Now that I’m beginning to settle in to my routine back home in Florida, I’ve been working to get set up to relaunch the video broadcasts of “Open Air with Tom Remington”. As a matter of fact, today I attempted to do a trial run. This would allow me to get my settings where I want them and the necessary equipment in place and ready to go.

Ah, the best laid plans. After several minutes of fussing with this and messing with that, I thought I was set up well enough to do a live broadcast and record it. Then, instead of writing this blog, I would do a video presentation to let you know what was going on.

With a partially assembled new backdrop to the “studio”, I began streaming live audio and video and recording it. About five minutes into the broadcast, the video froze but it appeared the audio was still fine. I wasn’t sure if the recording was good and the live stream was bad or both, so I just kept on for about another 10 minutes.

Upon further review, the video ceased recording when it froze and shortly thereafter I lost contact with the server for the video streaming. Needless to say, that effort was squashed.

I tried several things and thought confident it wasn’t me and so I sent a help ticket to UStream.tv. I got a response back in a fairly timely manner saying they were having issues.(I wonder if it is because they are live-streaming the Democratic National Convention?)

I still can’t get to the site but wanted to give readers a heads-up that once I get these issues debugged, the show must go on. I hope to have at least a weekly show, if not more.

Lights! Camera! Action!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Nature Conservancy, based in Virginia, is proving on a regular basis that it is an extreme, left-wing, radical environmental organization that will allow the death of human beings for the sake of what they call conservation and saving animals. It is thoroughly disgusting to discover their strong arm tactics used to create “wilderness” while trampling on the long held traditions of natives. All this for the sake of saving the Komodo dragon.

The Wall Street Journal tells the obscene story of these Komodo dragons preying on men, women and children in villages near the Komodo National Park, where the dragon makes its home.

The Nature Conservancy stuck its nose into Indonesian business, offering money and advice, seeing a way to promote their self-righteous, Marxist agendas, forcing themselves on the natives of the area.

With this funding and advice, park authorities put an end to villagers’ traditional deer hunting, enforcing a prohibition that had been widely disregarded. They declared canines an alien species, and outlawed the villagers’ dogs, which used to keep dragons away from homes. Park authorities banned the goat sacrifices, previously staged on Komodo for the benefit of picture-snapping tourists.

“We don’t want the Komodo dragon to be domesticated. It’s against natural balance,” says Widodo Ramono, policy director of the Nature Conservancy’s Indonesian branch and a former director of the country’s national park service. “We have to keep this conservation area for the purpose of wildlife. It is not for human beings.”

While reading this story, we can just as easily replace Komodo dragon with wolf or a number of other such species. Check out all the key words and phrases used which are classic examples of the bile spewed forth by animal lovers and environmentalists; “natural balance”, “conservation area”, “purpose of wildlife”. “It is not for human beings.”

It seems that the natives had discovered how to get along just nicely with the Komodo dragon as traditions weren’t just pulled out of the sky. How does anyone think traditions begin?

The natives learned how to feed the hungry dragons so they wouldn’t feed on the villagers. The traditions have been around for so long, they are now deemed as a sacred duty.

These locals have long viewed the dragons as a reincarnation of fellow kinsfolk, to be treated with reverence. But now, villagers say, the once-friendly dragons have turned into vicious man-eaters. And they blame policies drafted by American-funded environmentalists for this frightening turn of events.

“When I was growing up, I felt the dragons were my family,” says 55-year-old Hajji Faisal. “But today the dragons are angry with us, and see us as enemies.” The reason, he and many other villagers believe, is that environmentalists, in the name of preserving nature, have destroyed Komodo’s age-old symbiosis between dragon and man.

For centuries, local tradition required feeding the dragons — which live more than 50 years, can recognize individual humans and usually stick to fairly small areas. Locals say they always left deer parts for the dragons after a hunt, and often tied goats to a post as sacrifice. Island taboos strictly prohibited hurting the giant reptiles, a possible reason why the dragons have survived in the Komodo area despite becoming extinct everywhere else.

These people aren’t stupid. The knew what they had to do to get along with the Komodo dragon. But that means nothing to groups like The Nature Conservancy. They blame the villagers for these problems. Take a look at the pointing of the finger and accusations.

Despite such disbelief in the Komodo villagers’ theories, executives at the Nature Conservancy’s headquarters in the U.S. pledge to reach out and tackle local fears. “Any concern expressed by the villagers will be taken seriously and we will address it if we can,” says Chief Communications Officer James R. Petterson. “The Komodo effort is a work in progress.”

