1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Bears and whales

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by Popeye, Jan 18, 2008.

  1. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    The decision whether to list the Polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act was supposed to happen last week but was postponed for up to 30 days.

    Conveniently meaning that it could come after the government offers 29.4 million acres in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast in a sale of oil leases on February 6.http://www.komotv.com/news/national/13525062.html

    Now, Bush has declared the Navy exempt from environmental law, despite the fact that the particular sonar being used has been proven harmful, sometimes deadly, to whales and dolphins.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-16-navysonar_N.htm

    It long ago became painfully obvious the Bush administration cares nothing for the environment

    What does this administration care about, other than the rich, the fossil fuel industry and killing people?
     
  2. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,550
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Are you aware that the earliest polar bear fossils were found in an area that is not considered to be an arctic environment, and that polar bears flourished during the medieval warm period.

    Polar bears are not endangered, nor are they threatened. They are simply the latest poster child being used by the left to pull the heart strings of the gullible.

    Interesting also, that you would place the life of a whale above national security.
     
  3. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    To people of your ilk, palerider, the only thing that's ever really endangered is oil reserves and corporate profits.

    By the Navy's own, what I'm sure is a conservative estimate, the sonar would surpass the bounds of the Endangered Species Act 170,000 times, would temporarily deafen whales 8,000 times and would in 466 cases, permanently injure certain species of whales. Real nice.

    These are Navy training exercises, they don't have to use this high powered sonar. Sounds more like an under water weapons system. This is complete and total disrespect for life different than our own.

    Endanger "national security" that's a laugh. Perhaps you could educate me on where and when this is going to be needed. After all, the Jihadists, I'm sure, have a large Navy.
     
  4. ilikeboobs

    ilikeboobs Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Up your butt, Jobu.
    1. polar bears aren't going extinct. that's a scam
    2. is the US navy covering every square inch of the ocean all at once? I doubt it. If they screw up a few whales, who cares? I'd rather the navy be where they need to be to protect us.
    3. the rich, the fossil fuel industry, and dead people are all bush cares about? you're off your rocker...
     
  5. WileE

    WileE New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Home-based out of east Texas
    The Most Important Thing on Earth is Life;

    The Most Important Life on Earth is Human Life.
     
  6. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    Not at the expense of other living things.

    "Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives."-Albert Schweitzer
     
  7. WileE

    WileE New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Home-based out of east Texas
    ...

    Your use of Schweitzer's overemotional quote is somewhat misguided, because at no time did I say I regarded the life of any living creature as being worthless. In fact, I would be the first one to argue against any such assertion! Still, in the overall scheme of nature, from the lowest species of flatworm to humans, and everything in between, there is a hierarchy in the food chain. It is a fact of nature that some species must suffer, from time to time, as a result of the activities of others.

    On the issue of the Navy using sonar, if you look a globe and point out a spot where the Navy is conducting training exercises at a particular time, you will find that it is only an infinitesimal pinpont of area on the planet. Hardly something to get all upset about.

    Even though we humans are the most important form of life on Earth, in one way the lower life forms have it better than us. We humans are cursed with the awareness of our own existence and mortality. Something all the creatures grown and raised for human consumption don't have to worry about.
     
  8. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    This is hardly just an infinitesimal area that this Navy sonar affects. Though it ranges up to 235 decibels, according to the Navy's own studies, it generates sounds up to 140 decibels even more than 300 miles away from the sonar source.

    The sonar causes bubbles in the organ tissues of the marine mammals.

    Many scientists believe that blasting such intense sounds over large expanses of the ocean could harm entire populations of whales, dolphins and fish.

    Head of the food chain or not, such callous and wanton disregard for other life is not our right.
     
  9. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    As forthe Polar bear designation, it would be unwise at this point to make that designation. Thier sheer numbers and already protected status in the United States doesnt warrant an endangered species listing.

    Right now, there are enough polar bears to continue with its current numbers, and while the sea ice is less these days, those that end up land locked during the summer when the sea ice goes out before they know whats going on and can migrate with it, those bears, while they struggle, most of the time they manage alright and adapt to thier surroundings well.
     
