a proper use of the ESA.”



SCI intends to submit substantive written comments by the April 9, 2007 deadline.



SCI-First For Hunters is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and in promoting wildlife conservation worldwide. SCI’s 179 Chapters represent all 50 United States as well as 13 other countries. SCI’s proactive leadership in a host of cooperative wildlife conservation, outdoor education and humanitarian programs, with the SCI Foundation and other conservation groups, research institutions and government agencies, empowers sportsmen to be contributing community members and participants in sound wildlife management and conservation. Visit www.safariclub.org or call 520-620-1220 for more information.

To hell with seeing suzki's rebuttal, I'd much rather see his stock portfolio!

shotgun these numbers that are thrown around are mostly derived at by the S.W.A.G. method. Scientific Wild Arse Guess.

All depends on what you read...I am sure you can find a story suporting any side of a story.

www.enn.com/archive.html?id=12311&cat=today

inuitcircumpolar.com/index.php?auto_slide=&ID=385&Lang=En&Parent_ID=&cu rrent_slide_num=

Seems the inuit do believe in climate change.

All depends on what you read...I am sure you can find a story suporting any side of a story

oh really?? its almost like each side has an agenda they are trying to push

With all due respect...but is it just me that sees the irony in someone that lost both feet to frostbite warning the world about global warming??

It does not say why the scientist are being muzzled but the previously posted article may have something to do with it.

This was posted on CNN BTW.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said Thursday.

Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration's history of muzzling dissent over global climate change.

But H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said this policy was a long-standing one, meant to honor international protocols for meetings where the topics of discussion are negotiated in advance.

The matter came to light in e-mails from the Fish and Wildlife Service that were distributed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Biological Diversity, both environmental groups.

Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.

The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.

Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."

Polar bears are a hot topic for the Bush administration, which decided in December to consider whether to list the white-furred behemoths as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, because of scientific reports that the bears' icy habitat is melting due to global warming.

Hall said a decision is expected in January 2008. A "threatened" listing would bar the government from taking any action that jeopardizes the animal's existence, and might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.

Hall defended the policy laid out in the memos, saying it was meant to keep scientists from straying from a set agenda at meetings in countries like Russia, Norway and Canada.

For example, he said, one meeting was about "human and polar bear interface." Receding Arctic sea ice where polar bears live and the global climate change that likely played a role in the melting were not proper discussion topics, he said.

"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."

The prohibition on talking about these subjects only applies to public, formal situations, Hall said. Private scientific discussions outside the meeting and away from media are permitted and encouraged, he said.

"This administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming," Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council said by telephone.

"Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric," Burnham-Snyder said.