Dragon and man could coexist here in harmony in the past, Komodo park officials add, because at the time the area’s human population was a fraction of today’s size. Now, with local villages pushing deeper inland and attracting new settlers from elsewhere in Indonesia, conflict may be inevitable — and even a fence won’t be able to prevent dragon infiltrations.

“The smell of the village — goats, chicken, drying fish — all this invites the dragons,” says Mr. Latief. “And if the dragons can’t grab the animals, they will bite the villagers.”

Ah, yes! These ignorant natives with their superstitious beliefs. How could one righteous, holier-than-thou organization, bent on controlling the world and stealing the land and stripping people of rights, beliefs and traditions, allow such barbarism? Evidently these people never cooked and raised food before TNC moved in.

They blame the natives for living, accusing them of having the audacity to encroach on the Komodo dragon’s habitat and cook food, raise livestock and live.

The Nature Conservancy should be ashamed of itself but unfortunately they have manage to lie, cheat and steal their way through the American society, convincing enough of them that they are serving the best interest of the animals and the people (notice people listed second). They will continue their evil ways while more human beings, who don’t belong there, according the TNC, get eaten by hungry dragons.

But as Chief Communications Officer of The Nature Conservancy James R. Petterson says, “The Komodo effort is a work in progress.”, The Nature Conservancy places no value at all on human life and the long held traditions of the Indonesians, whether we like them or not.

Fear mongering? Go tell that to the family who had to watch their child get consumed by a hungry dragon. I don’t want to hear it!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I get a constant dose of, “Stop worrying about Barack Obama!”. I read it everywhere. One of the most spread about lies is the one telling Americans that as gun owners we have nothing to worry about. We are told that Obama supports the Second Amendment and respects the rights of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms.

When I read all this malarkey, I am reminded of a parrot a co-worker of mine used to have. After work one afternoon, I went with this guy to his beach-side condominium. From previous conversations at work, I knew Dave had a parrot. He had told me some of the shenanigans this parrot, named Julio, had gotten into since becoming of member of Dave’s family. One thing I was told is that the parrot was really only loyal to one person and that happened to be Dave. He merely tolerated the rest.

I discovered, and fortunately not he hard way, that Julio was most noted for his deceptive practice of luring unsuspecting newcomers to his cage. What person would not be fascinated and immediately attracted to a beautiful green parrot, especially one that could talk - quite eloquently for a bird I might add.

As I walked in the front door, I was almost immediately greeted with, “Hello! Hello! Come here!”

I’ve not been around talking birds much in my life. I do recall one time visiting a small animal farm in which they had a myna bird, a smallish black bird that I believe is somehow related to the starling family of birds. One of the attractive things about a myna bird is its ability to mimic sounds it has heard before, much like a parrot but I think a parrot is a bit more intelligent, as you will soon discover. This myna bird happened to pick up on and seemingly enjoyed mimicking the phrase, “F&*% you!”

Julio on the other hand was suave, debonair even. He was soft spoken in his greeting of, “Hello” and “Come here!” With a smile on my face, I approached the cage stopping at about three feet away. My learned tendencies when it comes to animals, kept me from getting any closer. I guess I’ve had too many dog bites, etc. to have a great desire for closeness with animals I’m not familiar with.

“Hello! Come here! Come here!” Julio pleaded. Who could resist? This bird, even though he was just a bird, perhaps with a brain the size of a pea, could woo anyone. He had me from the first hello! (sorry)

I stepped a bit closer and for some stupid reason, perhaps because I was simply overtaken with he bird’s calmness, soft pleas and charisma, I began to stick my finger into the cage.

“Don’t do that!” Dave yelled. “The little bastard will bite the end of your finger off!”

I retracted my finger and hand and took a step back. Now that I had learned some of the truth about the bird, his pretty green colors weren’t quite so pretty anymore. I soon lost interest in Julia and turned my attention to other more important things.

Are there similarities between Julio and Barack Obama? I tell you what. You stick your hand in the cage and see if he bites.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It is abundantly clear that any moron can see more people lining up for government welfare as well as a growing demand from the people that government needs to do more. This trend is becoming so entrenched in our society, it is beginning to carry over into our wildlife.

We know that environmentalists, animal rights and anti-hunting groups are all Marxist/socialistic organizations that believe more government intrusion into our lives is for the good of the people. With this intrusion, the loss of freedom and the desire of the people to better themselves soon gets lost. We meld into a people of aimlessness, only hoping for a meal provided by the ruler.

