Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I thought I would post this up online and see if anyone else is interested in testifying before the USFWS on April 6th, 2007 or sending in written comments:


Dear SCI Members in Maryland, Virginia and DC,


For those of you near the D.C. area, we have just received notice of a public hearing for input on the decision to list polar bears as threatened on the endangered species list due to the threats from global warming. Please see the details below and if you are available, plan to come by and register your comments and interest on behalf of sportsmen and women everywhere on this particular issue. Alaska residents, please note meetings in your state as well.





What: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will hold a Public Hearing in Washington, D.C. to present information and take public comments on the 12-month petition finding and proposed rule to list the polar bear as "threatened" throughout its range under the Endangered Species Act.


When: Monday, March 5, 2007, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.


Where: Department of the Interior auditorium, 1849 C. St NW, Washington, D.C. (C St. Entrance)


The hearing will begin with a background presentation on the petition finding and the proposed rule. That will be followed by a question and answer session followed by testimony.


Anyone wishing to make an oral statement will be asked to register upon arrival at the meeting. Those wishing to provide spoken comments at the meeting are encouraged to also deliver a written copy of their statement.


The Service is particularly interested in comments concerning information on polar bear distribution, habitat selection, food habits, population density and trends, habitat trends, and effects of management on polar bears, the effects of sea ice change on the distribution and abundance of polar bears and their principal prey, the effects of other potential factors (such as oil and gas development, contaminants, ecotourism, hunting, and poaching), any populations of the species that may qualify as distinct population segments, and data and studies referred to within the proposal.


Hearings are also scheduled to be held in Alaska in Anchorage (March 1) and Barrow (March 7).


Written comments will be accepted at the meeting, or can be sent by April 9, 2007 by mail to: Supervisor, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Office, 1011 East Tudor Road

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Excepts from a speech given by Sen. James Inhofe in the Senate.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&C ontentRecord_id=ef1cdc42-802a-23ad-4428-93559736e2a1&Designation=Majority

"Other sources of data mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal piece, suggest that “there are more polar bears in the world now than there were 40 years ago.” The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is 20,000 to 25,000 bears, whereas in the 1950s and 1960s, estimates were as low as 5,000-10,000 bears due to sport hunting, which has since been restricted. "

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Thank you for the fantastic information! If anyone has more.. It will be well used!

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Interesting stuff!

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

It's just a bunch of tree-huggers being stupid.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Yeah, that makes sense. If there was/is a problem with globalwarming lets just start listing all the animals that live in the arctic endangered instead of actually fixing the problem. Lets see,list something endangered that you can't hunt anyway, but youcan if you go to a different country. Doesn't matter that you can't bringthe trophyinto the USA (you can the picture and video of the hunt) I am not saying there are less/more I am just stating the situation. Just like the automobileemission issue! It doesn't matter if they made cars to emit a fraction of the smog when the amount of cars they are producingwill make up the difference.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I don't think listing the polar bear as endangered is such a bad thing. Think about it.....If they are, George "the oil man" Bush can't try to drill destroying habitat like he has done in the west. If the bears go on the list, the land in which they live will be protected too. A good thing for all of us. Team work.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

thats just genius, im sure thats really getting to Bush. hes thinking man, now i cant go drill for oil in the arctic where it would be cost inefficient to drill even if there was oil there. quit hating on bush, he has nothing to do with this post, theres a politics forum for a reason. bush isnt a bad pres either but we wont go into that because this is a POLAR BEAR THREAD.

as far as the bears go, wouldnt this be a pointless action. correct me if im wrong, but what good would it do for the United States to put a bear on there endangered list, when most bears live in northern canada (im assuming there are some polar bears in alaska?). does canada have to abide by our endangered list, or can they just keep hunting them like they are right now.

I think they should be able to be hunted, looking at how the population is growing tremendously. usually they put animals on the list because their numbers are going down, not up.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Tembry,
my point exactly. It is a waste of time when you can't hunt them anyway! But I have thought about this: do they get special funding to enhance habitat for the bears if they get listed? Sounds good huh? What will they do have a boat stationed up therepatrolling the waters looking for bears stranded on ice?but wait, wouldn't bestopping global warming be the only way to enhance their habitat? Plus you can't make other countrys join your cause just because you want them to. So I williterate my statement,thesediscussions are awaste of time (not here in the forums but on Capital Hill). My other take on the situation will be that the bears that are supposedly drifting off to sea sooner or later will get the point and will move inland and find alternate food sources as will the seals and other sea dwelling mammals. Hasn't the ice been melting and receeding all along since the last ice age(now just faster)? So the become better swimmers LOL.Heck, I don't know cross them with a grizzly/brownie and make them more of an inland bear. (just kidding)Here is more info http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20070325-011239-2168r.htm

