Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-07-2013, 10:54 AM
209x50's Avatar
209x50 209x50 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,412
Default World’s Largest Convention On Wildlife Trade Rejects Polar Bear Trade Ban

For Immediate Release: March 7, 2013

Bangkok, Thailand – A six month diplomatic initiative by the U.S. State Department and the Department of the Interior to list the polar bear as an endangered species under Appendix I of CITES failed today. The 178 nations that are Parties to the CITES Convention decided that the U.S. proposal lacked the necessary scientific basis for such a listing and was merely a political move requested by the highest levels of the US government. The stakes involved included the right of indigenous peoples to trade in polar bear and to sustainably use the species as a critical wildlife resource.

Here in Bangkok at the 16th Conference of the CITES Parties, the U.S. proposal to uplist polar bear to “Appendix I” was strongly rejected because polar bear do not meet the biological criteria to justify listing. An Appendix I classification provides the maximum level of protection for a CITES listed species and bans all commercial trade for that species.

The polar bear has not undergone a marked population decline. The global population is not small – it is estimated at 20,000-25,000 individuals. Its area of distribution is not restricted – it extends over several million kilometers. These facts are the biological criteria. The joint delegation of the SCI Foundation and SCI presented these facts to many of the 2,000 delegates attending this convention.

The U.S. proposal was entirely based on speculation that over the next 50 years climate change would lead to the loss of the sea ice, the polar bear’s habitat. High levels of uncertainty are included in the models used to predict climate change. Plus, lots of things can happen in 50 years; polar bears may adapt and survive, they may find abundant food resources on land, such as seals, even if the sea ice is lost. There are many uncertainties married to the U.S. proposal, which undercuts the scientific integrity of the CITES Convention and exposes the fact that the listing is for political reasons.

The United States and animal rights groups learned today that politics and emotions were not enough to sway the vote on the polar bear. This lesson should have been learned three years ago at the 15th Meeting of the CITES Parties, when a similar U.S. polar bear proposal was also rejected by a wide margin. Rest assured that CITES is still grounded in principles of sustainable use and science-based decision making.

In debate on the issue, Greenland, among many other Parties, provided remarks against the U.S. proposal and rightfully expressed concern that the credibility of the CITES Convention was at stake. Greenland was clear in saying that these important decisions should not be based on politics, but science. Similar remarks were made by Inuit representatives from Canada. Canada pointed out all the scientific work that they do for polar bear management, stating “nowhere is the polar bear studied more than in the Canadian arctic.”

The European Union (EU), which controls the votes of a block of 28 countries, attempted to find a compromise between Canada and the United States. Although the EU did provide a more reasonable and less restrictive alternative proposal, it was also rejected by the Parties.

Although many countries are concerned about the impacts of climate change, today’s vote favors good science and sustainable use. International trade was found to not be a threat to the polar bear. The SCI and SCI Foundation delegates are staying alert, though, because the meeting has not concluded and there is still a chance that the issue might get reopened for debate in the final days of the convention.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-07-2013, 11:23 AM
V_1 V_1 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 717
Default

One in a while, the common sence prevail over emotional BS
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-07-2013, 11:31 AM
Ryry4's Avatar
Ryry4 Ryry4 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Olds, Alberta, Canukistan.
Posts: 5,413
Default

Good to hear, now if USFW would open the border so they could be imported again.
__________________


Don't argue with a fool, he'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Life Member of:
Wild Sheep Foundation Alberta
Wild Sheep Foundation
NRA

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-07-2013, 03:47 PM
H380's Avatar
H380 H380 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: WMU 108
Posts: 6,286
Default

Maybe there is hope for a future Grizzly hunt afterall .....maybe .. just maybe .
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-08-2013, 07:43 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Lethbridge
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by V_1 View Post
One in a while, the common sence prevail over emotional BS
X2...surprising actually...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-08-2013, 08:35 AM
Donny Bear's Avatar
Donny Bear Donny Bear is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Red Deer / West Lake
Posts: 3,565
Default Evidence of hope

SCI and other organizations lobby hard and work hard to help educate and advise it does pay off when we have a unified voice. JMHO
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-08-2013, 08:46 AM
Big Boar Big Boar is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Langley BC
Posts: 60
Default

Thats great to hear. Maybe its time to start looking at outfitters. Though I don't think it would be a very challenging hunt, compared to some of the other large bears, the challenges would be different, as well as the terrain, and scenery.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.