This has become so prominent now, we have proof that some of our animal species are beginning to copy the trends of the far left democrats, pushing for government handouts, taking from the rich and giving to those not willing to work for themselves.

The below photograph is proof that animals are lining up knowing a free meal, requiring little, if any, work is necessary.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It seems everyone wants to share a joke with me today. I’ve picked out a few that would be appropriate here, even though one does push the envelope a bit. Thank you to everyone sending me a good chuckle this morning.

#1
The Pond

An elderly man in Florida had owned a large farm for several years. He had a large pond in the back, fixed up nice; picnic tables, horseshoe courts, and some orange and grapefruit trees. The pond was properly shaped and fixed up for swimming when it was built.

One evening the old farmer decided to go down to the pond, as he hadn’t been there for a while, and look it over. He grabbed a five gallon bucket to bring back some fruit. As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee. As he came closer he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond.

He made the women aware of his presence and they all went to the deep end. One of the women shouted to him, “We’re not coming out until you leave!”

The old man frowned, “I didn’t come down here to watch you ladies swim naked or make you get out of the pond naked.”

Holding the bucket up he said, “I’m here to feed the alligator.”

Moral: Old men can still think fast —

#2

Two Trees and a Woodpecker

There were two trees, a beech and a birch, that stood side by side, growing in the northern Maine woods. A small tree begins to grow between them, and the Beech says to the Birch, ‘Is that a son of a Beech or a son of a Birch?’

The Birch says he cannot tell, but just then a Woodpecker lands on the sapling. The Birch says, ‘Woodpecker, you are a tree expert. Can you tell if that is a son of a Beech or a son of a Birch?

The Woodpecker drills a small hole in the sapling, takes a taste of the wood and replies in a slightly condescending tone: “It is neither a son of a Beech nor a son of a Birch. It is, however, the best piece of Ash I have ever poked my pecker into!!!

Yikes!

#3

A man from Idaho was out hunting in his favorite strip of woods one day and ran into two hunters from California. One of the two men had bagged a nice 4×4 mule deer and they were dragging it out of the woods.

The Idaho hunter noticed the two California hunters were dragging the deer out by the hind legs. He said to them, “You know. If you pulled that deer by the horns, it would drag a lot easier.”

With that the Idaho hunter went on his way, while the two from California took him up on his advice and began dragging the deer by the horns. After about an hour, one hunter said to the other, “That guy was right! This thing sure does drag a lot easier this way.”

The second guy responded with: “That’s for sure but I think we are getting a lot further away from our truck.”

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Will any of us forget watching the poll workers in Florida on television with magnifying glasses, sweat running down the sides of their faces, making every effort to determine the “intent” of the voter with the dangling chads in the 2000 presidential election?

Florida was immediately thrust into the spotlight in many ways. Florida became the laughing stock of many in America as people laughed and scorned us because we were too stupid to vote, didn’t know how to count, etc. But that was all taken care of with millions and millions of dollars, right?

Well, maybe not! I just went and voted in another Florida primary election - mostly local campaigns for property appraiser, school board and county commission. My how things have changed since 2000.

I grew up in a tiny village in Western Maine. Total population of Bethel was and still is around 2,500 people. It is in Bethel where I cast my first ballot after turning 18. Thirty-eight years ago, I walked into the only polling station the town had, the fire station, was handed pieces of paper and a pencil (the kind you might get for keeping score at the local golf course) and was told to vote for only one and make sure I filled in the little box completely while not going outside the lines. This was surely a test of my hand/eye coordination and my fine motor skills. Somehow, I knew I could do it if I just concentrated. Thank you Crayola!

I don’t recall any poll worker back then ever having to pick up a magnifying and glass and try to decipher the intent of any voter. The truth be known, many such polling places never counted all the ballots. When a race was clearly decided, it didn’t much matter. Divide the votes proportionately and head on home for a hot toddy before heading off to bed.

As time went by, I recall people talking about how it was time for little towns like Bethel to “get with the times”, spend some money and buy “modern” voting equipment. One of the reasons was to help prevent voter fraud and as another means of ensuring that all votes counted and poll workers weren’t “cooking the books”.

Bethel, to my knowledge, has never changed in the methods they have used to cast ballots. I take that back. I think there has been one change. The box has evolved to an oval perhaps because some study revealed the oval required fewer fine motor skills to fill in than a square or rectangle.

