digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at thedailygreen.com

Bush Administration Lists Polar Bears as Threatened Species

thedailygreen.com — After months of delay, the Bush Administration will list polar bears as a threatened species and is establishing rules for preventing extinction of the Arctic icon in an era of global warming.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • flogistan, on 05/15/2008, -4/+34This is really going to piss colbert off.
    • topbravo, on 05/15/2008, -4/+10 Reed Hopper, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

      Although Secretary Kempthorne stated he was compelled to list the polar bear as a "threatened" species because of the "inflexibility" of the Endangered Species Act, the opposite is true. Rather than compel the listing of a thriving species that is already protected, the Endangered Species Act prohibits such a listing.

      Although some subpopulations have declined with increasing temperatures, the species overall has grown to the largest population levels in recorded history (1970s there were only 5,000 polar bears now in 2007 there are 25,000). Additionally, due to other laws, international treaties, and strict conservation measures, the polar bear is already among the most protected species in the world. No wonder Dale Hall, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, tesified in congress that the listing would provide "very little added protection." Secretary Kempthorne echoed that opinion while announcing his listing decision. According to the Secretary, the ESA will provide no greater protections than are already afforded the polar bear under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Secretary Kempthorne also pointed out that the listing would not address the very threat he cites for the listing in the first place: "[T]he listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting."

      It is also telling that the Canadian government, which oversees 14 of the 19 polar bear populations, has not listed the bear as "threatened" or "endangered." As for computer models of future events, on which the Secretary rests his case, they are by definition speculative and error prone as evidence by one model that was critizied by researchers at Wharton and Harvard for "extrapolat[ing] nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of only five years data" which itself was of "doubtful validity."

      Rather than compel the listing, based on these facts, the Act prohibited the listing.


      • EtherGnat, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Increases in polar bear populations since the '70s can be tied primarily to the 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, which limited their wholesale slaughter. It should come as no surprise that polar bear populations increased after decades of being hunted nearly to extinction. I have no idea if polar bears need to be listed as threatened, but the increasing polar bear population over the last few decades doesn't mean what many people seem to think.

        Also many people claim the new regulations will create significant burdens. If they "provide no greater protections than are already afforded the polar bear" as Secretary Kempthorne claims, though, I fail to see how this can really be the case.

        Just food for thought.
      • 11oops, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1What does any of that have to do with the comment you responded to?
      • archiesteel, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4"1970s there were only 5,000 polar bears now in 2007 there are 25,000"

        Figures before the 1980s are unreliable due to the scarce data collected in such a vast territory. There's little reason to believe that the population quadrupled between the 70s and the 80s (where population was estimated at 20,000).

        Even today it's hard to get an accurate number for the total population. What is obvious, on the other hand, is that dwindling sea ice has affected polar bears, who have been forced to hunt more on land, leading to increased contact with humans.
    • cawpin, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Buried. Less than a day, people, less than a day.

      http://digg.com/pets_animals/US_lists_the_Polar_Be ...
  • gr33k, on 05/15/2008, -19/+7I can't believe it takes a monkey administration to make people see that this awesome animal is endangered, and probably has been endangered for years, regardless it's about ***** time
    • lordmetroid, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5Never been endangered and isn't now except for in USA where there are none, *gasp*!
  • keltin, on 05/15/2008, -21/+15What a crock of *****. There are more animals now than there have been for over 20 years. Billy K and his group didn't list it then, and now there are over 20% more of the creatures. Hell, just paint em brown and you've just got another big ursine.
    • matschig, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4Teddiursa actually evolves into Ursaring.
    • topbravo, on 05/15/2008, -7/+1525,000 now compare to 5,000 in the 70's

      • topbravo, on 05/15/2008, -6/+7Go ahead and digg me down for the truth... You guys are the ones who are being taken advantage of...
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/15/2008, -0/+525,000 on a territory larger than your country.

          And there are many degrees of endangerement. They are listed as vulnerable.

