It looks like the Dept of the Int is doing everything they can to ensure that nothing will be done to protect polar bear habitat (sea ice), but it's WAY better than not listing them, as it appeared they were on target to do. A court ruling 2 weeks ago gave them until tomorrow to announce a decision.
Carl - I would say they are doing everything possible the ensure that these laws aren't used to regulate sea ice totals or climate change. That's fine - they're right, there are more appropriate means to do that (should we ever bother to really use them). At least this shows a lot of acknowledgement that the loss of sea ice threatens the bears.
The comment that bugged me was "Any real solution requires action by all major economies for it to be effective" (and the accompanying paragraph). That's true, but it sounds (to me - speculating here) like the implication is "we aren't doing anything unless everyone else does too". As though there's something wrong with being first or leading the way - half a solution is better than no solution after all.
I found Secretary Kempthorne's statements sickening. The threat isn't 45 years out; it's now. Refusing to use the ESA to protect on-shore areas, to which the bears must come if they are to survive, means the Feds are doing nothing meaningful. Hungry polar bears are already turning up hundreds of miles inland. Because development will continue to be permitted in the coastal zones, man -- bear conflicts will arise, the bears will always lose, and the species will continue to decline. The "decision" to grant the bears "threatened" status under these circumstances is as cynical as the other political hatchet jobs we have seen from this administration.
There seems to be 2 schools of thought on what you've said. Some would argue that a critical function of the ESA is to preserve and protect critical habitat - and if global warming is destroying that, for any species, then the ESA has every responsibility to move in that direction. If it doesn't, then it's just another fancy charade, all the ribbons and balloons, with no real concern.
Your comment about half a solution being better than none is right on. Ever know anyone who suffers a serious illness/inury, etc? Try to suggest to them it's not worth taking steps a, b and/or c because it won't be completely effective and see how they respond. My dad understands full well his heart is never going to be as good as it was, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get out and walk and swim every day, eat well, and take his pills.
Hey Jim,
Actually, I think refusing to protect the off-shore areas, like the Chukchi Sea where they just announced leasing rights for oil extraction, is a bigger threat. Saying that this legislation protects the bears and doesn't restrict development pollution is patently insane.
The Center for Biological Diversity has just issued a Court Challenge to the F&WS, and the diminished protections the polar bear was granted under the ESA. Essentially they're saying the 4(d) rule is lame, and illegal.
FWIW, the polar bear isn't the first species to be listed under the ESA due global climate change. Elkhorn and Staghorn coral, under management of NOAA, were listed in 2005 or 2006, I believe.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 14, 2008 at 12:28 PM
This all brings along an interesting item within the constitution of United States.
Remember, one of the 4 tenets of a "Republic" is the "rule of law." Remember also that any law which violates the constitution is null and void.
Article 1, Sec. 8.17. paraphrased: The people of the states empower Congress to exercise complete jurisdiction and authority over all lands or facilities purchased within a state, providing it shall be with the consent of the legislature of that state. Such lands shall be used for the "erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings."
According to Skousen (ISBN0-88080-017-8), "It would also appear that this provision gives each state the right to assume title to all lands within its boudaries which the federal government is not using for the purposes specified... The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared that all new states would come into the union on a basis of complete equality or equal footing with the original 13 states." This leads to the conclusion that all land within the boundaries of a state would belong to the state. Can you see any of the 13 colonies doing otherwise?
"But Congress did not allow this to happen. When Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803, the government retained title to all of the public lands but assured the people that Ohio would acquire jurisdiction as soon as the lands could be sold to help pay off the national debt. This, then, became the established policy for new states... However, when the territory of the western states was acquired from Mexico, Congress radically digressed from the Constituion by virtually eliminating the sale or disposal of federal lands. The genereal policy was to permanently retain major portions of each of the western states for purposes not listed in the Constituion. This policy resulted in the government becoming the permanent owner and manager of over 35% of the American landmass... The most flagrant example" is found in Alaska where 96% of the landmass is owned by the government.
The points are two: 1) rule of law; the Constitution should have been amended, and 2) power corrupts. Be careful what you wish for; you get more that you bargained for somewhere down the line.
Am I glad we have national parks, etc? You bet. Do I like how they were acquired? Nope.
Folks, if we don't have law the only thing left is arbitrary power.
Polar bears and people will never be safe until the real government, the people, not the bureaucracy, hold that bureaucracy and courts to fundamental ideas and those which legitmately spring from it.
