What is Digg?130 Comments
- unbrooken007, on 06/15/2008, -6/+78Thats a biased title if I've ever seen one.
- slapshot24, on 06/15/2008, -6/+64Bad headline. "To annoy" makes it sound like they have permission to intentionally harass the bears. Nothing in the new regulations allows anybody to intentionally harass or attack the bears.
- WatchDogX, on 06/15/2008, -3/+40Oil Worker: Your mother is so fat you have to roll over twice to get over her.
Polar Bear: GRRRR slash maim
*Oil worker dies* - jhelmer, on 06/15/2008, -7/+41From the article:
There is no evidence of a polar bear being killed by oil and gas activities in Alaska since 1993, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Since 1960, when the hunt for oil and gas began in Alaska, only two fatalities of polar bears have been linked to oil and gas activities in the state, the service said.
So this is what the enviro-nuts are worried about? Do you think maybe they're making too big a deal of this???
I'm all for same conservation and wildlife protection laws, but this is way overboard. - DreamVsPs2, on 06/15/2008, -4/+37Soooooo that's how the polar bears ended up on the LOST Island.
- blurplevtx, on 06/15/2008, -8/+34My polar bear likes $1.34/gallon gas, he told me so. He also said only you can prevent forest fires, must be a bear thing.
- delta013, on 06/15/2008, -5/+28In Soviet Russia, polar bear annoys you!
- andy314159pi, on 06/15/2008, -2/+24Here is how they got permission:
"We 'd like to napalm all of the polar bears in the entire arctic" - oil company
"Could you just shoot at a few of them to send the rest of them a message" - FWS
"Okay we'll just shoot the ones that we find in Alaska and club their babies" - oil company
"How about you just shoot the ones that approach your facilities" - FWS
"Jesus, all of you f---ing regulators are destroying our business. But okay, we'll agree to that" - oil company
"we sure saved a lot of Polar Bears today gentlemen" -FWS - palehorse864, on 06/15/2008, -2/+19The headline reads like an article from The Onion.
- DeviantDragon, on 06/15/2008, -3/+17The title may be biased but the choice of the word "annoy" instead of "harm," "harass," "molest," "disrupt," or anything else with stronger language really puzzles me. It's probably the least loaded word that could've been used to get us all angry about polar bear injustice. What I think of when I think of annoying polar bears is standing right next to it with our finger an inch away from it's head and saying, "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you! Neener, neener, neener." Then maybe we'll scratch our nails on blackboard and sing off-key constantly.
- inactive, on 06/15/2008, -2/+13Are you slow? Hard of seeing? No comprendo english? Here it is again, I want you to read it at least 3 times before hitting one key on that keyboard.
"There is no evidence of a polar bear being killed by oil and gas activities in Alaska since 1993, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Since 1960, when the hunt for oil and gas began in Alaska, only two fatalities of polar bears have been linked to oil and gas activities in the state, the service said."
Those special exemptions were made to protect them from people like YOU who clearly base their opinions and actions 100% from their own hair-brained emotions without ever letting logic have a turn. To keep frivolous lawsuits away from the brave guys who have to go in to that hell hole just so we can secure our own source of energy. So they have one less thing to worry about (whether or not they'll face repercussions for defending themselves from a polar bear in the EXTREMELY rare case they become a threat)
Honestly, if you asked me before tonight, I would say those exemptions would be totally worthless and that you would have to be one cold hearted dick head to even think about going after them for defending themselves. After reading asinine posts from people like yourself I now see the requirement. Thanks for giving reason for even more red tape. Dick. - Emrtr4, on 06/15/2008, -5/+14Holy *****, oil is at $5 a gallon and you ***** ass hole's are worried that the "big bad oil companies" might hurt one-when they have a track record of never hurting any in history? For God's sakes, the Eskimos' kill more polar bears than the "big bad oil companies" and you environment nuts don't go crazy and call for wind fall profit taxes on all of their income.
Digg, guess what-America has 4 times the oil of Saudi Arabia, but we can't drill off gulf coast because of government laws, we can't drill in Alaska (Oh yea, wouldn't want to hurt a caribou; the irony of which is that the heat of the Valdez pipeline increased the Caribou population), and we can't remove oil shale from the rocky mountains.
No, we need "green solutions." Well then you bunch of dopes, how about you let us build a new nuclear ***** power plant? Or you morons allow us to import sugar ethanol (which is almost 3x more efficient than corn ethanol) from Brazil-of course the Democratic congress made that illegal....
Oh right, we wouldn't want to end the gas tax-but we want to take oil company profits. Guess what? For every gallon of gas, oil company profits=$.4 cents, US government federal taxes=$.15 cents? Which one would have a greater impact on your bottom line? - chazza125, on 06/15/2008, -10/+18I don't.
- f2droc, on 06/15/2008, -2/+10It's about time someone stands up to these godless killing machines. Titles like these can only embolden the bears.