          The categories are:
          Extinct (EX)
          Extinct in the Wild (EW)
          Critically Endangered (CR)
          Endangered (EN)
          Vulnerable (VU)
          Near Threatened (NT)
          Least Concern (LC)
          Data Deficient (DD)
          Not Evaluated (NE)
        • EtherGnat, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Yes, there are more polar bears now. Why? Because of other conservation efforts and regulations. I'm sure you would have been against those, as well. If it were up to people like you, the polar bear would likely already be extinct.
        • archiesteel, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Topbravo, the population figures from the 70s (5,000) are extremely unreliable, certainly not reliable enough to base your argument on them.
      • Seventus, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Amur Leopards are going extinct. "The critically endangered Amur Leopard (Panthera pardus orientalis or Panthera pardus amurensis) is possibly the rarest subspecies of leopard in the world with estimates of between 25 to 34 known individuals remaining in the wild." That's down 80% since the 70's
    • nick111, on 05/15/2008, -2/+11I think if you try to find a proper cite for that you'll find it isn't true.

      I don't get you people... how much of a dumb ***** do you have to be to be anti-environment?


      • topbravo, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1front page of this... you ***** waffle


        http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/
      • gogotruck, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5We're not anti-environment, we're realistic. If you look at the data the hottest year on record was 1998. We've been colder since then. Also if global warming is real then where are the palm trees in my back yard? I live in SD and we froze our a$$es off from January all the way to March. And like the guy above me said there are 5x more polar bears now than in the 70's. How can they be on the endanger species list when they've grown in numbers?
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2So many, many things wrong in such a small comment.

          That 1998 being the hottest year on record dates to... 1998.
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

          Palm trees... sigh. They'll be there in a few hundred years if your backyard isn't underwater.

          There are 5x more polar bears because Canada has been protecting them since the 70's.

          They are endagered species because they are vulnerable: their habitat is being destroyed and their reproduction is becoming increasingly more difficult. And 25k bears is still very small.
    • archiesteel, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1The only reason people say there are more polar bears today than in the past is that surveys from the 1950s and 1960s were apparently based on explorers' and hunters' testimonies, and not on any actual scientific studies.

      Some of the polar bear populations are increasing while other are declining. One thing is for certain: many polar bears have been driven south to find food as the ice cover keeps retreating, and there have been increased contacts with human-populated areas (with all that this entails).
  • Canadian0207, on 05/15/2008, -2/+12i feel this was just on digg
    • Argentian, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3De Ja try to whip one past vous...but they weren't able to, were they?
      • Canadian0207, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1were you supposed to be saying that in a french accent?
  • republicker, on 05/15/2008, -10/+15All in a bid to keep gas at record prices. ***** scumbags
    • EtherGnat, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3If we were to drill in the ANWR region it would increase worldwide oil production by about 0.3%. Explain to me how that's going to have a significant impact on prices again? It's better to treat that oil as an extension to the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and save it for future needs.
  • displaced1, on 05/15/2008, -12/+16IF OBAMA WAS PRESIDENT HE WOULD HAVE.....wait....the media has not reported anything on what Obama would do.

    Yes, political commentary in a Endangered Species article. I went there.
  • krewl, on 05/15/2008, -16/+14Extinction is just part of life. If you look back at all six thousand years of Earths history, you'll notice a pattern.
    • matschig, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4das schtimt
    • Jexie, on 05/15/2008, -4/+42/10, your trolling is too amateur for digg.
    • ncredblstrength, on 05/15/2008, -3/+6You also notice a pattern of rape and violence amongst humans... so is that OK too?
      • krewl, on 05/15/2008, -3/+13I'm sure that on occasion their actions against humans could be considered violent, but I've googled it extensively and have not found a single documented case of a polar bear raping a human.
        • Argentian, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Oh, what a krewl, krewl world...at least it'd be a lot more humorous. Thanks for the spouted coffee. Now, if I can just be sure I cleaned it out of the keyboard before I typed this reply...
        • floorman56, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Why do Polar Bears like igloos ? ..Crunchy outside ...soft and gooey inside
      • sup3rnautx, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1dayam....^^^ man said it very well. we are not simply living in nature where we are effecting and BEING AFFECTED by the environment and other organisms(significantly, i mean). society has been able to transform nature into "order." its convenient to play off massive extinctions as "normal" and "cyclical," but in reality, our impact is far more reaching than we understand. the recent loss of biodiversity is astonishing in that it is happening so rapidly, all over the world.

