Listing The Polar Bear Could Be Bad For Bear, Economy And All Hunting And Fishing
March 29, 2008
On this past Thursday’s Open Air radio show, I shared with you an article written by Hugh Hewitt about the foreseeable troubles and real agendas behind the push by environmental groups to get the polar bear listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act. You can get some information and listen to the radio broadcast here.
In Hewitt’s article he has this to say about what could happen if the polar bear gets protection.
Once listed, the Federal Endangered Species Act is very clear: Any federal action that might impact the polar bear must be reviewed by the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Act.
What sort of federal actions? The most obvious would be any activity on or near Arctic ice, but that’s not the gold ring the environmentalists are reaching for.
They will argue that every federal permit that allows directly or indirectly for increased emissions of hydrocarbons is a federal act that might impact the polar bear –every port expansion, every refinery opening or repair, every Army Corps of Engineers permit that allows for more homes or office buildings to rise.
It is quite shameful I think, that we have resorted to thinking of extreme “what ifs”. Most people, at least those who have even heard that there is a push by environmentalists to list the polar bear, think it a simple act to ensure that the bear doesn’t get wiped out because of climate change. That’s not the case but more on that later.
When species are presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for protection, essentially what must be proven is that a species must be “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” What would set this ruling apart from others is that it would be based on something that hasn’t happened, on computer models that are being questioned by science as reliable and on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide is melting the ice globally. This has never been done before.
If Hewitt is correct in his analysis, which by the way he supports by sharing information stating such from the Center for Biological Diversity’s website, that having the polar bear protected would have sweeping affects on our economy, we have to ask ourselves how far could this “regulation” go?
As hunters and fishermen, shouldn’t we at the least be nervous that if the theory of global warming, caused by man, is used to protect the polar bear, what else can it be used to protect? The polar bear isn’t anywhere near in danger to “likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all, or a significant portion of its range.” and if this ruling were to happen, then feasibly other game species could become protected, essentially putting the hunting and fishing industry out of business.
The National Center for Public Policy Research has made public a paper, written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour, that explains in great detail what is likely to happen should our federal government cave in to the pressures from the environmentalists and list the polar bear. They give six reasons why listing the polar bear is a bad idea.
* Listing the polar bear could have adverse affects on bear conservation efforts.
* Global polar bear population levels presently are healthy.
* The anthropogenic global warming theory remains only a theory, and climate science is in its infancy. Even those who agree with the global warming theory disagree about the extent of its projected effects.
* Listing the polar bear as threatened because of estimated future global warming would most likely be extremely expensive to the U.S. economy.
* Listing the polar bear based on projected anthropogenic global warming can be expected to greatly expand federal regulatory powers under the ESA.
* Because of its great expense and controversial nature, federal policies regarding global warming should be made only by Congress with input from the Executive Branch, not by a presidential appointee charged with enforcing a 1973 law written for other purposes.
Knight and Ridenour point out that Dr. Mitchell Taylor, polar bear biologist for the Canadian province of Nunavut’s Department of the Environment, says there’s no need to panic about polar bears.
Climate change is having an effect on the West Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.
It is noteworthy that the neighboring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population (Davis Strait) may actually be over-abundant.
I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.
This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story.
If the environmentalists can convince the feds that global warming is threatening the polar bear and they choose to list it, then we can only conclude that our government believes the same and this precedent could set off a domino effect on countless other game animals with no end in sight. Knight and Ridenour don’t really believe the environmentalists are that concerned about the bear and are more interested in their carbon emissions agenda.
What environmental groups have been unsuccessful in accomplishing through the front door, they appear to be hoping to usher in through the back – namely, restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions similar to those mandated in the U.N.’s Kyoto global warming treaty, which the U.S. Senate has not ratified.
Once any animal is protected under the Endangered Species Act, the Act itself opens the door to lawsuits in which the courts have little choice but to administer the Act as it is written and interpreted. Knight and Ridenour point out the fact that the Endangered Species Act’s definition of “take” can be expanded beyond belief.
This definition gives regulators wide latitude in deciding which actions can be deemed “harmful” to a listed species or its habitat. It also provides ample fodder for environmentalist lawsuits to prevent certain public or private activities. Thus, in the opinion of federal regulators, should anthropogenic global warming be deemed harmful to the polar bear or its habitat under the ESA, the mere act of emitting greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide, could be heavily regulated, or in some instances, outlawed entirely.
As I stated before, the entire premise of the environmentalists to get the polar bear protected is based on the theory of global warming. The idea that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is warming our planet is shaky at best, although those who have signed on to the theory refuse to take a look at the real science that disputes climate change as man made.
