Bush 'seeks to ease wildlife law'

[edesignuk]

US environmentalists have accused President George W Bush of trying to rush through changes to the Endangered Species Act in his last days in office.

They say the changes could take away protection for animals and plants facing possible extinction.

The Bush administration wants to make it easier for drilling, mining and major construction projects to go ahead without a full scientific assessment.

Under current rules, the impact of such projects must be assessed by experts.

The changes proposed by the Bush administration would let federal agencies make the decisions without a full scientific assessment as to the likely impact on the environment. BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7738933.stm).

He really just can't help himself, can he.

Don't let the door smack you very very hard in the face/private areas on the way out, W.

[iBlue]

Wow. He really is a [c-word] through and through, isn't he?

The man cannot seem to rest until he destroys everything.

DIAF, W.

[arkitect]

Don't let the door smack you very very hard in the face/private areas on the way out, W.

That is if he can find the door…

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff231/ofrabjousday/monkeytard18xi.jpg

[mactastic]

Just watch... conservatives will be up in arms about Obama's various promises not being met, but none of them will mention that the Bush administration promised not to engage in this type of midnight regulation spree. Oh no, they were going to be different. Bring "change", so to speak, to this process.

Where, oh where is our change? We NEED change. We were promised change.

Instead all we get is more of the same...

[leekohler]

It's just W trying to leave behind more of his legacy of destruction and death. This is hardly surprising.

[Schtumple]

Sigh, it's almost as if he wants to be hated, seriously...

[iShater]

Someone yesterday at the office was saying on how Bush was scrambling to do something right to save his "legacy". I have a feeling this dumb@$$ doesn't yet realize how badly he screwed up.

He is "staying the course". :rolleyes:

[Anuba]

There's more...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27829904#27830800

Sigh. This Texan Hitler is just pure, concentrated evil. He wakes up every day, destroys, sleeps like a baby, wakes up, destroys...

[hulugu]

There's more...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27829904#27830800

Sigh. This Texan Hitler is just pure, concentrated evil. He wakes up every day, destroys, sleeps like a baby, wakes up, destroys...

Bush is clearly an idiot and his repeated attempt to disrupt the ESA is ridiculous, but this is just overwrought.

[Counterfit]

You know, hearing about the administration softening up some parts of foreign policy, I thought maybe he wasn't going to actually try and do this crap.


:rolleyes:

[edesignuk]

It's just sickening. I hope it fails, or that if it does get through Obama is able to instantly cancel it.

One final reminder for everyone of what an arse this man is.

[Queso]

So that's 201 Bush policy decisions the Obama Administration will want to immediately reverse then...

I wonder if they can get to 250 before 20th January.

[mactastic]

Bush is clearly an idiot and his repeated attempt to disrupt the ESA is ridiculous, but this is just overwrought.
Ok, how about Texan Socialist.

It's ok to call people socialists with reckless abandon, just not nazis, right? ;)

[hulugu]

Ok, how about Texan Socialist.

It's ok to call people socialists with reckless abandon, just not nazis, right? ;)

Texas Corporatist. Lone Star Liar. I've no problem with calling Crawford, TX a village missing its idiot, but I think calling Bush Hitler-like is a mistake.

It's not out of defense of Bush, but rather I think such talk dilutes what the Nazis did.

[iShater]

Texas Corporatist. Lone Star Liar. I've no problem with calling Crawford, TX a village missing its idiot, but I think calling Bush Hitler-like is a mistake.

It's not out of defense of Bush, but rather I think such talk dilutes what the Nazis did.

I agree.

It is losing it's shock value.

[mactastic]

Texas Corporatist. Lone Star Liar. I've no problem with calling Crawford, TX a village missing its idiot, but I think calling Bush Hitler-like is a mistake.

It's not out of defense of Bush, but rather I think such talk dilutes what the Nazis did.
I wish people felt the same way about the label "socialist" as well...

[3rdpath]

Ok, how about Texan Socialist.