- Yoda900, on 06/15/2008, -1/+8Who cares if the world economy crashes and thousands of people lose their homes, dreams, and livelihoods? As long as we save the polar bears, everything is A-OK.
- jhelmer, on 06/15/2008, -1/+8Polar bears are not on the watch list because oil companies are harming them - they are there to appease global warming alarmists. It was a cheap political stunt. The oil companies activities haven't hurt polar bears in the past and most likely won't in the future. The oil exploration leases were set up prior to classifying polar bears as threatened. This basically just says that that stupid new classification should not nullify the agreements that have already been made.
- MasterChi, on 06/15/2008, -1/+8You mean extinct...they are already endangered I believe.
- ChingKing, on 06/15/2008, -8/+15It sure does suck when you're looking for oil and your gun accidently goes off hitting a polar bear between the eyes.
- Troy64, on 06/15/2008, -2/+8They were put on the endangered species list because of the potential danger of global warming. There are more polar bears now than 20 years ago do to hunting restrictions.
- cliffzdude, on 06/15/2008, -0/+6Or forest fires started by drunk rednecks lighting their farts. I hate it when that happens.
- ryandlysmom, on 06/15/2008, -4/+10thank God someone is actually growing some balls.....they are freaking bears we are humans. all of you libbys need to get over the animal thing. gas is crazy because of freaky environmentalists who care more about animals than they do the human race. i love how the article talks about global warming as it is fact. gotta love what this world is coming too. and yes I know I sound amazingly smart.
- ridestp, on 06/15/2008, -29/+34Good. The more oil we find and suck from the earth, the (hopefully) lower gas prices will go. Who cares about a few polar bears?
- Anzat, on 06/15/2008, -0/+5Yeah, and on a site that's supposed to be a bastion of unbiased, objective reporting!
- numb, on 06/15/2008, -1/+6"Companies get OK to molest polar bears." fixed.
- soubriquet, on 06/15/2008, -3/+7
The title is admittedly loaded, but the regulations (which actually matter) are slanted in the opposite direction.
Unfortunately, the USFWS's historically-based assessment of non-risk (even assuming its claims and data are correct) don't address the true risks here, including (at least):
1) increased magnitude of potential harm compared to prior years (the bears in question represent nearly 10% of the known surviving population); and
2) decreased available habitat from melt-off, likely forcing congestion (and possible ongoing population concentration) compared to prior years (I've read that there were no recorded human fatalities by mountain lions in California from 1910 to 1993, but there's been at least three since then -- and multiple additional attacks -- as boom-induced sprawl has encroached on and constricted the cats' home range; a blemish-free past, even extant, hardly guarantees a healthy future).
*IF* any exploration activity is going to take place in this area, it needs to be better thought out, more carefully regulated with better oversight, and considered in light of the bears' threatened status (rather than rushed into place just ahead of that determination, like these leases were). - Tyrghast, on 06/15/2008, -1/+5Just going off the title but I'm sure Dwight Schrute could tell you all the kinds of hurtin' that can come from annoying a bear...
- CColtManM, on 06/15/2008, -2/+6I agree. Also, the opening line "the bush administration" which has nothing do with Bush. (Aside from picking these idiots)
People are using the Bush Administration as a blanket term these days. The guy deserves the bad rap he's getting, but first lines like this are not justified, even though they are literally correct. - inactive, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4depending on the gun that is more likely to just piss the bear off. Small arms fire does not do much to a bear, and based on national geographic footage they are scared of machinery noises, there was one scene where they wanted to tranq and tag a polar bear and it kept running from the helicopter making it difficult at best. Something about loud unfamiliar noises and a survival instinct. But the article reads like they will hear this stuff and run directly towards it, something most animals in nature wont do.
- away8907, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Yes. It does.
- woofers07, on 06/15/2008, -2/+6if by "populations are at a high" you mean "just recently put on the endangered species list" then yeah.
- whyufail, on 06/15/2008, -2/+5It's greed when we have many many other options that work perfectly well, yet we choose the most destructive and wasteful of them because it makes more money.
- inactive, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3you'd be a brave man trying to molest a polar bear
- inactive, on 06/15/2008, -3/+6estimates of anwr, california coast and the gulf area, both of which largely cant be tapped currently under federal law, indicate that the US could go 30 years of oil 39 years of natural gas with no imports at current levels.
Given the state of technology, that should be more than enough time to come up with alternatives, while droping global demand by 20-25% (the 40% consumption is a false statistic globally, its 40% of the top 12 oil consumers, 20-25% of the globe, coincidentally the US is 20-25% of the global economy, coincidence?)
Of course the problem, and the stated reason why clinton rejected anwr, is that it takes 10 years to actually get production out of the ground. Clinton wanted something that would happen during his term. He rejected the pipeline through Afganistan for the same reason. Regardless assuming the 10 year lead time, and running with the 30 year figure that means that there would be 40 years of US only oil, and a much more balanced trade deficit. That is a long time to develop alternatives. - KaJuN4, on 06/15/2008, -2/+5What about the forest fires started by lighting?
