Polar bears are threatened with global climate change and, in recognition of this, were just listed as 'threatened' under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Read more here.
Yes, they were - but only after two court challenges. Now the hard work comes - FWS has to write a recovery plan, and that plan has to (by law) describe the threats to the species and outline a plan of action to first eliminates an dthen mitigate those threats. That's where things could get sticky on the global warming issue, because the science to link poluter X to loss of sea ice in Bay Y is still very much in its infancy.
Why Do We Care If Polar Bears Become Extinct?
This is not any sort of revelation: Polar bears declared a threatened species , but it does raise the question: Why do we care? By some estimates, 90% of all species that once existed are now extinct and new species are always taking their place. For the species thats going to become extinct, for whatever reason, extinction is the end of it. However, for the species that remain, is the extinction of another species good or bad. When Europeans first colonized North America, there was an estimated five (5) billion Passenger Pigeons alive and well in North America. In 1914, they were extinct. Passenger Pigeons didnt live in little groups, but huge flocks that required extraordinary quantities of hardwood forests for them to feed, breed and survive. Deforestation to build homes, create farmland and over hunting for cheap food decimated their population. The westward drive to grow the United States in the 1800s and early 1900s was incompatible with the needs of the Passenger Pigeon and they literally could not survive in the new North America being carved out by the U.S. economy. The interesting thing about the Passenger Pigeon was the impact its extinction had on another speciesman. That impact was essentially none. Man continued to find ways to feed himself through agriculture and other technologies and the United States and its citizens continued to prosper from the early 20th century till today. Whether or not Polar Bears become extinct because of Global Climate Change or other reasons, we need to address the larger question of: Do we care and why? One of the ways a nation, its citizens and the global community can answer that question is addressed by John A. Warden III in Thinking Strategically About Global Climate Change. He asks some interesting biodiversity questions in his post to include How Many Species Is the Right Number and Which Ones?
Sun Tzu- do you really care about nothing unless it affects the price of gas/hamburgers?
Maybe we want to save the polar bears because they're the iconic apex predator of the arctic circle, or because they're beautiful, or because they're unique, or maybe just because they're so damn huggable. Or maybe I don't know we value life and think extinction is bad. And in this case it's a highly visible, easily emotionally striking rallying point for both global warming and for conservation in general.
Conservation = good. Usually the world is sleepwalking through the mass extinction, but when it's something obvious and iconic like the polar bear, well, that's something we can finally say "HEY GUYS, LOOK: YOU'RE KILLING THE WORLD."
Sun Tzu was right. For me, pola bear was so cute. Very great creature by the god. For me, the conservation is very important, not only to the 'endangered species' but basically to the environment. Therefore, the issues of global warming have been rise not only because of global warming but we need to think that the anthropogenic sources-man made sources were also contribute to the extinction of species.
One thing we are made aware of in natural systems is how interconnected populations and their habitats are, but for all the discussion on polar bears we hear little of their predation rates on seals, walruses and presumably other animals. I'd like to think that it's not just the bears' charismatic appearance that has prompted this inclusion into the ESA process. Wouldn't a lessening of sea ice actually be good for the plankton, fish and sea mammals that live in the arctic except for those specific instances where certain populations find themselves out of reach of certain resources with the decreasing ice but other populations find a superabundance due to increased productivitiy of a sea now exposed to the driving force of no-longer reflected solar energy?
Yes, they were - but only after two court challenges. Now the hard work comes - FWS has to write a recovery plan, and that plan has to (by law) describe the threats to the species and outline a plan of action to first eliminates an dthen mitigate those threats. That's where things could get sticky on the global warming issue, because the science to link poluter X to loss of sea ice in Bay Y is still very much in its infancy.
Talk about shifting your baseline!
Why Do We Care If Polar Bears Become Extinct?
This is not any sort of revelation: Polar bears declared a threatened species , but it does raise the question: Why do we care? By some estimates, 90% of all species that once existed are now extinct and new species are always taking their place. For the species thats going to become extinct, for whatever reason, extinction is the end of it. However, for the species that remain, is the extinction of another species good or bad. When Europeans first colonized North America, there was an estimated five (5) billion Passenger Pigeons alive and well in North America. In 1914, they were extinct. Passenger Pigeons didnt live in little groups, but huge flocks that required extraordinary quantities of hardwood forests for them to feed, breed and survive. Deforestation to build homes, create farmland and over hunting for cheap food decimated their population. The westward drive to grow the United States in the 1800s and early 1900s was incompatible with the needs of the Passenger Pigeon and they literally could not survive in the new North America being carved out by the U.S. economy. The interesting thing about the Passenger Pigeon was the impact its extinction had on another speciesman. That impact was essentially none. Man continued to find ways to feed himself through agriculture and other technologies and the United States and its citizens continued to prosper from the early 20th century till today. Whether or not Polar Bears become extinct because of Global Climate Change or other reasons, we need to address the larger question of: Do we care and why? One of the ways a nation, its citizens and the global community can answer that question is addressed by John A. Warden III in Thinking Strategically About Global Climate Change. He asks some interesting biodiversity questions in his post to include How Many Species Is the Right Number and Which Ones?
Sun Tzu- do you really care about nothing unless it affects the price of gas/hamburgers?
Maybe we want to save the polar bears because they're the iconic apex predator of the arctic circle, or because they're beautiful, or because they're unique, or maybe just because they're so damn huggable. Or maybe I don't know we value life and think extinction is bad. And in this case it's a highly visible, easily emotionally striking rallying point for both global warming and for conservation in general.
Conservation = good. Usually the world is sleepwalking through the mass extinction, but when it's something obvious and iconic like the polar bear, well, that's something we can finally say "HEY GUYS, LOOK: YOU'RE KILLING THE WORLD."
Sun Tzu was right. For me, pola bear was so cute. Very great creature by the god. For me, the conservation is very important, not only to the 'endangered species' but basically to the environment. Therefore, the issues of global warming have been rise not only because of global warming but we need to think that the anthropogenic sources-man made sources were also contribute to the extinction of species.
One thing we are made aware of in natural systems is how interconnected populations and their habitats are, but for all the discussion on polar bears we hear little of their predation rates on seals, walruses and presumably other animals. I'd like to think that it's not just the bears' charismatic appearance that has prompted this inclusion into the ESA process. Wouldn't a lessening of sea ice actually be good for the plankton, fish and sea mammals that live in the arctic except for those specific instances where certain populations find themselves out of reach of certain resources with the decreasing ice but other populations find a superabundance due to increased productivitiy of a sea now exposed to the driving force of no-longer reflected solar energy?
pola bears are my favroite animals