I believe Federalist No. 78 addresses statutes that conflict with the constitution and refers to them as "null and void." Polar bears, without an amendment, should be the responsibility of Alaska. And who could be more proud, those that live among them or those who casually watch them on NOVA?
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... Lord McCauly
PS: I would be interested in hearing from Hank Pennington on this.
the fisch
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Hey Larry,
Perhaps you should read the ESA?
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 14, 2008 at 4:10 PM
OK, Carl, you got me. What is "the ESA"??
the fisch
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 14, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Hey Larry,
Oh nothing - it's only the crux of this subject. :)
I ain't gunna do your homework for you, bro. You got some readin' to do.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Could not find you e-mail, Carl.
Send me one and I'll send Whiskey and Gunpowder article. It is pleasantly blunt.
the fisch
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 14, 2008 at 4:52 PM
OK, endangered species act. Wow, that was tough.
Carl, you tend to dance too much. Iron sharpens iron and one man sharpens another.
You have good points but you lose with remarks like the former. Either get serious and help a fellow seeker when asked, or keep the one oar you have in your boat.
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 14, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Hey Larry
I'm sorry ..I was half in jest. Seriously, though .. the ESA is the crux of much of the content of this discussion.
Me, dancing? I've written at length, if not too much, here Larry. I'm hardly dancing.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Carl,
Went to your portfolio. Nice shots.
Have you ever been on the S.Fk. Koyukuk R.? Cleawater R.? W. Fk. Mclaren R.? Saganavirktok R. (sp?) ??
the fisch
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 14, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Hey Larry,
Thanks - yeah, I've been on the South and Middle fork of the Koyukuk, and Sag river; not the Clearwater or McClaren (do you mean Clarence)?
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 14, 2008 at 7:04 PM
The Mclaren is between the Delta R. and the Clearwater R. on the south slope of the Alaska Range. It is non-motorized.
We portaged to a small tributary SW of the W. Fk. of the Mclaren, went down the stream to the West Fork, then pulled upstream. Going down we bypassed the tributary, shot the Mclaren rapids and entered the Mclaren itself about 3 mi. above the road.
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 14, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Hey Larry,
Sounds like a nice trip - that's a beautiful area over there.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Hey Larry,
Just so you understand, the polar bear species = federal gov mngt since the early 70's. They are listed as a marine mammal, and so come under the MMPA (Marine Mammals Protection Act). They were managed by the state until (I think) 1972, when a group of Alaska natives sued the state of AK. The MMPA allowed only native subsistence take of the animals, and the Constitution of the state of Alaska says "All Alaskans are treated equally" - which meant if Natives were allowed to hunt polar bears, so too were non-natives. So there was a lawsuit, the natives won, and the management of the polar bears was shifted to the feds, and the US F&WS - as the AK state constitution is incongruent with the law here (it's incongruent with itself, but that's another subject). The ESA listing earlier this year didn't change that.
This is the kind of thing that makes recent comments by Sarah Palin (AK state Governor) so inane, talking about the state scientists opposing the listing. The state of Alaska hasn't even had a polar bear biologist since 1972. The state wildlife biologists, who do not study polar bears, actually did the peer-review on the USGS science research for the listing - they agreed the science was sound. Palin hasn't allowed their communications with her government to be made public. She hasn't let that stop her from making stupid claims like she thinks wildlife management should be based on the best science, etc .. stupid in that her own management ideas ignore the science.
I hope this makes sense and clears some things up.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 25, 2008 at 8:50 AM
About your last post.
Like it or not, words have to mean something or we won't surivive.
If ALL ALASKANS are to be treated the same then ALL ALASKANS must be allowed to hunt for subsistence. If that is NOT what the powers in power want, then the CONSITUTION needs to be changed, by amendment of the people, with the words indicating that ABORIGINAL people only have subsistence rights.
But, dealing with politicians is unrewarding--they don't understand words and the "rule of law". If the law is wrong, change it but always we must have rules if we are to have a society. But I digress because the Supreme Court of the US has overruled its own law over 240 times. I guess that means no one really knows...
What a pickle.
the fisch
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 25, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Hey Larry,
Well, it's not really a pickle. The law of the State const. couldn't be followed under the MMPA, so management shifted form the state to the fed, where it fit more appropriately.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on November 26, 2008 at 8:04 AM
So is Alaska REALLY a state?
What state has over 85%? of its land mass belonging to the "government" which is actually the people of the rest of the U.S. under control of their minions called "bureaucracy"?
All states were to be admitted to the union on "equal footing". Read the U.S. Constitution.
Do you REALLY think the 13 colonies would have voted for statehood under the cirucumstances of ALASKA? I think not.
