CARROLL: The bear facts
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published September 16, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
I'm a huge fan of the Rocky Truth Patrol - this newspaper's feature evaluating the claims and counterclaims of the political season - but Monday's item on polar bears got under my skin.
The Truth Patrol - with the headline "Palin: No to polar bear protection" - issued a verdict of "rock solid" regarding the claim that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin "fought against polar bear protection."
The brief commentary that followed accurately noted that Palin "opposed the Bush administration's decision to list polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and as Alaska governor filed suit to overturn that decision." It also quoted her as arguing that "there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future."
But by equating support for a federal listing of "threatened" with a willingness to protect polar bears, the feature stacked the deck. It implied that the listing will actually leave the bears better off, when that isn't clear at all.
The conflict over listing the polar bear as "threatened" is really over federal policy toward global warming and whether the Endangered Species Act will be used to force the government to limit carbon emissions and veto all sorts of energy projects - not only drilling in Alaska, but activity in the rest of the nation as well.
Everyone involved in the polar bear flap knows what's at stake. It's why Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, when accepting the recommendation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the polar bears as threatened this year, also said he was taking "administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn't abused to make global warming policies." And it's also why environmental groups immediately objected. They want the ESA to be used as a club in this way.
As for the bears: Fish and Wildlife scientists have indeed concluded that receding Arctic sea ice poses a threat to the animals over the next few decades, especially by century's end. But the state of Alaska notes that polar bears are thriving (the population has grown in recent decades because of hunting restrictions), disputes Washington's forecasting assumptions and worries that international agreements protecting the bears could be jeopardized by the listing.
Complicating matters is the discovery of an ancient polar bear jawbone on the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic.
"We have this specimen that confirms the polar bear was a morphologically distinct species at least 100,000 years ago, and this basically means that the polar bear has already survived one interglacial period," professor Olafur Ingolfsson of the University of Iceland told the BBC last December.
"And what's interesting about that," Ingolfsson added, "is that the Eeemian - the last interglacial - was much warmer than the Holocene (the present)."
Shortsighted
"There's not a lot of sympathy to be found here on the streets [of Greeley] for more than 100 Somali workers fired Wednesday from the JBS Swift & Co. meatpacking plant."
- Rocky Mountain News report, Sept. 12
This lack of sympathy for the Muslim workers may be predictable, but it's also shortsighted. The prevailing attitude seems to be, as one man told the Rocky, "They come to the U.S., they have to follow what's based on the U.S. standard."
Except that there is no "U.S. standard" regarding the practice of religion.
Outsiders unfamiliar with the meatpacking industry are in a poor position to judge whether JBS Swift has made reasonable attempts in line with federal law to accommodate the Somalis. I simply don't know the answer. It may well be that the workers' requests cannot be met without jeopardizing productivity or putting an unfair burden on other employees.
But we should at least hope this is not the case. We should at least sympathize with people striving to make a living while being true to their beliefs. The highest "U.S. standard" is, after all, the liberty to follow your conscience - when possible, even at work.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
September 16, 2008
2:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
r0ckyAurora writes:
I started out as a fan of the Truth Patrol, also. I’m still a fan of getting at the truth, but I’m not finding much from the Truth Patrol.
I looked up the data they used to support Bill Clinton’s claim that in this decade the American workers got “the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s.” The funny thing is that the data they claim Clinton was referring to actually shows that the “biggest increase in income inequality” occurred during Clinton’s years. See: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig... (Worksheet A3). What they rated Rock Solid should have been Just Wrong.
Yesterday, they rated “Sarah Palin Clueless about Bush Doctrine” as Rock Solid. Charles Krouthammer’s column “Gibson’s ‘gotcha’ catches him”, in the same day’s paper, debunks the Patrol’s argument. Again, their Rock Solid should have been Just Wrong, or, at best, Shaky.
Re: “Bookies say odds growing McCain will dump Palin”. Of all the things we could use the truth about, Bookies isn’t one of them. It seems someone wanted a way to include the phrase “…McCain will dump Palin.”
Re: “Denver hosted one of the nation's best political conventions ever.” Carl Bernstein said it, so it must be true.??? Any opinion is true.
Re: “John McCain defined 'middle class' as someone who makes less than $5 million.” And the first sentence of their argument for Rock Solid is “But folks, it was a joke.” That means he wasn’t really defining the middle class, and the statement doesn’t need Truth detection.
September 16, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
kc02 writes:
Exactly spot on. When I read that "Truth Patrol" junk I was amazed. So much for "Truth Patrol". The polar bears are thriving, and they just pretended that that little fact would go unnoticed. Thank you for pointing out the facts. I don't suppose you could clue the liberal mass media to this fact, could you?
