Well, I guess we all expected it, but it is no less galling to see polar bears listed by the US Government as a threatened species. This despite rising polar bear populations and no evidence that a smaller Arctic ice cap will have a negative effect on the bears. This is, even by admission of its supporters, mainly intended as an open license to sue any one or group over anything that has any element of economic growth. Freeway projects in Arizona, power plants in Florida, desperately needed new refineries in Texas, oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and even a new shopping mall in California can now be held up in court as a danger to polar bears.

To wit: Victory of Ignorance

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/05/victory-of-igno.html



There is no evidence that global warming, which is not even happening much less caused by man, is having any adverse effect on Polar Bears. In fact, Polar Bears are doing very well: their numbers have been increasing.

Then why were they just put on the endangered species list????

The Interior Department actually gave the bear "threatened" status under the Endangered Species Act. An "endangered" species is defined by the act as facing likely extinction in its natural habitat, while a "threatened" species is seen as one that's likely to fall into the endangered category in the foreseeable future.

Then why were they just put on the endangered species list????

Polar bears look pretty cool, but I would NEVER want to get near one. I recently saw a thread on another message board I frequent showing the results of an unwanted human interaction with a polar bear. I refuse to link the photos, but let's just say he was lucky and one of his legs was hollowed out. The story said he was camping somewhere in Canada and woke up missing pieces of him and was VERY lucky to live.

Polar bears look pretty cool, but I would NEVER want to get near one. I recently saw a thread on another message board I frequent showing the results of an unwanted human interaction with a polar bear. I refuse to link the photos, but let's just say he was lucky and one of his legs was hollowed out. The story said he was camping somewhere in Canada and woke up missing pieces of him and was VERY lucky to live.

Protecting a species that doesn't need it just because somebody thinks they're cute, ......can have dangerous consequences as we inappropriately interfere with the natural processes controlling their populations.

Could this statement apply to ALL GOD'S CREATURES or just the ones you deem expendable?

All of God's creatures that are not truly endangerered and thus not truly in need of special protections which could disrupt the ecosystem.

So then, hypothetically speaking (and I apologize for going off topic here), but if a woman was raped, became pregnant, and decided to abort the baby fetus, it would be OK since humans are not endangered. Thanks. Just making sure.

Wow, and I'm accused of "baiting, flaming and trolling".

I should've/could've reported the post. :shrugs:

I was proving a point.