It's ok to call people socialists with reckless abandon, just not nazis, right? ;)


hey now...bush isn't a texan. wasn't born there and as much as he likes to play cowboy dress-up, he'll never be a texan.

[hulugu]

I wish people felt the same way about the label "socialist" as well...

I'm of the opinion that words matter and thus the shotgun use of socialist as a pejorative is just bizarre to me. Like earlier usages for liberal (or liberal-democrat) or elite, these words have been stripped of their meaning. Socialism is an economic theory, but this was distorted into various incarnations meaning anything from Stalin's communism to Nazism and was described as incompatible with democracy, which runs counter to realty.

I'd argue that these usages are a form of shibboleth, the word doesn't have any meaning except to show a certain political viewpoint and as a rhetorical wild-card to win arguments.

The use of Hitler analogies bothers me more than "socialist" perhaps because it's coming from my own political side and its use distorts the argument. Bush isn't like Hitler, but that doesn't mean he's worth a damn either, but the use of the equivalency takes away the credibility of an argument that says Bush has done things counter to our democracy because we've already gone to the hysterics.

[mactastic]

I'm of the opinion that words matter and thus the shotgun use of socialist as a pejorative is just bizarre to me. Like earlier usages for liberal (or liberal-democrat) or elite, these words have been stripped of their meaning. Socialism is an economic theory, but this was distorted into various incarnations meaning anything from Stalin's communism to Nazism and was described as incompatible with democracy, which runs counter to realty.

I'd argue that these usages are a form of shibboleth, the word doesn't have any meaning except to show a certain political viewpoint and as a rhetorical wild-card to win arguments.

The use of Hitler analogies bothers me more than "socialist" perhaps because it's coming from my own political side and its use distorts the argument. Bush isn't like Hitler, but that doesn't mean he's worth a damn either, but the use of the equivalency takes away the credibility of an argument that says Bush has done things counter to our democracy because we've already gone to the hysterics.
Well, at least we both agree that the terminology in both cases is grossly misused.

It just never fails to amuse me how swift and intense the response from the forum is when you compare a conservative to a nazi, and how lackadaisical and accepting the response from the forum is when you compare a liberal to a socialist.

[hulugu]

Well, at least we both agree that the terminology in both cases is grossly misused.

It just never fails to amuse me how swift and intense the response from the forum is when you compare a conservative to a nazi, and how lackadaisical and accepting the response from the forum is when you compare a liberal to a socialist.

Well, I don't think there's an equivalence. Comparing anyone to a Nazi is essentially flame-bait, but comparing a liberal to a socialist might be an acceptable construct (big emphasis on might).

However, my dander gets up when someone starts trying to create equivalence between liberalism and Stalinism or the Chinese Great Leap Forward.

Part of what's interesting about this discussion is how we see terms, I don't accept that either liberal or socialist are pejorative terms, but I know others do. So, I might argue using their terms for reference, but I don't believe that either are inherently bad things. Maybe I'm just retaking the term, so to speak, but if someone says "Barack Obama is a socialist," I don't recoil in horror, but rather ask "why?" If someone says "Barack Obama's a Stalinist" then I might say something that will get me in time-out.

[mactastic]

Well, I don't think there's an equivalence. Comparing anyone to a Nazi is essentially flame-bait, but comparing a liberal to a socialist might be an acceptable construct (big emphasis on might).
I disagree. Comparing a conservative to a nazi does not mean automatically that you are comparing them to the Third Reich. Just as there are modern socialists who have nothing to do with Mao or Stalin, there are modern nazis who have nothing to do with Hitler.

To riff off your point, comparing a conservative to a nazi might be an acceptable construct (big emphasis on the might) when talking about immigration issues, or attitudes towards minorities, or feeling about affirmative action, or the supremacy of a specific form of Christianity over others, for example.

However, my dander gets up when someone starts trying to create equivalence between liberalism and Stalinism or the Chinese Great Leap Forward.
You do know that's what they mean when they say "socialist", right? Just sayin'...