:the more time I spend here on this planetthe more I realize we are just a bunch of talking monkeys dead set on our own demise.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

What ever happened to hunters being the greenies? I'm glad Teddy didn't have the "pave everything" attitude that seems to prevail in here. Anything that may challenge our right to drive empty 600 horse power crew cab duelly diesel trucks to the mail box and back must be a commie plot.
The Polar Bear certainly will get my support but I will do some research to find what will really benefit them. Hudson Bay Polar Bears are definately i trouble.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Tango, you missed the point I was trying to make. There is absolutly nothing that can be doneeven ifthe bear populationwas in trouble incertain areas,see how I said "certain areas"(unless you got a big ice maker). So unless you move them to an area that isn't melting as fast I don't see afix(and even that is not a solution) Asfar as allot of hunters not being greenies I beg to differ. It is just that allot of us are sick and tired of being manipulated by weird make no sense policy's that the polititions play at our hunting rights.Some of thepeople fighting for the rights of polar bearsshould redirect theirinitiative to the real problem. Shoot, we all should before its to late. SoI see no need to put them onthe list. As stated in an earlier post the population is up, its a fact.It is sort oflike compairing the Northeast US and WTdeer. They are losing alot of habitat each year. Does this mean we should stop hunting them? Or fix the real issue? My philosophy is why use a bandaid when eventualy it is going to fall off when you should just stitch it from the get go.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

The reality of this legislation has very little to do with the polar bear and everything to do with politics. First off - If the polar bear is listed, I can still buy a polar bear tag and hunt polar bear in Canada! I just wont be able to bring the meat or the pelt home! Second - If the polar bear is listed, American hunters will not spend their hard earned dollars on polar bear tags, which hurts the Inuit tribes who count on that money to survive. Third - If the polar bear is listed, American conservation dollars will not be going to protecting the polar bear, because it is American hunters who spend the most dollars on real conservation and habitat protection. So called environmentalists spend most of their money on lawsuits and injunctions which do nothing but create stupid regulations and very little money on protecting habitat!

Last but not least, the Polar Bear is a being used in this situation as the poster child for Global Warming. As a hunter and a conservationist, I am all about wanting something done about Global Warming, I just want the appropriate agency(CONGRESS) to enact real legislation to fix the problem! The USF&WS is not the agency to use to fix global warming!

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I have hunted since age 12 mainly for birds such as pheasant and quail. I love the outdoors. I also have spent summers and other vacations volunteering for non-profits in their efforts to conserve open space. I am against hunting big game, specifically endangered species like silver back gorillas, cheetahs, elephants, tigers, wolverines, rhinos, or grizzly bears. Deer hunting I believe is appropriate in most cases, as an effective population control, because they can be detrimental to agriculture and private property. The types of animals I listed above are limited in numbers not only because of role in the food chain, but because of spineless, cigar puffing, "thrill seeking" retirees looking to get their rocks off in some exotic locale at the pull of a trigger. Now, don't begin to get the impression that I'm masquerading as some psycho vegan Liberal who works for Green Peace, because that's totally beside the fact. If you wondering what my political affiliation is its republican. So there haaaa, I support a group that likes the hunt, outdoors, and fishing... and is sometimes brilliant enough to shoot your own campaign sympathizer.

I'm really curious as to what is so fun in taking down such a majestic animal like a polar bear or zebra with a high powered rifle? Okay, so maybe I haven't experience this sort of thing before, but does the animal even have a chance against your 10x50 Bushnell on your .22/250 or 30/06 with ceramic tipped rounds? I realize taking down game of this variety takes a well place shot or sometime more, but the last time I checked gazelles didn't have 30mm rockets mounted on their backs or roloway monkeys with lazer grip mounted glocks. There maybe risk involved, but I find that sort of hard to believe from 100 or 200 yards out well armed. Or how about your thermal imaging game finder or monocular night vision system? Okay, so maybe your the crocodile dundee type who hunts old school with something like a smith and wesson .357 or better yet, just your old kabar you bought when you one day dreamed of being in the Marines. I am not going to disagree that it would be intense stalking a water buffalo in head high brush knowing they are within 50 yards and could gore you to death with a subtle shift in the wind.