  10. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    Hi Bunz, according to Wikipedia scientists project that decreases in the polar sea ice due to global warming will reduce Polar Bear populations by two thirds by mid century. Studies have also shown that 7 out of 19 subpopulations are declining or already have been severely reduced.

    In fact, according to the Anchorage Daily News the polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska's North Slope is in decline.

    Though I know you are fond of your present Governor, I have to wonder at her motivation for opposing this listing. She cites the ESA as not being the proper tool to address climate change, but is not the problem the loss of sea ice ? and is that not directly related to climate change?

    I am pleasantly surprised, considering she's a Republican, to see she accepts the science behind global warming and it's repercussions, calling them the "proven effects of climate change."

    It would be nice to see more of the Republicans, in the lower 48, take a page from her book.
     
  11. WileE

    WileE New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Home-based out of east Texas
    ...

    I doubt that very much. It's not as if the Navy were blanketing the entire planet with sonar waves, 24/365. In reality, the use of sonar constitutes a very small part of what our military forces do, in maintaining their state of readiness to protect our shores.

    If you consider it "callous and wonton disregard", then perhaps you should change the channel and watch something else. Training of our armed forces is an absolute must, if we want to maintain our sovereignty as a nation. You do want that, do you not?
     
  12. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    The Navy has other options. The 'Barking Sands Underwater Tactical Range' (BARSTUR), for example, which is located off the island of Kauai, was purposely designed for testing submarine capabilities.

    For the Navy to feel that, in addition to all these other resources at its disposal, it also needs to encroach on protected marine habitats, is exhibiting just the kind of callous and wanton disregard I was referring to. We can be a safe nation without resorting to the destruction of other species in the process.


    You let me know when bin Laden comes up with a Navy. In the meantime, don't let me stop you from hiding under your RV every time you hear a noise or Fox raises the terror alert.

    "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" -FDR
     
  13. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Hey Popeye,
    Few things, yes I do like my current Governor, although I was sorely disappointed in the quality and material of her recent state of the state speech. She sounded like a enthusiatic 8th grade class President...but that is besides the point. I will also point out that while she is a registered Republican, she is far from conservative on many issues.

    About the Polar Bears, there is a few things happening at the same time for Alaska through our Federal masters in DC. Firstly, the decision to lease offshore oil fields and the decision to place the polar bear on the ESL. Both falling under the guise of the Dept of Interior but under seperate offices through the same department.
    Obviously movement on the polar bear issue would kill the other iniative. The general consensus among Alaskans who follow the issues is that it would be wise for Alaskan interests to release the oil leases before the polar bear issue moves forward any.

    As to polar bears itself, any number of scientists can estimate different numbers of potential polar bears as with predictions of amount of sea ice that will be around in 50 years. The numbers right now or even in the next 10 years would not justify endangered species listing. It would be wise to visit this issue every 10 years ago, or as conditions deem necessary to ensure polar bears to not go extinct in our life time.

    Now that being said, the dramatic negative predictions being made by some scientists are speculative, and based on decreases in existing sea ice. Now until we can address the issue of sea ice, it seems of little point to bring forth really far reaching legislation and policy that could potentially be harmful to other species without intending to. Also, the effect it would have on the humans who actually live, work and rely on the polar bear it could have huge disasterous efects on those people.

    I am one who thinks that the current protection provided to polar bears under the Marine Mammal Protection Act is adequate for the health of the current populations and potentially larger ones from negative human impact.
     
  14. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    State of readiness to protect your shores. Who exactly is going to attack you with a navy can I ask
     
  15. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    While I have generally stayed out of the jousting on the sonar use and whale impact part of this debate, I will point out that despite the end of the Cold War, that the Russians, Chinese and probably other Pacific rim allies have been patrolling the western coast of Alaska in the Bering Sea for decades.
    Also, considering that drug smugglers have been nabbed actually using submarines out of S. America in recent times.

    In terms of this topic though I am somewhat neutral, dozens of navies worldwide have submarines and surface vessels equipped with powerful sonars that could probably confuse or disrupt whales and other sea creatures. Why is the focus only on the US?
     
Loading...

Share This Page