Part of what's interesting about this discussion is how we see terms, I don't accept that either liberal or socialist are pejorative terms, but I know others do. So, I might argue using their terms for reference, but I don't believe that either are inherently bad things. Maybe I'm just retaking the term, so to speak, but if someone says "Barack Obama is a socialist," I don't recoil in horror, but rather ask "why?" If someone says "Barack Obama's a Stalinist" then I might say something that will get me in time-out.
I don't necessarily recoil in horror either, but I don't take anyone who uses those kind of loaded terms seriously anymore once they decide to "go there".

[hulugu]

I disagree. Comparing a conservative to a nazi does not mean automatically that you are comparing them to the Third Reich. Just as there are modern socialists who have nothing to do with Mao or Stalin, there are modern nazis who have nothing to do with Hitler.

Aside from the Soup Nazi or a grammar nazi, is there really such a thing? The Nazis of the modern era seek a return to the Third Reich.

To riff off your point, comparing a conservative to a nazi might be an acceptable construct (big emphasis on the might) when talking about immigration issues, or attitudes towards minorities, or feeling about affirmative action, or the supremacy of a specific form of Christianity over others, for example.

You could make the comparison, but why use Nazi when you could just use prejudiced, bigoted, intolerant, etc.?


You do know that's what they mean when they say "socialist", right? Just sayin'...


I don't necessarily recoil in horror either, but I don't take anyone who uses those kind of loaded terms seriously anymore once they decide to "go there".

Absolutely, when someone calls anyone who isn't a big-'L' Libertarian a socialist, I roll my eyes and the person automatically loses some credibility with me. They also lose points for stating that socialism killed more people than the Nazis, which is just stupid if you understand what the regimes of Stalin or Mao were really like.

Really, when someone starts their post with "you're all a bunch of socialists..." all I hear after that is "bark, bark, bark." So, because of this, when someone says Nazi, unless we're talking about the WWII-era, I start to zone out.

[Desertrat]

Amazing. This all started with a "They say..." which might or not have any real meaning. The next thing you know, there's a feeding frenzy about a soon-to-be ex-Prez. It segues into all-inclusive labelling of varying degrees of inaccuracy.

Why not try to look at the political spectrum this way: There are those who prefer government solutions to social problems; my label of choice is "Statist". There are those like me who disagree with that approach, or who, like me, would take a slower path in governmental actions in order to avoid harmful side effects common to precipitous action. So, largely, I'm "anti-Statist".

Bush II is a Statist, as is Obama. As were Clinton, Bush I and Reagan.

Simplest put, isn't it reasonably correct that Socialism means government controls on the means of production? Capitalism, basically, is the investment of private funds into the means of production, with private ownership?

GM: Privately owned, but subject to governmental controls via EPA, NTSB, OSHA, the Dept. of Labor and IRS.

FWIW, Nazis were socialists. NSDAP National Socialist yada/yada/yada, however it comes out in German.

The U.S. is a largely-socialistic system. After all, the 1932 platform of the US's Socialist Party had been fully enacted into law by the time of the 1964 elections, per their perennial candidate, Norman Thomas, in a press interview.

Hardly anybody except rabid ideologues are "all" anything in the political spectrum. We vary. There are commonalities among both liberals and conservatives, as well as differences. A reasonable generalization, I believe, is that there are commonalities as to societal goals, and differences in how they are to be achieved.

And discussion beats the hell out of name-calling...

'Rat

[hulugu]

Amazing. This all started with a "They say..." which might or not have any real meaning. The next thing you know, there's a feeding frenzy about a soon-to-be ex-Prez. It segues into all-inclusive labelling of varying degrees of inaccuracy.

Why not try to look at the political spectrum this way: There are those who prefer government solutions to social problems; my label of choice is "Statist". There are those like me who disagree with that approach, or who, like me, would take a slower path in governmental actions in order to avoid harmful side effects common to precipitous action. So, largely, I'm "anti-Statist".

Bush II is a Statist, as is Obama. As were Clinton, Bush I and Reagan.

Simplest put, isn't it reasonably correct that Socialism means government controls on the means of production? Capitalism, basically, is the investment of private funds into the means of production, with private ownership?