- cl0n3x, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Don't poke the bear.
- suttercain, on 06/15/2008, -4/+7Define "small numbers". Due to the fact there are only 22,000-25,000 polar bear globally, that would already be "small numbers".
- ErrorS, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Yeah, there are major issues with animals destroying ecosystems, whiping out entire species, etc... if you want to get real serious about it, consider that more animals have gone extinct due to the actions of other animals than ones that have gone extinct because of us.
It's evolution and it's the only reason the balance in nature you're seeing exists.. Some predator overpopulates, kills off it's prey, runs out of food and dies off. Or the stronger animal outcompetes the weaker animal causing the weaker animal to die off.. I would bet it has happened millions of times since life has started. - Goallie11, on 06/15/2008, -3/+5damn hippies, thats who.
- CrimsonBlur, on 06/15/2008, -8/+10Just to make something clear here, the title is not really biased. It might be a little funny, but it is in fact totally accurate. Another accurate title would be, "companies get OK to kill polar bears" or to make it more palatable, "companies get OK to kill polar bears (in small numbers)"; not so funny.
Just because they stick the word "incidentally" in there doesn't change the fact that this resolution permits these companies to cause the death of polar bears (an endangered species) without consequences. I mean, what the hell does "small numbers" mean, how and when would that be decided? Since when do we give companies permission to ***** with endangered species so they can seek more profits? Oh, right, when it's OIL companies, that makes perfect sense.
NOTE: OK, so technically they are a "vulnerable species" and not endangered, but it's ***** like this that will put them on the fast track to the endangered list. - KaJuN4, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Warranty void if polar bear is broken?
Nah that just doesn't have the same ring to it. - inactive, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Yeah canada refused to list them because their population is increasing. Interesting eh?
- slvrbullet87, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2acording to nastr... Alaska isnt part of the USA
- humanerror, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Said one Exxon spokesperson,
"Hey mister polar bear, I'm not touching youuuuu! I'm not touching youuuuu! I'm not touching youuuuuuu!" - Metasquares, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Because most of the people writing the comments are stupid? :)
- inactive, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2This is why you're an idiot:
"...they do so in moderation and understand that it is them that have to live within the environment they're using."
No, I'm sorry. They don't. Animals do whatever possible to survive. And to be totally honest, I'd keep that little insight to yourself. If too many people catch wind that you think animals "understand that it is them that have to live within the environment they're using" you might end up in a really soft room with some really nice doctors. Good luck with the whole.. living in a different world then everyone else thing - Sedentary, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3We're ignorant jackasses for objecting to the USFWS, an organization supposedly dedicated to wildlife protection, giving amnesty to seven oil companies so they can deal with any polar bears unfortunate to cross their paths however they please. Yet you, obviously a paragon of wisdom, refer to the indigenous people of Alaska as Eskimos. Guess what imbecile? Eskimo is a slanderous term. It literally means "blubber eater". It would be the same as using a racial epithet in this country to address someone that is Jewish or Islamic. They are properly known as Inuit. So before you go off calling people ignorant, it might help your cause if you didn't flaunt your own ignorance so brazenly.
- inactive, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3Canada refused to put polar bears in canada on the watched list, something about increasing populations.
What is more interesting is that in 2007 it was stated that oil prices have to exceed $100/barrel to make solar cost effective. A year later oil prices doubled from $60-70 to $130 and change. Gas prices at the pump didnt double during that time, infact they only went up 35% or so. Hmm. maybe it is speculation that is increasing the price. But why?
Certainly some investors are doing it just for profit, but the surge in prices seems interesting, especially given that this doubling occured at an election year, and that there are many well funded green groups that have publicly advocated making gas super expensive just to get people to stop using it.
I guess if the prices go down dramatically in 2009 it can be said that it was probably political, I do know that after an announced probe into illegal price manipulation there was a greater than 10% fall in the price as investors bailed out. However I almost suspect that there might be multiple groups abusing this for different ends unknown to each other. Profiting at the expense of average people who now have to make a choice between food and being able to goto work. - Blandyman, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4Right, when it's oil companies.
Because you don't need Coca-Cola to survive, but oil is almost essential to our lives. I know I sure as ***** couldn't make it to work if it weren't for oil (20 miles on bike at 3 in the afternoon in Miami? ***** you.) - inactive, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Dont wanna annoy the blood thirsty beast? well then drill in America and off shore. Makes LOGICAL SENSE???????
- ironsam, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2I am pretty sure there will be more a year from now due to procreation and the unlikelihood of this actually causing many fatalities.
Punch yourself in the head, you sound retarded, Retardo. -
Show 51 - 100 of 130 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is