        more people = less space. for everyone. and everything.
        • Argentian, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Folks, the diversity of bio-organisms in the world is highly affected and directed by the crustal plate patterns in history. What did he say?
          Some of you have heard of Gondwanaland and other super continents when all of the crustal land masses formed one or two really huge land masses. When it was in that pattern, the diversity was pretty darn low.
          The current structure of the continents, lots of north-south linearity that crosses all of the temperature zones from arctic, to temperate to tropical, to temperate, and back to arctic, ensure the greatest diversity the earth has seen for many hundreds of millions of years. This is MEGA-influence of diversity on the earth, and probably the Prime reason for it.
          And we humans have the audacity to think WE are the Primes in influencing diversity...put your head in ice if you think we have that influence - maybe take an aspirin or two and hopefully that bulbous appendage will shrink back to normal size.
      • EtherGnat, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm folks. If it was, it was brilliant. If I'm wrong it's scary.
  • eighties, on 05/15/2008, -11/+14I hear that the Republican Party is also on this list.
    • Jexie, on 05/15/2008, -14/+7Don't even joke about that, nobody wants to save the Republicans.
      • Brownds, on 05/15/2008, -4/+8And the Democrats have done what since 2006? Not a damn thing, that must be why they have a 20% approval rating. So I guess that would mean our government as a whole is just 1 big limp dick.
        • inigomntoya, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4Oh come on! Nancy Pelosi got them to change the menu in the cafeterias! That and uhmm. Well, this!
        • EtherGnat, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure you can judge much by congressional approval ratings--historically they're almost always lower than the approval rating for the current President. The ratings for congress now are only slightly lower than when the Democrats took a small lead in both houses, and that decline can be attributed to unsurprisingly lower rankings from Republicans.

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approva ...
          • Brownds, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Yes but we voted these clowns in on their promise of changing the direction that we were heading and they have failed to do anything at all. As a matter of fact we are in worse shape now economically then we were in 2006. I don't just blame congress on this but they were hired to do a job and they bend over to the media and our ape ***** of a president.
    • akula89, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4from the phylum neo-conservitus
    • Zippo, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1More like Critically Endangered.
    • Chalesb, on 06/01/2008, -0/+0yeah cause the republican party has been highjacked by liberals
  • uselessexpert, on 05/15/2008, -15/+5ABOUT ***** TIME THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ADMITS TO SOMETHING!!!
    • topbravo, on 05/15/2008, -4/+5they are admitting a lie.
      Which is in line with everything else...

      They shouldnt be in that list at all
      there are more now then ever before in recorded history
  • vanguardanon, on 05/15/2008, -10/+7I wonder why the polar bear population is dropping. I hear it's global warming but that doesn't sit right with me. I would think could climates would start to be more livable as the earth warms, not less. If they said the African dodo bird was dying off because of the heat it would make perfect sense but not the polar bear. Is the habitat really shrinking? Is there less food for it? Is it being hunted by people?

    Why? (The article seemed too biased to use as a source)
    • davdev, on 05/15/2008, -3/+8A polar bear relies on ice to hunt, or more specifically it relies on the seals laying on the ice, or coming up through breathing holes in the ice. No ice, means no seals. No seals, means no food. No food means no polar bears
      • greeniemeani, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1OM NOM NOM NOM
      • texpundit, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Soooo...if most of the ice disappeared, seals would just stay underwater forever? They would *never* come to shore? Polar bears can't live on shore? Polar bears can't hunt seals on shore...only on ice?

        Common sense isn't so common anymore.
        • ConceptualTrap, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Seals are like artic rabbits. Eventually they'll be hurting too, but considering there are so god damned many of them they basically fall into one category statistically: food for other animals.
    • ShempRider, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3They're clumsy.
      http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i107/tkx92net/my ...
    • Henman, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2The 'land' that polar bears hunt on is actually all sea ice. It's melting at a very rapid rate and a lot of it is disappearing all together. That means that they have less room to roam and hunt on so they starve to death or drown trying to swim to find food.
    • topbravo, on 05/15/2008, -3/+6they are not...

      Reed Hopper, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

      Although Secretary Kempthorne stated he was compelled to list the polar bear as a "threatened" species because of the "inflexibility" of the Endangered Species Act, the opposite is true. Rather than compel the listing of a thriving species that is already protected, the Endangered Species Act prohibits such a listing.

      Although some subpopulations have declined with increasing temperatures, the species overall has grown to the largest population levels in recorded history. Additionally, due to other laws, international treaties, and strict conservation measures, the polar bear is already among the most protected species in the world. No wonder Dale Hall, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, tesified in congress that the listing would provide "very little added protection." Secretary Kempthorne echoed that opinion while announcing his listing decision. According to the Secretary, the ESA will provide no greater protections than are already afforded the polar bear under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Secretary Kempthorne also pointed out that the listing would not address the very threat he cites for the listing in the first place: "[T]he listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting."

