After wolves. Are bears next?
Posted February 27, 2011 in Saving Wildlife and Wild Places, U.S. Law and Policy
_2.jpg "Polar bear (Tim Knepp, USFWS)")
There’s a lot at stake in Congressional efforts to strip wolves of their endangered species protection. Many worry that wolves are just the beginning of political interference in the Endangered Species Act, and they are right to worry. Protections won in San Francisco’s Bay-Delta for threatened and endangered species, such as wild salmon and steelhead, are already targeted by the House’s budget bill.
Now it looks like polar bears might be next. Earlier this year Alaska Rep. Don Young introduced a bill to end Endangered Species Act protections for polar bears. H.R. 39 simply states that the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act “shall have no force or effect.” It’s not a new idea (Rep. Young introduced an identical bill during the last Congress) but there’s a whole new crowd in charge of the House of Representatives these days.
It doesn’t seem to matter that the sea-ice habitat polar bears depend on is rapidly vanishing or that we’ve all been shocked by images of bears starving and mother bears losing their young as they swim for days in search of ever fading ice. No, all that may matter is that polar bears have powerful political opponents who have every reason to deny them protection.
If wolves can’t keep their protections, will polar bears fare any better? And after them, what’s next…?
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Charles (bud) Adam — Feb 27 2011 01:29 PM
It seems to me that the real reason for stripping the wolves and what-ever next is that they live on earth that may have OIL...by now it should be obvious that the se for oil is out-dated.We really need to move forward in our ways of life...not backwards.Continued dependance on oil,will only prolong the enivetable..,while ruining our planet all the more.
Alissa — Feb 27 2011 03:27 PM
The reason for delisting/relisting and changing the status of wolf populations is extremely complex and very variable from region to region - there are definitely socio-political components, but oil is certainly not a top factor.
Emily Trotter — Feb 27 2011 07:54 PM
In my opinion, all wildlife needs to be protected. It is we the people who are constantly encroaching on their territory.
Wildlife is very necessary for our environment.
It seems to me that we should all contact our congress-person and encourage them not to vote for any of this.
Urs — Feb 28 2011 10:33 AM
Oil might be not the obvious factor. Greed is. If a Wolf might kill one single cattle then the rancher will gladly use taxpayer's money to have the state eradicate every single wolf in a 1000 miles radius, so that the remote possibility if one dead cow is vanished.
Polar bears on the other hand do live where greed might find oil.
Bruce Botchar — Mar 6 2011 12:28 PM
maybe we should strip congress of its protections, and put them on trial for crimes against wildlife and wild spaces.
Its time the people of America get off their butts and stand up for life on earth, Americans seem to have their heads in the sand and believe they are all living in some sort of hollywood movie where nothing bad ever happens to anyone.