GM: Privately owned, but subject to governmental controls via EPA, NTSB, OSHA, the Dept. of Labor and IRS.

FWIW, Nazis were socialists. NSDAP National Socialist yada/yada/yada, however it comes out in German.

The U.S. is a largely-socialistic system. After all, the 1932 platform of the US's Socialist Party had been fully enacted into law by the time of the 1964 elections, per their perennial candidate, Norman Thomas, in a press interview.

Hardly anybody except rabid ideologues are "all" anything in the political spectrum. We vary. There are commonalities among both liberals and conservatives, as well as differences. A reasonable generalization, I believe, is that there are commonalities as to societal goals, and differences in how they are to be achieved.

And discussion beats the hell out of name-calling...

'Rat

I agree, and that part of what I was trying to get across. I don't like that these terms, which often have very complex meanings, get redirected into simple pejoratives. You're right, there's varying degrees as to political identity, and your generalization is correct, the differences are mostly about method rather than the goal.

I'm not sure if the Nazis were really socialists, I've read that the term Corporatists is actually more accurate, but maybe that's better reflected by Mussolini's reign.

See what happens when you wander off. ;)

[Anuba]

Simplest put, isn't it reasonably correct that Socialism means government controls on the means of production? Capitalism, basically, is the investment of private funds into the means of production, with private ownership?

GM: Privately owned, but subject to governmental controls via EPA, NTSB, OSHA, the Dept. of Labor and IRS.

FWIW, Nazis were socialists. NSDAP National Socialist yada/yada/yada, however it comes out in German.

The U.S. is a largely-socialistic system. After all, the 1932 platform of the US's Socialist Party had been fully enacted into law by the time of the 1964 elections, per their perennial candidate, Norman Thomas, in a press interview.
You've got it all wrong. To control in socialist terms means to own and run. Regulation doesn't constitute control.

Socialism means that there are no private businesses. The Soviet Union and Mao's China were socialist states (they never reached Marx's higher stage of socialism, i.e. communism).

Social democracy means a mixed economy where the state owns some businesses (like in pre-Thatcher UK, where the state ran British Telecom, British Airways, mining etc), and these co-exist with private businesses.

Social liberalism means that market capitalism rules, but health care and education are considered basic citizen rights and therefore the taxpayers pay for universal healthcare and subsidized higher education. (Think UK, Canada, Sweden etc).

The US currently doesn't have universal healthcare or subsidized higher education, nor does the state own or run any businesses. In short, it doesn't even qualify as social liberal, it's miles away from social democracy, and light years away from socialism.

Think of it this way:

Far left: Communism
Left: Socialism
Center-left: Social democracy
Center-right: Social liberalism
Right: Liberalism
Far right: Conservatism

The US is somewhere between right and far right with the occasional grain of center-right, i.e. social liberalism.

[CalBoy]

The US currently doesn't have universal healthcare or subsidized higher education, nor does the state own or run any businesses.

Sorry, that's not entirely correct.

Higher education is subsidized in the US by every state and by the Federal government through financial aid.

The government also owns some corporate entities and runs them to a reasonable degree. Fannie and Freddie used to be such entities and every single public transit agency in the nation is a de facto state-run business. There are also hospitals that are owned and operated by local communities.

[Desertrat]

Well, Anuba, if I have it all wrong, then so did the Socialist Party of the 1930s. :) Now, if there is any "socialism" in "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability to pay", I'd have to think that we do have a good bit of socialism here. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Free Pills For Olde Pharts, plus our welfare system of food stamps, rent and utility subsidies and Aid For Dependent Children.

And anybody who goes into a hospital emergency room MUST be treated, whether or not they can pay.

Anyhow, back to the thread: I just flat-out don't believe a lot of the doom-crying about "relaxing" on SOME environmental restrictions. SOME. For instance, for all the yowling against offshore drilling, I know from decades of personal experience that the best fishing in the Gulf of Mexico is around the offshore rigs. Rigs create habitat for a complete food chain, and that's where the fish are.