      It is also telling that the Canadian government, which oversees 14 of the 19 polar bear populations, has not listed the bear as "threatened" or "endangered." As for computer models of future events, on which the Secretary rests his case, they are by definition speculative and error prone as evidence by one model that was critizied by researchers at Wharton and Harvard for "extrapolat[ing] nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of only five years data" which itself was of "doubtful validity."

      Rather than compel the listing, based on these facts, the Act prohibited the listing.
      • 11oops, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2We saw your comment when you hijacked the first thread. No need to repeat yourself endlessly.
      • EtherGnat, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Was it really necessary to post the same comment twice in this thread?
    • uberchaoslord, on 05/15/2008, -3/+6Bears survived through the medieval warm period, when there was less arctic ice than now. Or do you all think they evolved in 600 years from grizzlies or other brown bears? This is leftie nutjob propaganda, pure and simple.
    • Argentian, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3In short - the population of Polar Bears is quite large, and not shrinking, overall.
  • badNetAdmin, on 05/15/2008, -2/+14"Unfortunately, the Administration’s decision is only a half measure - it’s riddled with loopholes and language that could actually undermine protections for the polar bear and other species. And the Administration has made it clear that oil drilling will be allowed in polar bear habitat, despite the listing." Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director
    • topbravo, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1or undermine everything else like business and it can open the door for litigation on things that have not even been proven yet.
    • edebolt, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2once a species is on the protection list then activists can sue the govt for action. Remember the snail darter? It's a good day for Polar bears
    • serif69, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3"And the Administration has made it clear that oil drilling will be allowed in polar bear habitat"
      It's about ***** time. God I hate the Sierra Club. They oppose nuclear energy because they deem it unsafe in spite of evidence to the contrary. They oppose wind energy because it kills birds. They oppose oil drilling because it builds things in natural habitats. They even managed to get a highway off-ramp by me closed because it went by a pond with two box turtles in it, and the traffic might have disturbed the turtles. It's as if they would rather humans live as nomadic hunter-gatherers like we did pre-civilization than actually support any progress.
    • iceperson, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2That might just be exactly what they need. Perhaps you should read up on the moose population explosion around the alaskan pipeline...
  • ncredblstrength, on 05/15/2008, -10/+6My 7 year old niece's administration (a stuffed animal and imaginary friend) listed Polar Bears as "really cute," "totally awesome" and "endangered" well over 2 years ago... way to go Bush, can't wait til your term in the White House is extinct
  • sentinel106, on 05/15/2008, -3/+8this article was already on the FRONT PAGE only a few hours ago
    please stop submitting duplicate stories, please
    • EtherGnat, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1This was submitted before the other story made the front page, and the duplicate checker doesn't always work. The system isn't perfect, but it only takes two seconds to skip over a duplicate. It's not a big deal.
  • dafragsta, on 05/15/2008, -6/+4"I like polar bears. hehehehe They munch on liberals who get to close and wanna hug'em 'cus their so cute but they are really vicious like Cheney. Heck I think I wanna hug one right now. Conde! Get me a polar bear sos I can hug it!"
  • x1soundgarden1x, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4I wonder if this has anything to do with the impending land grabs occurring in the arctic to secure the vast oil reserves there as global warming melts the ice caps. Canada, the US, and Russia are already working in the UN and passing laws to expand their coastlines and lay claim to those areas, and I am curious if this Bush administration maneuver has more to do with restricting development in the arctic from those rival countries. Just speculation...but who really thinks this administration gives a sh*t about polar bears after 7 years?
  • junkwheel, on 05/15/2008, -6/+5They should put the GOP down as a threatened species, maybe it would give them a remote chance of having their asses saved.

    Then again.
  • JJ2K1, on 05/15/2008, -7/+13This is just an agreement made by the elitists of the world to prevent the US from drilling for oil on its own continent to keep us in shackles and chains of the big oil companies. If America was energy independant, Saudis would lose money, and our Federal Reserve would not be collecting such a big peice of interest it collects with the dollar being the unit the oil companies trade with.
    • republicker, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4ding ding ding WiNNER!
    • nick111, on 05/15/2008, -4/+5*****.