Florida, on the other hand, could not ever again be subject to such primitive means of voting. Never again was Florida to be humiliated with dangling chads, ridiculed on every television station from Miami to North Pole, Alaska.

The state forked out millions of dollars in order to go hi-tech. So hi-tech that we had the best (or so they said) polling equipment available on the market. I voted a few times using this equipment but it seems that this very expensive gear was not fool proof and once again voters began to complain.

This morning when I walked into the polling station, the first thing I was handed, this was actually outside the front door, was a pamphlet that explained why we had once again changed the method for casting ballots.

No, we didn’t return to the punch-card system that produced the chads. We returned to those so-called dark ages. The same dark ages little old Bethel, Maine is still living in. I was handed a very large paper ballot, complete with bright red “security envelope”.

But get this! Before I could go into the booth and vote, I was handed a piece of paper. At the top of this paper was some kind of sticker that the poll worker where I checked in had placed at the top. I had to first demonstrate that I knew how to fill in this large oval with a black ink pen they gave me. Once that was done, I had to sign the paper which was acknowledgment that I was explained how to color an oval. As I giggled, I heard the poll worker mutter something about I wouldn’t believe how many people don’t understand what it is they are supposed to do.

So into the booth I went. I donned my glasses and commenced coloring in my favorite circles, hoping I would get all the answers right! I remembered my first days of voting and concentrated really hard to stay inside the lines. It was a snap…….I think!

Once completed, I proceeded to another area where I had to give back my bright red security envelope for some other voter to use and then cast my ballot by inserting it into a machine that read the colored ovals.

Being who I am and also unable to resist the urge, I asked the gentleman sitting there, “How do I know it counted all the ones I intended to vote for?”

Silence!

Afterthought: I wonder in what dusty room somewhere sit the thousands of very expensive, hi-tech voting machines that would guarantee no more dangling chads?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Just what in God’s name does that mean? Check out this map and hope you aren’t located in the middle of one of these “migration corridors”!

In 2007, the Western Governors’ Association, approved their resolution, “Protecting Wildlife Migration Corridors and Crucial Wildlife Habitat in the West”. Here’s the pdf version found on the WGA website.

Large intact and functioning ecosystems, healthy fish and wildlife populations, and abundant public access to natural landscapes are a significant contributing factor to the West’s economic and in-migration boom as well as quality of life. Critical wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitats are necessary to maintain flourishing wildlife populations.

Sounds wonderful to me! But maybe not so wonderful if you happen to be in one of these designated “wildlife corridors”. It also sounds like for hunters and fishermen, this should guarantee access to land and opportunities to hunt and fish forever. Ummmm……maybe not! Better look more closely.

After approving the resolution, the group set out to write “The Western Governors’ Association Wildlife Corridors Initiative”. This more precisely spells out for us about these wildlife corridors and how they are going to “maintain flourishing wildlife populations” among other promises. Here’s the pdf version of the 142-page “Wildlife Corridors Initiative”. The “Initiative” was approved this past June.

Who better suited to decide how wildlife corridors and what can and cannot be done with land designated as “protected” wildlife corridors than groups representing the five following fields? Gas and Oil, Energy, Transportation Infrastructure, land use and climate change. I guess they got all their bases covered, especially when it comes to us scum-of-the-earth hunters and fishermen.

If you want to get a head start reading about this movement, masquerading as a “save the wildlife” group, go ahead and download the reports and read them for yourself. If you don’t want to do that, I have another idea for you.

Some of you have probably heard me speak of my friend George Dovel in Idaho. George is the editor of his highly successful print magazine, “The Outdoorsman”. George promises in the next issue he is going to delve into this fiasco and I’ll guarantee it will be good. George asks his readers, “if they can handle the truth?”

So, here’s what you need to do. Click on this link and you’ll find a printable subscription application for your own one-year subscription to The Outdoorsman. The cost is $20.00 for one year. It’ll be the best $20.00 you’ll spend this year.

The form is very short. All you need to do is print it out, fill it out and send it, along with $20.00 to The Outdoorsman. I get my copy on a regular basis and I have never learned so much as what I have gotten from this publication.

Don’t think it’s just for Idaho and western readers either. George covers a multitude of subjects and even the ones that focus on local issues, could be written about anyone’s state.

Don’t miss out on this opportunity!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

LocalNews8 in Idaho Falls, put up an article written by the news source that shall not be named. The story has to do with Ron Gillet, head of the Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition, who was accused of assaulting a woman who was taking pictures of him. It should be noted that the woman, Lynne Stone, is a wolf activist, setting the stage for an interesting debate in and of itself as it would be doubtful Gillet, guilty or not, would get a fair trial.