As far as hazard to polar bears, the drilling operations occur at a time of year when the bears are not in the drilling area. Bears are around the ice, but not out in expanses of open water.

[hulugu]

...Anyhow, back to the thread...

Thanks for this, I was thinking the same thing this morning.

I just flat-out don't believe a lot of the doom-crying about "relaxing" on SOME environmental restrictions. SOME. For instance, for all the yowling against offshore drilling, I know from decades of personal experience that the best fishing in the Gulf of Mexico is around the offshore rigs. Rigs create habitat for a complete food chain, and that's where the fish are.

As far as hazard to polar bears, the drilling operations occur at a time of year when the bears are not in the drilling area. Bears are around the ice, but not out in expanses of open water.

I think we've had this discussion before, but there are two complaints as to polar bears. The first may be too heady, but environmental groups have attempted to use the Endangered Species Act as a way to curb the production of "Green House Gases" (CO2, methane, etc.). Since the polar bear mostly depends on sea ice, the melting of the Arctic Circle's sea ice may be a major detriment to the species.
The second is more specific and has to do with the use of explosives that may disrupt polar bear denning.

The ideal should be an independent scientific process to assess and mitigate the effects of development or drilling.

Now, as per scientific review, independence is key. In 2003, the Bush administration used similar arguments to "streamline" projects under the National Fire Plan, allowing the Bureau of Land Management to "self-consult" rather than obtain approval from F&WS. A review from F&WS showed a significant number of violations of the ESA by the BLM and Forest Service. Rather than follow the guidelines on its own, it appears that BLM needs overwatch by F&WS and I'd assume similar situations would happen throughout.

[mactastic]

Aside from the Soup Nazi or a grammar nazi, is there really such a thing? The Nazis of the modern era seek a return to the Third Reich.
Loosely at best. Think of it this way -- modern Nazis seek a return to the Third Reich in the same way that the Soviets sought to embody the Marx/Engles version of communism. Mostly they're a bunch of loathsome malcontents who blame the "mud races" and immigrants for their lack of upward mobility in society.

You could make the comparison, but why use Nazi when you could just use prejudiced, bigoted, intolerant, etc.?
Hey, I justified it all with a "big emphasis on the might". ;)

There's plenty of other ways you could express concerns over socialism too, right? So why use "socialist", unless you are specifically talking about it? Unless it's for political effect.

Why not try to look at the political spectrum this way: There are those who prefer government solutions to social problems; my label of choice is "Statist". There are those like me who disagree with that approach, or who, like me, would take a slower path in governmental actions in order to avoid harmful side effects common to precipitous action. So, largely, I'm "anti-Statist".

Bush II is a Statist, as is Obama. As were Clinton, Bush I and Reagan.
Why not try to look at the political spectrum this way: There are those who prefer private solutions to social problems; my label of choice is "Corporatist". There are those like me who disagree with that approach, or who, like me, would take a slower path in corporate actions in order to avoid harmful side effects common to precipitous action. So, largely, I'm "anti-Corporatist".

Bush II is a Corporatist, as is Obama. As were Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan.

God it feels good to be such a rebel...

[hulugu]

...Hey, I justified it all with a "big emphasis on the might". ;)...

Cheater. ;)

There's plenty of other ways you could express concerns over socialism too, right? So why use "socialist", unless you are specifically talking about it? Unless it's for political effect.

I don't understand what we're talking about anymore. The use of Nazi is a rhetorical molotov-cocktail, but I don't see the word socialist as having the same inherent vitriol. Obviously, there are those who use it with the same provocative meaning, but like I said earlier, when those people speak, I tend to ignore them.

[Anuba]

Well, Anuba, if I have it all wrong, then so did the Socialist Party of the 1930s. :)
They sure did. ;)

Socialism is not a relative term. It's like the Mac. You can't call it a Mac if it's not a Mac. You can put an Apple sticker on a Hackintosh PC, but it's still not a Mac.