      You're a paranoid conspiracy therorist get a grip.
      • crweaks23, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3some conspiracies are ridiculous... this one not so much. I'm not claiming to agree or disagree with JJ2K1, just saying he's not exactly claiming we didn't land on the moon...
    • da_bradler, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Are you ***** serious? They want to drill on a wildlife preserve, what the ***** is the point of having wild life preserves if you are just going to go in there as soon as you find something you can exploit.


      You ***** americans act like the Oil is going to go somewhere if you don't go at it, it's not going anywhere if you can't get it out in a environmentally safe way now there is no harm in waiting a couple hundred years until you can.
    • itsfullofstars, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4I love that gas is hitting "all time highs". I want gas to hit $20 a gallon or higher. I want a full scale revolution on this. It will finally force us lazy Americans to start looking elsewhere for energy sources!!! ***** oil. We should have already been energy sufficient 20 years ago. We missed that boat and here comes the next one.
    • ConceptualTrap, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Or, you know, we could always go towards ALTERNATIVE fuel sources. Drilling in the artic isn't the ***** answer. Feeding the oil industry will just make it bigger, which will mean we'll need to feed it more later on. Give me a ***** solar powered car, take the TRILLIONS that we spend on oil and lets find something environmentally sound and fundamentally free.

      Know why we won't do this? Because it's hard to charge money for the sun.
    • datastorageguy, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Oh I get it. You are the one who figured out a way to allow me to get to work everyday without using gasoline? I am all ears genius! It's easy to criticize and much harder to offer a alternative solution. An economically VIABLE solution please...
      • xNIBx, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Live closer to your work and use a bicycle.
  • dmark77, on 05/15/2008, -7/+3This might be the one positive thing this administration has done.
    • sheep1220, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1"Unfortunately, the Administration’s decision is only a half measure - it’s riddled with loopholes and language that could actually undermine protections for the polar bear and other species. And the Administration has made it clear that oil drilling will be allowed in polar bear habitat, despite the listing." Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director
    • pagalchu, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1No, actually Bush need to put human as threatened species as you creating food shortage. Now correct my English.
      • dmark77, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1No - actually Bush needs to put humans as a threatened species as your creating a food shortage.

        Please correct my English.
  • taradisiac, on 05/15/2008, -6/+2Who cares about polar bears? Sure, they're fluffy and cute but they're useless. If they can't adapt to the environment, good riddance.
  • matador3, on 05/15/2008, -3/+17I'm copy/pasting this comment made by casuallyevil from the last time this story was on the front page.

    Pandering to alarmists.

    "The global population of polar bears is 22,000, about double what it was just four decades ago."
    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/56861

    "On April 24, the World Wildlife Fund published a study, based on last September's data, showing that Arctic ice had shrunk from 13 million square kilometers to just 3 million. What the WWF omitted was that by March the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometers and that the ice cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at the highest level ever recorded."
    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=2 ...
    • da_bradler, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Ok it's not exactly global warming that is killing polar bears, it's destruction of habitat by man moving in, mixed with the extreme air pollution in the north pole which leads to very high birth defects in polar bears. the air is so polluted because a large portion of North Americas pollution travels northwards and stays around the north pole, same with Europe's pollution.
    • Soave, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Thanks for using facts to support your argument. Too many people are like "omg global warming."
  • treeflappa, on 05/15/2008, -3/+11More global warming alarmism. The earth is now cooling and the polar bear is one of the hardiest creature on the planet. It can swim hundreds of miles a day and will rarely go hungry.
  • derek20cali, on 05/15/2008, -3/+8I am glad digg users are able to stay objective on this issue and not bring their rabid hatred for everything Bush into the debate! *eye roll*
    • normalkid0615, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4If I could go back in time and shoot you before you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, I would but too bad
      • derek20cali, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Except I didn't vote for Bush in 2004. Can you wrap your bitter little head around that?
  • pagalchu, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3Isn't human threatened species if there is a food shortage? Aren't we having global food crises?
    • normalkid0615, on 05/15/2008, -4/+1yes but we are above animals. Don't you go to Church? Humans will be saved. I mean white humans will be saved!
    • da_bradler, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4The global food crises doesn't actually exist, there is only a lack of food in select areas and that is because they are to poor and debt riddled not that there is no food. there are only 20,000 polar bears and there is well over 6 billion humans. Our numbers can't just raise infinitely, there eventually will be a leveling off.
    • freedombob, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1no there not, you have just been watching to much fox news.....