September 16, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
I'm not sympathetic to the muslim workers in the slightest. The reason this nation is successful as a "melting pot" is because people from all walks of life are welcome here, welcome to maintain their traditions, religions and languages in their personal lives to their hearts content. But when they interact with society in general they have to make sacrifices to blend in.
There is more to American success with multiple and diverse peoples populating her than saying you're an American. Speaking english allows people to pass through every socio-economic strata; speaking only one's native tongue limits doors to familiar ones.
And making your religious or tribal traditions fit into the framework of an employer's stated job requirements is another. Jews revere Friday sunset until Saturday sunset as holy. Yet even the most observant Jews are required to perform tasks they are traditionally prohibited from doing during that time. Jews who try to take off work for the week long stretch of the High Holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur have to take vacation time.
Muslims are not allowed to perform female circumcisions in America just because this form of torture and mutilation has a religious and traditional basis in muslim nations. Muslims are not allowed to have multiple wives in America just because their religion allows it.
Sorry, radical muslim activists like CAIR, you can't remake America into your image no matter how much you want to. You lose.
September 16, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romulus writes:
Sarah Palin has disparaged the widely-accepted theory that human activity is contributing to the disappearance of sea ice. And sea ice is vital to the survival of polar bears. I'm guessing that if polar bears had the vote, she would not be Governor of Alaska.
September 16, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Actually, state SCIENTISTS concluded the polar bears are extremely threatened. The state GOVERNOR concluded they are not.
But, Vincent Carroll is likely one of the science-haters, so no wonder he was disappointed with the Truth Patrol's take.
Someone wake me up when the anti-intellectual movement is over in this country. Unless it has turned us into an idiocracy, in which case, don't bother.
September 16, 2008
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
I don't trust Sarah Palin's judgement on any creature, including non-conforming (to her standards) subspecies of homo sapiens. Using the argument that because polar bears are thriving from not being hunted means they'll thrive when sea ice disappears is illogical. She enthusiastically supports "hunting" (slaughter is more like it) wolves from planes in order to increase the caribou population. When that causes an increase in caribou herds, and possible caribou death by starvation (nature's other remedy when there aren't enough predators), she advocates increased human hunting. After all, we all know that nature can't keep wolves and caribou in mutual balance without human intervention.
Her sole criteria for the welfare of Alaska seems to be "What will it do for the oil industry?"
September 16, 2008
1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
carlindenver writes:
Thank you Vince. First, trying to locate the current Truth Patrol in RMN website is extremely difficult. Witness the amount or lack of comments when you happen to stumble on Truth Patrol's website. Truth patrol's transparency and "truth" is clearly laughable. And it reflects on the Rocky's reputation. As for polar bear protection...protection from ?AGW? Hunting from native eskimos native Americans and Canadiens will diminish polar bear populations more honestly than anthropologic global warming. Enviros do not really love polar bears. It is their cause and religion to hate man and realistic progress. I am a conservationist, but not a wacko enviro.
September 16, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
truth patrol, give me a break, it was clear, for those of us who can see through the smokescreen, that the truth patrol has an agenda, are left leaning and present half-truths just as their idols do.
September 16, 2008
2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Just goes to show that the media is biased against McCain and Palin. They'll spin the truth to fit the outcome they want, no matter how misleading it may be to the public. Some of us will find out the truth and won't be led so easily, and others don't want to be informed, they just want to be led blindly.
Thanks for exposing the truth for us Vincent!
September 16, 2008
3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
"I'm a huge fan of the Rocky Truth Patrol - this newspaper's feature evaluating the claims and counterclaims of the political season - but..."
Translates to "I'm a huge fan of...those wise and smart enough to reinforce my preconceptions and prejudices" ...as several others here have reinforced.
September 16, 2008
5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
let me get this straight...vinnie's whole defense of palin on throwing the polar bears under the bus (in the name of the almighty Denier)....is that he's unconvinced if classifying them as endangered is a move that will benefit the bears.
how much longer do we have to read these apologistic, extremist rants before the rmn makes a staffing move?
September 16, 2008
9:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sweetpickle writes:
I suppose the polar bears are at fault. Maybe they will commit suicide just to spite Vinny the guru.
September 17, 2008
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Titabcain, so agriculture was invented before the earth was created? Just think of all those people with knowledge of how to plant and grow things, and they're just aimlessly floating out there in the formless void. How embarassing!
September 17, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Sorry, Titancain, for the mispelling of your handle. My fingers got away from me.
September 18, 2008
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
I thought eviromentals belived in evolution then I think if the Polar bear can not adapt they are a evolutionary dead end and need to fade away.
September 18, 2008
8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
JSeifert,
Man caused the extinction of the Dodo, the Passenger pigeon the Great Auk and at least contributed to the decimation and extinction of hundreds of other species. We have brought to the brink of extinction such iconic species as the American Bison, the Bald Eagle, the Peregrine Falcon and various whale species.