In the same radio broadcast on Thursday I spoke of earlier, an article I shared with listeners told of new data from new state of the art equipment showing that computer models that are predicting global warming are wrong and need to be reworked. With new information being learned daily about our complex weather patterns, isn’t it irresponsible to threaten our own economy based on a theory?
Few people also realize that if the U.S. lists the polar bear as threatened, it will only stop U.S. hunters from traveling to Canada and hunting the bear. Those numbers will be replaced by hunters from other countries and more than likely the amount of money being spent to hunt the bear will be significantly reduced. Much of that money is used for polar bear conservation. Safari Club International tells it this way.
Listing would undermine conservation by curtailing the involvement of U.S. hunters in Canadian sport hunting of the polar bear, disrupting an important source of funds to support polar bear management and conservation. Since the ESA listing would not stop polar bear hunting, but merely the ability of U.S. citizens to import polar bears, the listing would accomplish nothing in terms of reducing the number of polar bears taken. Instead, native subsistence hunters and/or sport-hunters from countries other than the U.S., who will likely pay much less for the polar bear hunt than U.S. citizens, will fill the market. The result of listing likely will be continued take at current levels, with less revenue for polar bear management and conservation. The $1,000 per import permit for research and conservation also would be lost.
How far do you think the environmentalists will go? How far do you think the government will go? What kind of affects would listing the polar bear based on the theory of global warming have in administering its management under the Endangered Species Act?
I encourage you to read the entire article written by Peyton Knight and Amy Ridenour. It has tons more information and resources for you than I could possibly get into this column. Nobody wants to see the polar bear disappear. The population has doubled in recent years since hunting of the bear became regulated. There is presently ample treaties and agreements in place that have proven they will protect the polar bear. We don’t need to list the bear based on a theory. Not only is it unnecessary but it would be extremely costly.
There is one more thing you need to do. You need to go to this link to the National Center for Public Policy Research website and view the parody video ad they have put together about the polar bear. It’s light, entertaining and worth seeing polar bears dressed in formal attire.
Tom Remington
Most Commented Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
[...] Black Bear Blog – Black Bear Blog is for hunters, fishermen, and outdoor enthusiasts. put an intriguing blog post on Listing The Polar Bear Could Be Bad For Bear, Economy And All Hunting And FishingHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
Tom,
Even the Center for Biological Diversity admits there is no problem with the Polar Bear population. Check out the last paragraph in the executive summary of their petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Also, I am informed by the NCPPR that the USFWS may be forthcoming with a ruling on the polar bear issue this coming week.
Read more
Thanks Roger! Love the cartoon “Bi illogical” Diversity. LOL
Why is our “government” deciding to put a species which is not on our soil in the ESA, did we get a couple new states up north I failed to hear about? Do we own the Arctic and North Pole ? When is this going to affect my paycheck ? And finnally why was I born this late in History ? I demand a refund right now ! In 1950 there were 5,000 polar bears, in 2008 there are 25,000 polar bears.
Has anyone here read the 1991 book entitled ” The First Global Revolution; There is a report in this book by the Council of the Club of Rome and is coauthored by one of the founders of the Club Of Rome, Alexander King, they admitted choosing global warming and other threats to unify humanity under a world government.
” In searching for a new enemy to unite us [ all of humanity] we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes”.
It appears “us” meaning we or our “government” has broken down and the drivers can not find reverse, thus the bus is running off on “us.”
Guess I will get drunk.
Greg – Even though I think you already know the answers to your questions, I’ll answer them anyway for other readers. The listing would certain affect Alaska, directly and indirectly.
The idea behind the listing and how it concerns Canada would be that Americans would become barred from going to Canada to hunt the polar bear and also it would make it illegal to import anything to do with the polar bear into the States.
I do know, only there is more to it as well, Idaho has hunt closures on the table right now. Imagine that, and the enviro greenie word twisters are claiming hunters are responsible for the population drops in elk. I just look at all the lost freedoms and tax increases on the table due to an un-proven theory, I think some kooks believe it, and I think government wants to grab the power, threat being real or not. I think I should request that independent and critical thinking humans should be put on the ESA ASAP, LMAO. Any how there is alot more too this, hopefully readers figure it out soon.
You fella’s might enjoy this article;
http://blog.sunvalleyonline.com/index.php/2008/01/28/how-the-environmental-extremists-manipulate-the-masses/
[...] if the polar bear gets protection. Once listed, the Federal Endangered Species Act is source: Listing The Polar Bear Could Be Bad For Bear, Economy And All Hunting And Fishing, Black Bear Blog – Black Bear Blog is for hunters, fishermen, and outdoor [...]