      FEAR!!!! they want your soul and your money...... remember that when you step out into society, they do control most of us in clever ways that most people don't see.
  • kgsullivan, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6thanks a lot, sawyer
    • EricAnderton, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Hurley: You didn't hear about the polar bear?
  • woodrow8292, on 05/15/2008, -5/+8Well let's see in 1972 there were 5,000 bears now there are 25,000 + so how is that endangered? Of course people will bash the Bush adm. for not doing this earlier but couldn't you bash ever adm. since 1972 for not doing it? Their population increased 4x's since then. Shouldn't they loose population to be declared endangered?
    • da_bradler, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4Because there was absolutely no protection for animals in the 1970s and prior. Hell even Red Deer almost went extinct before there populations were regulated.

      Humans have killed off a lot of north american species and we nearly killed off a lot more, the only reason the numbers have been going up in the last couple decades is because a couple decades ago is when we finally decided to do something about the problem. But at our current pace we seem to be abandoning our protection of wildlife in favor of quick energy payoffs.
      • woodrow8292, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Let me know how you feel about the wild life in a few months or a year when gas is 10.00 a gallon and you can't afford to drive any where. Then cry about the animals.
  • normalkid0615, on 05/15/2008, -8/+2I wish a polar bear would eat commander-in-douche bush but im afraid the polar bears are too tired and weak :(
  • billywest, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2In Japan and many European countries, the disappearance of polar bears is looked at as one major indicator of the impending disaster that will be brought on by global warming.
  • pogfreak, on 05/15/2008, -6/+7Oil > Polar Bears. Suck it hippies.
    • geddon, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Plastic > Life? God Bless America.
      • pogfreak, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Infrastructure and Economy (which provide food, medicine, and transportation to society) > Animals that are doomed to extinction regardless of human intervention.
    • desertDenizen, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Hippies are counter-cultural. Environmentalism went mainstream a long time ago, dumbass. Get your labels straight.
    • BobScratchit, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Agreed, unless of course they can figure out a way to make my truck run off of polar bears instead of gas.
  • da_bradler, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2Ok it's not exactly global warming that is killing polar bears, it's destruction of habitat by man moving in(plus the melting glaciers), mixed with the extreme air pollution in the north pole which leads to very high birth defects in polar bears. the air is so polluted because a large portion of the united states pollution travels northwards and stays around the north pole, same with Europe's pollution.
    • rowdi907, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0You know I've been to the North Slope of Alaska and I've seen a two-headed birth defected polar bear. I am totally with you let's start a non-profit to save the unborn gay birth defected polar bear. I think we should help them get the right to vote!!! Is that awesome or what?!!
  • Maverick0420, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2Grolar Bears > Polar Bears natural selection and evolution is happening!
    • desertDenizen, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1A liger would kick a grolar bear's ass.
  • EEdesigner, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4Remember 1984 and "Newspeak"? Less is more? We'll, thanks to our lib-O-crats (to whom science is a very dirty word, since so few of them could pass a 101 course in it), more bears mean less bears. Gads, these folks are really, really dense.
  • Enochulator, on 05/15/2008, -2/+5Buried for inaccuracies! "Threatened" has three sub-categories: Vulnerable, Endangered, and Critically Endangered. Polar bears were added to "Vulnerable" sub-category since May of 2006, so polar bears have already been "threatened" for a while.

    http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/05/01/polarbea ...
    • Lukavich, on 05/15/2008, -2/+0Crap, i hit the wrong button! I meant to Digg this comment. These buttons are too small and too close together.

      RIght on man
  • Lukavich, on 05/15/2008, -6/+8F****n dumbasses!

    Wow, how stupid is it to list Polar Bears as 'Threatened' when there numbers have INCREASED drastically over last decade? If any thing, the weather patterns have helped the bears' numbers grow. And there is plenty of land up there to share with the wild life.

    The land needed to drill for oil is 1.05e-4 percent of the total land in ANWAR. Thats pretty damn small if if you ask me. PLUS, the last plan I heard was to use Ice roads to truck out the oil, not pipe lines. Even if they did use pipe lines, they are responsible for the larger Caribou populations in Alaska because the HEAT from the lines helps the animals survive the winters.

    People need to stop acting on whims and research the REAL FACTS before they go and say this crap. "OMG, Polar Bears live in the arctic and the Earth has been been in a warming pattern, that in no way can be a natural climate cycle, so that means they are going to die. We better ruin our economy trying to stop this stuff that I think I know for a fact is going to happen!"
    • EtherGnat, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1"numbers have INCREASED drastically over last decade?"