The Soviet Union did not consider itself a true socialist nation because the government permitted some private enterprise to coexist with nationalized industry. In the 1970's they coined the term "real socialism" to refer to the de facto socialism that had been implemented in the Eastern Bloc, in order to distinguish it from ideal, utopian socialism. At its peak, the Soviet Union met maybe 90 out of 100 criteria for socialism. The United States meets 5 out of 100, tops.

Now, if there is any "socialism" in "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability to pay", I'd have to think that we do have a good bit of socialism here. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Free Pills For Olde Pharts, plus our welfare system of food stamps, rent and utility subsidies and Aid For Dependent Children.
All of which have nothing to do with bona fide socialism, but hey, go ahead... redefine the word, in that good old American tradition. Play "football" with your hands, refer to liberalism as "left-wing", and some rudimentary government programs as full-blown "socialism". In other news, birds are fish, sea is land and black is white. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

I don't understand what we're talking about anymore. The use of Nazi is a rhetorical molotov-cocktail, but I don't see the word socialist as having the same inherent vitriol. Obviously, there are those who use it with the same provocative meaning, but like I said earlier, when those people speak, I tend to ignore them.
Well, my original sarcastic comment was meant to draw attention to the swift condemnation that assuredly follows any parallel between conservatives and Nazis, and the double standard of the forum (and the media / society at large) that doesn't hold a parallel between liberals and socialists to the same scrutiny.

Just imagine for a second the forum / media / societal reaction had Barack Obama and his supporters drawn parallels between McCain and nazis with the frequency that McCain and his supporters drew parallels between Obama and socialists. How do you think that would have went down?

Yet the GOP presidential candidate can stand there all day and call his opponent a socialist, and that's considered acceptable political discourse.

Just a pet peeve of mine...

[Desertrat]

The "argument" between Anuba and me may well illustrate the problems with the difference between technical definitions and common usage. And, face it, our society is pretty sloppy with the usage of "Nazi" and "Liberal", etc.

I don't pretend to have much background in formal PoliSci. So, I've relied on common usage of "Socialist" as used by those who so-labelled themselves as such in the 1930s. Damfino...

hulugu, I'm dubious about "The second is more specific and has to do with the use of explosives that may disrupt polar bear denning." First off, explosives are not at all in common use, these last thirty or so years. They used a compressed-air-driven "thumper". The recording instrumentation is far, far more sensitive than back in the "doodlebug" days of dynamite. I think that they've already established the geology of the proposed drill areas, so even the "thumping" would be minimal. And, from reading, the proposed drilling area is not in or near suitable denning territory, but I won't go beyond "from reading".

'Rat

[hulugu]

...hulugu, I'm dubious about "The second is more specific and has to do with the use of explosives that may disrupt polar bear denning." First off, explosives are not at all in common use, these last thirty or so years. They used a compressed-air-driven "thumper". The recording instrumentation is far, far more sensitive than back in the "doodlebug" days of dynamite. I think that they've already established the geology of the proposed drill areas, so even the "thumping" would be minimal. And, from reading, the proposed drilling area is not in or near suitable denning territory, but I won't go beyond "from reading".

'Rat

I'm not sure it's a significant concern either, just repeating the arguments.

According to this study (http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/rsrc/scientists/amstrup_arctic_46.pdf) [PDF warning], Polar Bears may be affected by the noise from planes and snow-mobiles. Also, there's this USGS article (http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/polar_bears/denning.html) which notes a polar bear den near Prudhoe Bay. They're using FLIR to check on the bears.

I think the most important aspect is the need to observe the bears and try to understand what does and does not affect the species. And, to do that, I think we need independent scientific review.

[robanga]

We may need to eat the wildlife soon.

I'm just sayin

[Desertrat]

I never object to objective scientific review, as long as it's not repetitive. Offhand, I think I'd ask the area's natives about such things as airplane and snowmobile disturbance. The locals are the ones who most use the snowmobiles, anyway.

There's way too much misinformation and emotion in wildlife issues. So much of what's said is just not factual.