But here’s what the news source that shall not be named reported in their article. The last paragraph states: “________________________________________________________________________________.”
I can’t quote the news source that shall not be named but I’ll paraphrase. They said the police affidavit said that Gillet grabbed Stone by the throat and shoulders and as a result of this action, she got a cut on her hand.

That isn’t all the police affidavit said. I wonder why the news source that shall not be named ONLY printed one part of the evidence and testimony collected by the police?

Idiots!

The trial has ended in a hung jury. It’s now up to the prosecutor’s office if they want to retry Gillet.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Oh this can’t be! There has to be some mistake!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Add one more item to the fabled book, “101 Things to do With a Dead Cat”. Before anyone goes wanting to lock this sick blogger up, it’s more of a joke than anything. But, researchers have discovered that cats eat 2 and a half tons of real fish each year and not only that, it’s the good stuff. In other words cats are eating fish that could be consumed by humans when they could be eating the guts, heads and the rest of the offal.

But wait! Theres’ more! Call this number now and we’ll throw in the fact that in Australia there is more fish per cat consumed than fish per human.

Leading the way (no surprises here. Nothing is too good for Garfield) is the U.S. in the amount of fish we feed our cats, topping over 1 million tons of fish.

So why do we feed our cats the good stuff?

“I think giving a nice chunk of fish to a pet is important to satisfy the personal hedonistic needs of the owner, not the nutritional need of the cat,” ……… “Cats will be very happy to eat the offal from a trout.”

If we run out of fish to eat, that is us humans, will we limit the fish we feed our cats? Doubtful! Our society is more interested in watching humans starve, go broke and lose their land than feed a cat some fish guts. MEOOOOOOWW!

This Tom Cat is relegated to the alleyways for some time to come.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

But I actually have found at least one person who thinks that having the right to keep and bear arms infringes on our freedom. Really!

Steve Chapman, a member of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board, in an editorial today says that Florida’s law that protects an individual’s right to keep a gun in their car is an attack on property rights. The Florida law allows the holder of a legal concealed weapons permit, to keep a gun locked up in their car while their car is parked in the place of employment’s parking lot. Chapman says that is an attack on property rights because the owner of the business has no say over what the owner of the car can have inside.

Chapman claims that this new law or clarification of law, is a “perverse conception of the Second Amendment”. While I disagree that it is a perverse conception, I will agree that the issue does in fact deal with two distinct rights - Second Amendment and property rights.

If you examine Chapman’s interpretation, he is willing to grant property rights but only to the degree in which he is willing to grant based on his own ideals. His entire stance is that the business owner cannot regulate what an employee locks up and leaves in his or her car while parked on his property. In essence what he is then saying is that your car is not your property and what is in it you have no right to own or protect while on his property.

If that were true, then why are there laws that protect a person who is driving down the highway from being randomly pulled over and having their car searched? If this is considered and illegal search and seizure, isn’t it because the car and what’s in it is considered to be private property? There must be probably cause.

Chapman is willing to say that a “perverse conception of the Second Amendment” tramples the property rights of the business owner but isn’t it just as perverse to assume that my car and what’s in it isn’t mine now that I’m parked in a parking lot somewhere?

I believe that the business owner has every right to disallow an employee to bring their gun inside the building where they work, the same as I have a right to tell Fred when he comes into my home to leave his gun in the car.

Chapman, like so many others, wants to attack the NRA because of the NRA’s stance that this is a Second Amendment issue. For him to prove that this is a property rights issue, he first should explain why the owner of the car and what’s inside is no longer personal property when it is driven into a parking lot belonging to a place of business.

In presenting that argument, he does a lousy job. Read this!

Conceal-carry licensees complain that if they can’t keep their guns in their cars, they will have no protection on their way to and from work. That’s true. But what about employees who walk, bike or take the bus? Since the law doesn’t give them the right to take their guns into the workplace, they have to leave them at home. Should the state force companies to let workers carry pistols into the factory, office or day-care center?

Nobody is this stupid! We supposedly live in a free country. With freedom comes choice. If I feel that I need protection driving to work, the last thing I’m going to do is walk, bike or take the bus. The whole idea is choice. Chapman and the rest want to take away my choice to drive to work and be safe while doing it. He wants to strip me of my rights in order to support some fanciful notion that a concealed carry permit holder is going to kill someone.