But did you ever consider a prey that would be far more exhilirating to take down. One that thinks like you, hunts like you, and is perhaps armed like you? You know who I am talking about, that's right... man. You probably think I'm a sadistic freak by now, but I strongly believe there are other ways to enjoy nature than man having to assert authority in such an appalling way. If polar bears are becoming so overpopulated and tearing through your trash at home or threatening the Caribou or Elk herds in Northern Canada that's only the way man percieves erratic /chaotic nature of the natural world. As man has become domesticated through evolutionary processes, we have lost a sense of appreciation for the continual struggle for what survival requires. When we are stripped of stripped of the tools and machines of modern day with which we have become dependent we are nothing more than fragile creatures like all animals. In my humble opinion, I firmly believe that taking down a big game or endangered species for the sole purpose of sustenance, utilizing the entire animals entrails can be justified. Apex predators or endangered species are a small part of a big picture called biodiversity. Hunters of the poaching variety I guess just don't have any sense of value or respect for the actual integrity of complex ecosystems. I am going stop ranting for now, because I think I have ushered enough of my thoughts out and you probably think I'm just a pot-smoking hippy, nature channel guy. On that note, I'll leave you with one last statement. If I could hunt big game poachers that specifically target endangered animals I would... As cold, sinister, and extremely radical as that may sound, one less of them makes the world a more beautiful place. How can you justify the murder of an endangered animal for simply pleasure or prize?

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

The problem with the polar bears and global warming is something called bio-accumulation. Salmon are hanging out around around port towns like seattle, vancouver and the like, that's where the food hangs out. salmon then travel up north where they are eaten by seals. seals are also coming more south to eat in the summer months. toxins from the ocean are ingested by the salmon, then by the seals and then the bears. salmon are staying around these warm water ports longer because they the water isn't getting as cold as fast. Anyway these polar bears eat all these toxin filled seals and are unable to reproduce, slowly killing all polar bears.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Oh, boy! How did you find your way here? So you think that because you shoot birds that makes you better than anyone else on this site that hunts big game? Last time I checked they are animals too that are in the circle. I do hope you know whatI mean by "the circle". Just because an animal is big, hence the word big game it shouldn't be hunted for food or clothing? You people crack me up! YES YOU PEOPLE. You are the same one's who think it is okay for aboriginal peoples to hunt for food but not a white man. Your the type that is on the fence about hunting in general and I dislike your type more than the other. Oh yeah, I get my rocks off big time huntingpolar bear with a 22/250 or a 30/06 and my super high power Bushnell scope LOL. You are definitly not a hunter of any sorts. I hunt for food90% of the time. I amenjoying nature when I'm out there just like you doaccept sometimesI have a bow, rifle, shotgun or my muzzle loader. I also spend just as much time outdoors not hunting!Here isthe onlygood point you brought up
Quote: When we are stripped of the tools and machines of modern day with which we have become dependent we are nothing more than fragile creatures like all animals.
In that sentence you admitted we are just like the bear, the wolf or the deer. So why can't I assert my God given hunting skillsjust like the other animals? Do you see anything wrong when a lion eats animpala? Did he assert his authority in such an appalling way? Would it make a difference ifI cut myself off from civilization, lived in thebush and lived in a house made of logs?I can't believeI wasted the time to even write this having todefendother hunters as well as myself.
Man your a hypocrite just like the rest of them! NOW BE GONE

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Like HUNTINGLIFE said, everybody needs to stop using the animals as the poster childrenfor the real problem. Pollution, global warming ect ect ect is the real cause. Its getting so bad that even the fish insome of the riversnear my house can't reproduce because of the high levels of birth control meds showing up in the sewer plants that aren't set up to filter that stuff out! Or Fish and game book every year for the past several years states that you shouldn't eat fish from my area's water ways!

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Wonder who they blamed for Global Warming when the Wooly rhinos and Mamoths died off due to climate change.Species have come and gone since the beginning of time.The present arctic used to be jungle etc.......There is no polar bear shortage.The Inuit are alotted so many tags to do with as they see fit,so they charge $20G or so per hunt to help fund their issolated communities.Don't forget northern Russia and greenland also has polar bears.This is nothing more than political knee jerking using the polar bear as a pawn.Kinda like the baby seal crap.Clearcut logging has removed natures filter for cleaning the environment and as usual money sadly is more important .It always amazed me when US residents could legally head north and shoot a polarbear but then could not bring the hide home.I thought CITIES had dropped this a while back?Anyone know more about this..........Harold [see www.polarbearhunting.net ]in Canada's NWT