So where does that leave those who voted for statehood in Alaska? Either they were uniformed, the were "taken", or the they weren't very smart.
Words, words, words--the counters of men and their minds....
Have a good one my ALASKAN friend. the fisch
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 26, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Hey Larry,
Sorry bro, I think the bait just fell off your hook.
Your 85% figure is incorrect, as I pointed out to you previously.
Discussion
21 repliesThe US Fish and Wildlife Service just announced they've listed the polar bear species as 'threatened' under the ESA.
Washington Post article.
[url=http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2008/polarbear012308/pdf/DOI_polar_bears_news_release.pdf]F&WS page[/url
Unfortunately, this is actually good news.
It looks like the Dept of the Int is doing everything they can to ensure that nothing will be done to protect polar bear habitat (sea ice), but it's WAY better than not listing them, as it appeared they were on target to do. A court ruling 2 weeks ago gave them until tomorrow to announce a decision.
Cheers
Carl
Cheers
Carl
Here's the FWS page .. I tried to edit the post above but it's not possible. Sorry about the typo.
F&WS page
Cheers
Carl
The comment that bugged me was "Any real solution requires action by all major economies for it to be effective" (and the accompanying paragraph). That's true, but it sounds (to me - speculating here) like the implication is "we aren't doing anything unless everyone else does too". As though there's something wrong with being first or leading the way - half a solution is better than no solution after all.
There seems to be 2 schools of thought on what you've said. Some would argue that a critical function of the ESA is to preserve and protect critical habitat - and if global warming is destroying that, for any species, then the ESA has every responsibility to move in that direction. If it doesn't, then it's just another fancy charade, all the ribbons and balloons, with no real concern.
Your comment about half a solution being better than none is right on. Ever know anyone who suffers a serious illness/inury, etc? Try to suggest to them it's not worth taking steps a, b and/or c because it won't be completely effective and see how they respond. My dad understands full well his heart is never going to be as good as it was, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get out and walk and swim every day, eat well, and take his pills.
Hey Jim,
Actually, I think refusing to protect the off-shore areas, like the Chukchi Sea where they just announced leasing rights for oil extraction, is a bigger threat. Saying that this legislation protects the bears and doesn't restrict development pollution is patently insane.
Cheers
Carl
Guided Hiking and Backpacking Trips in Alaska.
Stock Nature Photos.
The Center for Biological Diversity has just issued a Court Challenge to the F&WS, and the diminished protections the polar bear was granted under the ESA. Essentially they're saying the 4(d) rule is lame, and illegal.
CBD press release.
It'll be an interesting one.
FWIW, the polar bear isn't the first species to be listed under the ESA due global climate change. Elkhorn and Staghorn coral, under management of NOAA, were listed in 2005 or 2006, I believe.
Cheers
Carl
Remember, one of the 4 tenets of a "Republic" is the "rule of law." Remember also that any law which violates the constitution is null and void.
Article 1, Sec. 8.17. paraphrased: The people of the states empower Congress to exercise complete jurisdiction and authority over all lands or facilities purchased within a state, providing it shall be with the consent of the legislature of that state. Such lands shall be used for the "erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings."
According to Skousen (ISBN0-88080-017-8), "It would also appear that this provision gives each state the right to assume title to all lands within its boudaries which the federal government is not using for the purposes specified... The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 declared that all new states would come into the union on a basis of complete equality or equal footing with the original 13 states." This leads to the conclusion that all land within the boundaries of a state would belong to the state. Can you see any of the 13 colonies doing otherwise?
"But Congress did not allow this to happen. When Ohio was admitted into the Union in 1803, the government retained title to all of the public lands but assured the people that Ohio would acquire jurisdiction as soon as the lands could be sold to help pay off the national debt. This, then, became the established policy for new states... However, when the territory of the western states was acquired from Mexico, Congress radically digressed from the Constituion by virtually eliminating the sale or disposal of federal lands. The genereal policy was to permanently retain major portions of each of the western states for purposes not listed in the Constituion. This policy resulted in the government becoming the permanent owner and manager of over 35% of the American landmass... The most flagrant example" is found in Alaska where 96% of the landmass is owned by the government.
The points are two: 1) rule of law; the Constitution should have been amended, and 2) power corrupts. Be careful what you wish for; you get more that you bargained for somewhere down the line.
Am I glad we have national parks, etc? You bet. Do I like how they were acquired? Nope.
Folks, if we don't have law the only thing left is arbitrary power.