This isn’t about rights and it isn’t about he Second Amendment. It’s about having control over the people. Chapman goes even further in making absurd statements in his argument.

For some people, being temporarily deprived of a firearm creates great anxiety. But for those with a strong aversion to guns, working at a company that allows weapons in cars has the same effect. In a free society, both sets of employees can solve the problem with a simple expedient: exercising their liberty to find a company whose policies suit their preferences.

Unbelievable! I’ll wager that Chapman agrees with the ban on smoking in restaurants and other places of employment. He probably also thinks he and the government should tell restaurants what kind of food they can cook. Yet, he has the audacity to set a double standard by suggesting that we should be able to exercise our liberties by finding another place to work that allows guns. When that tactic was tried with the smoking issue, it was null and void because an employee has a “right” choose where he works not based on who allows smoking and who doesn’t.

So what’s it going to be? Are we going to go ahead and say that the owner of a business has more property rights than the owner of a car? Where in our constitution does it begin spelling out priorities in rights? Is there some kind of list that places certain types of people and businesses higher up so they get more rights than the lowly employee?

Chapman even admits that the type of crimes he is afraid of rarely happen but somehow he believes the business owner should have the right to tell me what I can keep in my car.

Given that crimes by permit holders are exceedingly rare, the employers who want to ban guns may be running from shadows. But decisions about their safety, and that of their customers and employees, should be theirs to make.

Because I choose to work for a company, the “right” to protect me should now be left up to he business owner? Sure we all want a safe work environment, i.e. clean air, safe equipment, etc., but what else will the employer have the “right” to protect me from? Driving in fast moving traffic? Breathing in dirty air? Eating the wrong foods? Being too fat? Being a smoker?

I think Chapman might be forgetting something. Isn’t is supposed to be my right to self-protection? I’m an American. Why should I have to have him or anyone else be responsible for my safety and protection? I don’t want his protection and I don’t want that of my employer and as an American, my constitution guarantees me that right…… not my employer.

This is a rights issue and one that deals with property rights. An employer does not have more rights than I do. How arrogant to think that a business owner has the “right” to protect his employees beyond any reasonable responsibility to do so.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I find this article published by Fox News and written by (the news source that shall not be named), quite disingenuous! The headline reads, “9 Polar Bears Spotted on Risky Open Ocean Swims”. But when you put any facts associated with the story together, it doesn’t match the discussion of the article, which of course coming from (the news source that shall not be named) is all about the death and destruction awaiting us all from global warming.

According to what (the news source that shall not be named) wrote, here’s what anyone can put together as fact.

People in a plane observed 9 polar bears swimming in the Chuckchi Sea. It was said that the bears ranged from 15 to 65 miles “off shore”.

Before I get into the rest of the “facts”, let me tell you the article then proceeds into a slightly unrelated rant about the poor demise of our polar bears because of global warming. (The news source that shall not be named) then gets quite unrelated information from Steven Armstrup, senior polar bear scientist for the U.S. Geological Survey in Anchorage.

Armstrup said the bear “could” have come from a patch of ice that broke up northwest of Alaska’s coast.

“The bears that had been on that last bit of ice that remained over shallow shelf waters, are now swimming either toward land or toward the rest of the sea ice, which is a considerable distance north,”

Armstrup was referring to the patch of ice northwest of Alaska he speculated might be where some or none of the bears came from.

The article further states what Armstup said about swimming polar bears.

It probably is not a big deal for a polar bear in good condition to swim 10 or 15 miles, Amstrup said, but swims of 50 to 100 miles could be exhausting.

Back to gathering facts. Armstrup went on to say that further research would be needed to tell if bears are swimming further and if so, what if any effect this will have on the bears.

At the end of the article, one observer, who happened to be one of the leaders of the groups who observed the polar bears, said she had no idea where the bears came from.

Clark said the animals’ origin and destination could not be known without radio collar monitoring.

“To go out there and say they were going from this point to this point would be complete speculation,” Clark said.

Observers have no indication of the fate of the nine polar bears observed Saturday.

What we know is that polar bears quite readily swim great distances. We know they move from pack ice to pack ice for various purposes - i.e. searching for food, mating and denning. In this case, we had people flying in a plane over the Chuckchi Sea who saw a total of nine bears swimming in the water, estimated to be between 15 and 65 miles from shore.

We also know that the observers had no idea where the bears came from or where they were going AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE!

The sky is falling Henny Penny! Run for your life!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!