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I do not believe that Alaskan Inuit can sell their polar bear tags to non-Inuits. Polar bears are strictly protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)of 1972. For the puroposes of this law polar bears are considered marine mammals just like whales, dolphins and seals and may not be killed anywhere under U.S. jurisdiction. Even if Alaska wasabsolutely over-run with polar bears they could not be hunted without a change in the MMPA. There was a provision in the law that allowed Native Alaskans (Inuit) to take a limited number of bowhead whales, polar bears, seals and walruses per year for subsistance and cultural reasons. Only Inuit are allowed to hunt and all the products of all animals taken must beconsumed within the Inuit community and not sold outside the Inuit community. If the Inuit were allowed to sell any of theseproducts outside the Inuit community, the U.S. Government would open itself to charges of hypocracy from Japan, Norway and Iceland. Our position is that our subsistance huntingby aboriginal peoples is fundamentally different from the type of whaling that Japan, Norway and Iceland engage in and therefore is not inconsistent with our opposition to whaling by those three countries.

Since I see no evidence that the U.S. is prepared to compromise on the MMPA, I do not see what the point would be of making poar bears a threatened or endangered species.

Caldoc

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I'm in Canada, andsome Innuit villages are alloted tags and act as guides for the hunters.If you like to go traditional they will take you in a dog sled . Forget the Gore-tex ,caribou skin is warmer and this is also available.Hunts were run through Cabelas once upon a time.........Polar bear liver is so toxic they won't even feed it to the dogs.Harold

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

There are currently 11 areas in Canada where you can hunt polar bear and still import your trophy into the United States. If this legislation passes you will still be allowed to go and hunt Polar Bear in those areas but you will no longer be able to import your pelt back into the United States! There is currently no place in the United States where you can hunt Polar Bear unless you are in the Inuit tribes in Alaska. Polar Bears are a part of their subsistence hunting rights and they use every part of the bear in their tribes.

The USF&WS has no control over foreign countries so Canada will still allow hunting because the numbers of Polar Bears is increasing in most areas. The polar bear is being used by the environmentalists to stop hunting, but also to regulate greenhouse gases across the entire United States.

The Center for Biological Diversity has voluntarily dismissed its original suit in federal district court due to the USF&WS completion of stage two of the listing process in late December as agreed. The Center has now filed a new suit. The new suit is under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the National Environmental Policy Act and is a harbinger of what is to come. It is directed at enjoining all oil drilling operations in Alaska that may impact polar bear and walrus in the entire Beaufort Sea.

This is an all out war and if the USF&WS allows this listing it will tie them up in paperwork and be the death of the agency!

I want something done by congress in a bi-partisan way to fix this issue as they are responsible for listening to all options and coming up with a national plan and legislation that is workable for our entire country. I do not believe allowing a small minority of radical environmentalists in San Francisco to set national policy and I do not want our hunting rights to have anything to do with that legislation!

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I get a kick out of the new "fawns" that show up in little groups and suddenly take the same eco-extreme view on these topics. Did you all come over from "green peas" [sic] or "peta" together?

There are many times more Polar Bears today than there were 60 years ago! They aren't endangered. Also, they said building the Alaskan pipeline in the 70's was going to "destroy" the Caribou by interferingwith their migration. Guess what? Caribou have thrived in the years since it was built including calving cows finding the slightly warmer area immediately around it good for calving.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

You crack me up. I suppose those poor little birds you hunt have a chance against your 12 gauge semi-auto loader with fiber sights after your high dollar bird dog goes on point to tell you where that poor little bird is hiding![:o]And "ceramic tipped bullets", you obviously don't havea clue as to what your babblein'! Maybe you should buy a griz tag, be sure to buy a tag and hunt the coastal bears since they're bigger, in AK and take your 22-250 up there with some ceramic tipped bullets, make sure to get the "explosive ceramic tips" and see how much of a chance you stand and getting eatin'![8D]

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

A lot of these "doom and gloom" stories are based on the theory of global warming. If you listen to the ones with vested intrest in that theory, you would get the impression that everything is going to come to an end in the next few decades the way they play it up.

The whole thing is based on what appears to be a slight 1 to 2 degree increase in the average temp of the world. Half of this increase happened before around1940. But how do they come up with these numbers?

One source is from weather reporting stations spread all across the world. Some of these stations have been around for 50+ years but most for less than that. Some of these stations were built in the middle of nowhere way back when but are now in the middle of suburbia or even in town. Now maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that towns and cities are generally warmer than rural areas, has the data taken that into account? Also the fact that many of these stations have only been in existance for maybe half a century or less, they can only account for the last 50 or so years worth of data.

Older data came from fewer locations and was based on measurement devices that were capable of less precision than what is available today. Therefore the accuracy of the increase in avg temp is based on data that may or may not be comparable in the small increments that are being passed around.