Noise? I've watched whitetail deer in my pasture as F4s flew over at some 1,500 feet and kicked in the afterburners. The deer didn't even quit nibbling growies. Alyeska pipeline? There are photos of grizzlies walking along on top and of caribou bedded down alongside it.

Scientists have been studying the polar bear around Churchill, Canada, for decades. There oughta be a very large body of knowledge about their behavior patterns, reactions to disturbances and habitat needs.

What is known is that the species population has expanded in notable fashion. It could very well be that the hazard of onshore drilling would be to the people involved, if a hungry bear shows up. :)

[hulugu]

I never object to objective scientific review, as long as it's not repetitive. Offhand, I think I'd ask the area's natives about such things as airplane and snowmobile disturbance. The locals are the ones who most use the snowmobiles, anyway.

There's way too much misinformation and emotion in wildlife issues. So much of what's said is just not factual.

I think the biggest issue is the prop-driven planes and helicopters, which are used by the drilling companies.

Noise? I've watched whitetail deer in my pasture as F4s flew over at some 1,500 feet and kicked in the afterburners. The deer didn't even quit nibbling growies. Alyeska pipeline? There are photos of grizzlies walking along on top and of caribou bedded down alongside it.

Absolutely. You'll see Pronghorns around the Barry R. Goldwater Gunnery Range, which happens to coincide with the Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge. If the bears are used to it, it might not be a problem.

Scientists have been studying the polar bear around Churchill, Canada, for decades. There oughta be a very large body of knowledge about their behavior patterns, reactions to disturbances and habitat needs. What is known is that the species population has expanded in notable fashion.

As I linked to the last time we talked about Polar Bears, there's some populations that are stable, some are growing, and some are declining. The trouble would be in pushing the species at the same time that sea-ice is also disappearing. There are instances of cannibalism and starving bears in the Arctic circle, so I don't think we should call the Polar Bear safe as a species just yet.

It could very well be that the hazard of onshore drilling would be to the people involved, if a hungry bear shows up. :)

It might help to remind drill crew to keep their shoes tied, they don't have to be faster than bear, but they do have to be faster than the next guy. ;)

[Desertrat]

Do they really fly in all that often, in the Arctic efforts? I had a friend who worked for ARCO back around 1980-1984. She flew to Alaska from Austin, and then went to the Slope via ground transport.

I'm always raised-eyebrowed when it's some self-styled environmental group hollering, "Danger!". Too many times I've run into stuff like the Austin elementary-school teacher who was telling her classes that the whitetailed deer shouldn't be hunted because it was an endangered species--at a time when the overpopulation actually justified a bounty on the damned rats with hooves.

[hulugu]

Do they really fly in all that often, in the Arctic efforts? I had a friend who worked for ARCO back around 1980-1984. She flew to Alaska from Austin, and then went to the Slope via ground transport.

Dunno' the answer to that.

I'm always raised-eyebrowed when it's some self-styled environmental group hollering, "Danger!". Too many times I've run into stuff like the Austin elementary-school teacher who was telling her classes that the whitetailed deer shouldn't be hunted because it was an endangered species--at a time when the overpopulation actually justified a bounty on the damned rats with hooves.

Maybe she meant the whitetailed rat. ;)

Ultimately, if there's scientific research it helps both. If a company or government entity can prove, as much as possible, that doing such-and-such won't wipe out a creature, then we've done what we should. If we, however, let this step slide or ignore it entirely, we could wound a species so mortally that it disappears.

I suspect there's a balance in there.

[Desertrat]

For sure, "balance" is a key word. I get fed up with religious fervor, be it presidential elections, environmental issues or even religion. The idea that disagreement is somehow a sign of Devilish evil really chaps my whatzit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/23/do2310b.xml

"...ITV News was running a series of wearisomely familiar scare stories on the disappearing Arctic ice and those "doomed" polar bears - without telling its viewers that satellite images now show ice cover above its 30-year average, or that polar bear numbers are at record level. But then "polar bears not drowning after all - as snow falls over large parts of Britain" doesn't really make a story."