Polar bears and people will never be safe until the real government, the people, not the bureaucracy, hold that bureaucracy and courts to fundamental ideas and those which legitmately spring from it.
I believe Federalist No. 78 addresses statutes that conflict with the constitution and refers to them as "null and void." Polar bears, without an amendment, should be the responsibility of Alaska. And who could be more proud, those that live among them or those who casually watch them on NOVA?
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... Lord McCauly
PS: I would be interested in hearing from Hank Pennington on this.
the fisch
Perhaps you should read the ESA?
Cheers
Carl
the fisch
Oh nothing - it's only the crux of this subject. :)
I ain't gunna do your homework for you, bro. You got some readin' to do.
Cheers
Carl
Send me one and I'll send Whiskey and Gunpowder article. It is pleasantly blunt.
the fisch
Carl, you tend to dance too much. Iron sharpens iron and one man sharpens another.
You have good points but you lose with remarks like the former. Either get serious and help a fellow seeker when asked, or keep the one oar you have in your boat.
I'm sorry ..I was half in jest. Seriously, though .. the ESA is the crux of much of the content of this discussion.
Me, dancing? I've written at length, if not too much, here Larry. I'm hardly dancing.
Cheers
Carl
Went to your portfolio. Nice shots.
Have you ever been on the S.Fk. Koyukuk R.? Cleawater R.? W. Fk. Mclaren R.? Saganavirktok R. (sp?) ??
the fisch
Thanks - yeah, I've been on the South and Middle fork of the Koyukuk, and Sag river; not the Clearwater or McClaren (do you mean Clarence)?
Cheers
Carl
We portaged to a small tributary SW of the W. Fk. of the Mclaren, went down the stream to the West Fork, then pulled upstream. Going down we bypassed the tributary, shot the Mclaren rapids and entered the Mclaren itself about 3 mi. above the road.
Sounds like a nice trip - that's a beautiful area over there.
Cheers
Carl
Just so you understand, the polar bear species = federal gov mngt since the early 70's. They are listed as a marine mammal, and so come under the MMPA (Marine Mammals Protection Act). They were managed by the state until (I think) 1972, when a group of Alaska natives sued the state of AK. The MMPA allowed only native subsistence take of the animals, and the Constitution of the state of Alaska says "All Alaskans are treated equally" - which meant if Natives were allowed to hunt polar bears, so too were non-natives. So there was a lawsuit, the natives won, and the management of the polar bears was shifted to the feds, and the US F&WS - as the AK state constitution is incongruent with the law here (it's incongruent with itself, but that's another subject). The ESA listing earlier this year didn't change that.
This is the kind of thing that makes recent comments by Sarah Palin (AK state Governor) so inane, talking about the state scientists opposing the listing. The state of Alaska hasn't even had a polar bear biologist since 1972. The state wildlife biologists, who do not study polar bears, actually did the peer-review on the USGS science research for the listing - they agreed the science was sound. Palin hasn't allowed their communications with her government to be made public. She hasn't let that stop her from making stupid claims like she thinks wildlife management should be based on the best science, etc .. stupid in that her own management ideas ignore the science.
I hope this makes sense and clears some things up.
Cheers
Carl
Like it or not, words have to mean something or we won't surivive.
If ALL ALASKANS are to be treated the same then ALL ALASKANS must be allowed to hunt for subsistence. If that is NOT what the powers in power want, then the CONSITUTION needs to be changed, by amendment of the people, with the words indicating that ABORIGINAL people only have subsistence rights.
But, dealing with politicians is unrewarding--they don't understand words and the "rule of law". If the law is wrong, change it but always we must have rules if we are to have a society. But I digress because the Supreme Court of the US has overruled its own law over 240 times. I guess that means no one really knows...
What a pickle.
the fisch
Well, it's not really a pickle. The law of the State const. couldn't be followed under the MMPA, so management shifted form the state to the fed, where it fit more appropriately.
Cheers
Carl
What state has over 85%? of its land mass belonging to the "government" which is actually the people of the rest of the U.S. under control of their minions called "bureaucracy"?
All states were to be admitted to the union on "equal footing". Read the U.S. Constitution.
Do you REALLY think the 13 colonies would have voted for statehood under the cirucumstances of ALASKA? I think not.
So where does that leave those who voted for statehood in Alaska? Either they were uniformed, the were "taken", or the they weren't very smart.
Words, words, words--the counters of men and their minds....
Have a good one my ALASKAN friend. the fisch
Sorry bro, I think the bait just fell off your hook.
Your 85% figure is incorrect, as I pointed out to you previously.
Cheers
Carl