Yes, these are Polar Bears on a melting ice flow in the Arctic Circle.
Last days for US polar bear dithering?
Susan Brown
Melting sea ice is shrinking polar bears' hunting grounds.Getty
If the US Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't finally announce their long-delayed decision about listing the polar bear as ‘threatened’ under the Endangered Species Act by Monday, environmental groups are set to press them into action with a lawsuit.
But the threat of legal action may be helping to hold up the announcement. Whichever way it goes, at least one group will be unhappy and likely to challenge the science behind the decision. This has prompted a steady stream of questions for the science team as the recommendation wends its way through the approval process.
"The US Fish and Wildlife Service views this as a landmark decision," says Scott Schliebe, polar bear project scientist for the service, who is based in Anchorage, Alaska. It is the first decision about the potential fate of a species to be based on climate projections.
The World Conservation Union lists polar bears as ‘vulnerable’, which means they face a high risk of extinction in the wild. In Canada and Russia, they are listed as species of concern. The US decision could affect international deals over activities in the Arctic.
Officials at the wildlife service were originally due to make their decision on 9 January 2008, but said they needed more time to assess the situation (see US decision on polar bear status on hold).
After considering the science and more than 670,000 comments received from the public, Schliebe and colleagues sent a recommendation to higher officials at the central wildlife office in Washington DC, and a recommendation was then passed to the Department of the Interior more than a week ago; but no decision has yet been announced.
Ice watchers
The decision hinges on whether polar bears are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The main threat is loss of sea ice, which the bears need to hunt seals. To predict the fate of the bears, the service asked the US Geological Survey (USGS) to help determine the likely extent of sea ice in the future, and how the bears might respond to changes.
The USGS predicted that two-thirds of the bears, including all those found in Alaska, could be lost by mid-century, and that late summer sea ice will probably be gone from most the Arctic by 2100. But the models they looked at varied in their predictions of ice retreat. "All models, by their nature, are uncertain," Schliebe says. That is the chink in the argument that opponents of the listing are prying open.
"Uncertainties compound," says Ken Taylor, Alaska's deputy commissioner for fish and game. The government in Alaska, the only US state to have any wild polar bears, opposes the listing. Their governor, Sarah Palin, has said she is concerned the listing would hamper development in her state, including drilling for gas and oil....
Susan Brown
Melting sea ice is shrinking polar bears' hunting grounds.Getty
If the US Fish and Wildlife Service doesn't finally announce their long-delayed decision about listing the polar bear as ‘threatened’ under the Endangered Species Act by Monday, environmental groups are set to press them into action with a lawsuit.
But the threat of legal action may be helping to hold up the announcement. Whichever way it goes, at least one group will be unhappy and likely to challenge the science behind the decision. This has prompted a steady stream of questions for the science team as the recommendation wends its way through the approval process.
"The US Fish and Wildlife Service views this as a landmark decision," says Scott Schliebe, polar bear project scientist for the service, who is based in Anchorage, Alaska. It is the first decision about the potential fate of a species to be based on climate projections.
The World Conservation Union lists polar bears as ‘vulnerable’, which means they face a high risk of extinction in the wild. In Canada and Russia, they are listed as species of concern. The US decision could affect international deals over activities in the Arctic.
Officials at the wildlife service were originally due to make their decision on 9 January 2008, but said they needed more time to assess the situation (see US decision on polar bear status on hold).
After considering the science and more than 670,000 comments received from the public, Schliebe and colleagues sent a recommendation to higher officials at the central wildlife office in Washington DC, and a recommendation was then passed to the Department of the Interior more than a week ago; but no decision has yet been announced.
Ice watchers
The decision hinges on whether polar bears are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. The main threat is loss of sea ice, which the bears need to hunt seals. To predict the fate of the bears, the service asked the US Geological Survey (USGS) to help determine the likely extent of sea ice in the future, and how the bears might respond to changes.
The USGS predicted that two-thirds of the bears, including all those found in Alaska, could be lost by mid-century, and that late summer sea ice will probably be gone from most the Arctic by 2100. But the models they looked at varied in their predictions of ice retreat. "All models, by their nature, are uncertain," Schliebe says. That is the chink in the argument that opponents of the listing are prying open.
"Uncertainties compound," says Ken Taylor, Alaska's deputy commissioner for fish and game. The government in Alaska, the only US state to have any wild polar bears, opposes the listing. Their governor, Sarah Palin, has said she is concerned the listing would hamper development in her state, including drilling for gas and oil....
Polar Bears die because Republicans find them 'worthless' over oil and gas.
And you call them moral people?
Where?