      Citation? Certain populations of polar bears have increased over the last decade, but others have decreased and I believe the overall numbers have been relatively static over the past decade. Numbers have increased drastically since the '70s, but only because they were protected.
  • Sabs212, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1My beard IS a polar bear.
  • shauncorleone, on 05/15/2008, -5/+7Also threatened: Independent thinkers.
    See: Obama supporters; People who bought everything in Inconvenient "Truth".
    • desertDenizen, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1And people who watch Fox News, dumb *****.
  • Seventus, on 05/15/2008, -4/+4Even if they're 10x or 100x the population it was 30 years ago, the numbers are still very low.
    • BobScratchit, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0How many polar bears would it take to appease you?
  • FuckXboxx, on 05/15/2008, -5/+12Hmmm...this doesn't make any sense. All of the research I've done indicates that polar bear numbers are growing...and global warming is a ***** fraud.
    • UTHTURN, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2haha looks like your actually doing research then :)
    • RangerRickland, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1What kind of background in scientific research do you have? Obviously none at all if you still refuse to believe that our activities have not impacted global climate in some way. Stop pretending that you can argue valid points when you cannot back them up, it makes you seem unintelligent.
      • FuckXboxx, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1So you think that government should invade the lives of all citizens to enforce compliance?

        How else can you control people in the way you desire?

        Let me put it in terms you can understand:

        Satan (George W. Bush) embodies everything you hate. Any normal human being would be opposed to Satan. Here we have a problem...

        Al Gore ran against Satan in 2000 and tried to defeat him. Therefore Al Gore = God...Here we have a reaction.

        To stop Satan, you invest your life and money in God. Here is the solution.

        When the solution is spelled out so simply...who can deny it?

        Have you ever stopped to think that we could possibly be facing a problem that was engineered to create a "solution?"
      • RangerRickland, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0No, I don't think that the government should invade our lives any more than they already have. I never said anything of the sort. What we should be doing is making an effort to be less lazy. Improving our way of life doesn't have to consist of major sacrifices. Simply consuming less stuff is very practical. Incentives are one good way of bringing about change. An example would be my local grocer. For every reusable bag you bring to carry your groceries out, they pay you 3¢. It doesn't seem like much, but it makes a difference. No matter who you are or what you believe in, wasting resources and degrading your quality of life and the environment is just foolish. And by the way, putting things in terms of religion does nothing for me seeing as though I have no religious beliefs. Try that on some fundie.
  • edebolt, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2this will put the kibosh on my Polar Bear sushi/BBQ party I had planned during the football season. Now what? Ostrich egg quiche and coyote burgers? Damn Republicans!!
  • moxley, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Now much more exciting news would be:

    "Polar Bears cause Bush Administration to be listed as "Endangered Species."
  • jjustice, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Luckily, polar bears are fighting back:
    http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008 ...
  • TherealObadiah, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Great, now don't bellyache about high fuel costs or the high cost of food! At least we know the non-endangered polar bears are safe! Must be globull warming, huh?
    "I remember when the climate never changed, and then Bush stole the election."
  • bb112266, on 05/15/2008, -1/+0The only thing threatening is Bush in the White House.
  • dirdum, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Polar bears are not threatened; its a damnable lie!
  • techbrute, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1In Bush's defense, he probably figured you could just bleach some brown bears if something happens to the polar bears...
  • smoothdogg00, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2This is really retarded. Bush this, 'Bush Adminstration' that. Shut up and stop whining. They did it didn't they? Who's to say other administrations wouldn't have the delay? Dumbasses.
  • 9TailedFox, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Why couldn't global warming kill off a useless animal like the platypus, polar bears are awesome!
  • metroidragon, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Alright... what does this have to do with the "Bush Administration"? They were listed as a threatened species, good and rightfully they should be since their habitat is shrinking. However I don't see what that has the current american government or why it needed mentioning.

    "Polar Bears Now Listed as a Threatened Species" Would have sufficed.
    • ghall, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2This is Digg. If it doesn't have the words "Bush" and "Administration" in the title, it's not worth the time.
  • SpeshulEd, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2If polar bears could cross the equator to Antarctica I think they would. I suggest we load half of them on a boat and drop them off down there. Plenty of seals and other num nums for them to eat.
  • banderwocky, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2They should add Republicans to that list as well.
  • CrownG, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0i wonder if they ever going to list the Iraqi people on the threatened species list too!
    sheesh!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.