Even if the data is correct on the increases, what can the government really do? Some say we need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we emit. Given that best estimates of the amount of CO2 humans generate is in the 4 to 6 percent of the total, I would submit there is little that humans could do to reduce that in a significant enough way to produce any meaningful results. As it is the best estimates of man's contribution to the supposed increases is around .07 degrees, a reduction of CO2 by us would result in a statisticly insignificant reduction.

The carbon level in the atmosphere is somewhere around 380 parts per million, but data derived from ice core samples and other forensic data indicate that CO2 levels have been as high as 1200+ppm in the past, Other data indicates that the average temp has been as much as 5+ degrees warmer than it is now. It also indicates that the CO2 levels trailed the temp increases and were therefore a result of the temp increases, not the cause. BTW, plants do very well when the CO2 levels are above 1000ppm and would generate more oxygen and benefit the ecosystem in the process.

What it comes down to is that any warming that is taking place is just the result of a normal and known cycle that has repeated itself many times in the past and will probably do so again in the future. Man has little to do with it and therefore has little he can do about it. One thing about climate, it is always changing and will continue to do so and everything affected by it will have to change and adapt as well. Of course if you listen to PETA, all the animals out there cause more "GW gasses" thanall our cars combinedso I suggest we open up the hunting seasons and thin some more out and do our part to reduce global warming.:)

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I am no expert and not claiming to be one but 25,000 bears does not seem like much worldwide. Even though it may be more than there were 50 years ago it still seems a bit thin.

Personally I don't have strong feelings either way but I'd like to make sure that whatever happens it happens in such a way that the population continues to grow.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Hunting in Nunavut only the old males are being taken which prevents them from attacking the females and cubs alone protecting the entire species. These animals are very closely managed and hunting is a very very small part of the animals normal mortality. That being said, Hunters make up the bulk of conservation dollars that are spent on this animal!

Kevin

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

dmurphy317
Well spoken! I'm glad there are still some clear, critical thinking people like you willing to set the record straight! There are so many inconsistencies about this "global hysteria", just of few of which you mentioned.
There is much evidenc that approximately every1500 years peaks in solar activity is what is driving the correlated slight upward global temperature changes. This in turn does cause some additional ice melt, which CO2 is locked in and is released. So, the alarmists really have the correlation backwards (cause and effect).
Good news is that once Sun spot activity ebbs, temp. on Earth slowly drops. As you stated the cases we know from animals that only live in much warmer climates that once live much farther North in Russia, N. America and Europe that died off when temperatures dropped after one of those warm period of which there have been many before man was around in any number.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I am still trying to picture GW with his drilling rig out drilling holes all over the west:D. Some folks have a lot of wide open spaces between their ears.;)

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I am still trying to picture GW with his drilling rig out drilling holes all over the west:D. Some folks have a lot of wide open spaces between their ears.;)

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I love how you Libby's show up periodically, throw a jab & then go into hiding.....weasel [:@]

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

I'm always amazed of the ignorance of those who mouth the words and replay the video of the "chicken little" global alarmists. They love to show the glaciers pushing off into the sea, crashing down. This is supposed "proof" that "global warming" real and is making the glaciers all disappear. Though there may be some isolated glaciers that are shrinking, this often played video is direct evidence that those glaciers shown are GROWING!. A shrinking mass of ice starts shrinking at the lowest elevations first and works its way to higher elevations. A growing glacier continues to grow the size, weight and so movement pushing more blocks of ice of at it's terminal end, often the sea. That's basic physics and common sense.

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Is there such a thing as ceramic tipped bullets?:eek:

RE: Polar Bears Comments needed!
 

Good Grief! I rarely post anything on these forums but this topic is getting out-of-hand. I spent 2 weeks last November, living among the Inuit, and took a 9 foot Polar Bear. Here are some facts, interpret them as you will: 1) When the Canadian biologist ( Canada sets the quotas for Bear harvest) "Blessed" the trophy so that it could be moved from the Village, he said: " You're fortunate. It looks like the U.S. may stop the importation of these trophies. It amazes me how much more you yanks know about the numbers of bears and their health than we, who live among them, do." 2) My trophy has been imported into the U.S. and is currently at my taxidermist. 3) According to a CNN special on Global Warming, If you do a Google search on climate data, you find that temperature rise LEADS, not lags, CO buildup. Now there's an "Inconvenient Truth". Granted the media is not always the most reliable in their reporting, but keep in mind that CNN is certainly left-of-center, politically. If this statement had come out of Fox news, which is right-of center, I would not have been nearly as surprised.

Again, just some facts, interpret them as you will