Polar Bears
 

There is some good news in the New York Times this morning about polar bear population. We sometimes forget how durable nature is when you give her half a chance. I could go into a convoluted dicussion of how we can defend natural systems using a property rights construct but I'd rather just note a success. :) Ecotourism really can be a boon for weak economies that creates an incentive for conservation.

Those TV shows about the bears and Churchill claimed when there was no ice the bears went hungry.
I suppose the tradeoff of more tourism means an increase of a different food supply. :mg:

I was pushing for Badnarik until I read his philosophy on open borders. Good stuff with the polar bears, though. Once you get past the thing of them eating people if they have the chance the big things are just so darned cute. Thanks, Griff.

ya why not man
 

eek gods man polar bears are camfoflagued and dangerous to ignorant peoples,give them some meds and tranqs to keep them happy and non threatening

Gonzo, have you met Mary_Jane_and_Me? Just wondering if he was your cribmate :rolleyes:

Er, yeah, Gonzo. Ever notice how threatening PEOPLE are to people? I never did like the looks of the guy down the street. :worried:

I say let's put tranquilizers in the water supply. If they can put flouride in it, what's a few valiums, in addition?

Naw, I think you were being sarcastic but drugging them into traquility would kill the tourism.
If they weren't dangerous, you might as well go see them in the zoo, rather than spending a bunch to travel north.
;)

I'm going to wait until Gonzo can type, capitalize, and then think in an organized manner. Then I'll talk to him.

Don't hold your F-ing breath!

I'm not. I can wear blue with conviction, but not in the face. ;)

Mmm.... fucking....

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Three environmental groups are suing the U.S. government to force consideration of whether polar bears are a threatened species, saying rising global temperatures threaten to kill off the Arctic predators.

but I thought the Times just said...
The chief reason for the rise is probably restrictions on hunting (for which conservationists deserve credit). In this village of fewer than 200 residents, Mr. Kalluk and the other hunters are limited each year to three dozen bears, which they allocate by drawing names out of a hat.

But the increase might also be related to the recent warming, which could be helping bears in some places. After all, the bears have thrived in warmer climates than today's. In the 1930's, the Arctic was as warm as it is now, and in the distant past it was even warmer.

That's the crux of my problem. Listening to all these environmental "experts", I hear statements that obviously come from the same data with different spins, "facts" that I'd have to spend the rest of my life verifying and theories from left field.

I've decided that every stinking one of them has an axe to grind so I treat them like politicians. Assume they're lying, or at least exaggerating, to some degree and try to apply some common sense to their predictions.

Whatever, I'm not allying with any of them for any campaign simply because I don't trust them. :headshake

xob - you really should read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It addresses the very points you bring up. You won't look at environmental (or any other) groups the same way.

Articles on Polar Bears from The Sunday Times, The Age, and The Wall Street Journal.
They all cover the same points;
1- The artic is warming.
2- Historically the artic warms and cools in 40 year cycles.
3- Polar Bears suffer during the warming cycles.
4- They don't know what the population was before the 1980s.
It appears that some groups are trying sway our thinking by giving us a frantic play-by-play of events that happen over our lifetimes.
Other groups are trying to convince us that nothing is happening in the great white north that hasn't happened before.
Methinks the truth is somewhere in between........but where? :unsure:

SNAFU.