Evolution involves the key process of natural selection. Were the Polar bear threatened by another species in its environment or naturally changing conditions that it couldn't adapt to, that would be natural selection. If, instead, man by his actions is the primary threat to a species, this is not natural selection at work. Hunting by man killed some 50 million bison on the North American continent in the late 1800's. They were killed mostly for their skins and tongues. The Passenger Pigeons were killed mostly for target practice and sport. The Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon were decimated by the egg thinning effects of DDT. Whales were brought to near extinction to provide oil for lamps ( ironically they were spared in part by the use of petroleum product substitute) and blubber which was sometimes made into pet food.
The point here is that the melting of the great Arctic ice sheet will likely doom the Polar Bear as well as some species of seals and Penguins to extinction.Scientists who have studied the bear for years believe that this is a likely scenario. Many other scientists, from climatologists to glaciologists, zoologists and botanists believe that GW is occurring and is, at least in part, due to man's activities. As a Botanist, I am one of them. Global Warming is melting the ice sheets. Connect the dots!
For those interested in an overview of man caused extinction please examine the following or related sites:
http://science.jrank.org/pages/2467/E...
September 18, 2008
11:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
Greenleaf:
"If, instead, man by his actions is the primary threat to a species, this is not natural selection at work."
Humans are natural. And we act according to our nature; we use our intelligence to improve our surroundings and maximize our survival. If it were true that human-caused global warming were a threat to the polar bear -- if one species were unable to adapt to the changes caused by another species -- how is that not natural selection?
Anyway, haven't you environmentalists essentially demanded an end to natural selection? You won't knowingly allow any species to go extinct for any reason -- true?
September 19, 2008
6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
infidel,
You ask two insightful questions. I have encountered these before in discussions of bioethics.
You said: " Humans are natural. And we act according to our nature; we use our intelligence to improve our surroundings and maximize our survival.."
Of course man came from the natural world and acts within it. Over the millenia, man has developed an upright, hands freeing posture, which, when combined with an opposable thumb has allowed him to hold and utilize tools better than any other species ( only a very small number of animals have been found that make even rudimentary use of tools). Among man's tools are: spears, clubs, knives guns, traps and nets that turn him into a super hunter well beyond his biological abilities. He also developed tools far more powerful than himself that are environment altering, among these are fire and huge machines that can clear forests, dam rivers, pave fertile land and destroy the habitats of all but the chosen few species we want in our presence.
Non human organisms have no choice but to compete for the same food sources as other organisms. For them, "winning the battle" might mean out reproducing the competition and protecting territory better than the other guy.Almost never does the more successful organism significantly alter the environment itself.
Humans, actively and selectively kill the competition. Historically, we hunted a targeted, "dangerous" animal to the point of extinction. We essentially eradicated the Grizzly Bear, the European Lion and the Wolf, among others. We Have also significantly over hunted other species of prey animals to extinction. Many biologists and Anthropologists believe that man hunted the mammoth and other megafauna of the Pleistocene to extinction. Others believe that agriculture developed as prey animals dwindled in number.
September 19, 2008
7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
infidel cont,
To accommodate agriculture, Man cleared forests and plowed natural meadows to exclude non-food (for him) producing plants and to introduce monoculture crops. To supply crops, he built dams for water. To store crops, he built permanent structures and built ever expanding villages connected by roads. As civilization and population expanded, man permanently occupied more space, altered more environments and pushed more plants and animals to the brink of, if not actual extinction. We are subdividing the world into natural and man altered spaces. Many animals can continue to exist only because we permit it. The world is turning into a human managed zoo and botanical garden.
You seem to argue that man acts according to his nature and within nature itself. I agree with the first and not the second. I believe that we are an aberration . We are nature in over-drive! We overwhelm nature, we don't seek to live within it. Increasingly, we only vacation in it, but again only on our own terms.
September 19, 2008
7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Infidel 3,
Your second question: "Anyway, haven't you environmentalists essentially demanded an end to natural selection? You won't knowingly allow any species to go extinct for any reason -- true?"
Yes and no! Yes environmentalists intervene in certain cases, mostly on the behalf of keystone or iconic species. We have intervened on behalf of Elephants, Rhinos, Eagles, Lions, Cheetahs, Tigers, and a legion of other plants and animals. Had intervention not taken place many, of these species that other animals are so dependent upon might also have become extinct. There exists the real danger of environmental collapse in certain parts of the world. In most of these cases, it isn't competition with other animals that is driving the process. It is a one to one correspondence with deforestation, pollution, over-hunting, expanding agriculture, and competition with shopping malls for places to live.
Of course, by intervening, scientists and governments do delay extinctions, but only of the handful of species that are considered key, such as Raptors or Elephants, or cuddly, like Pandas and Koalas.
Most scientists feel that man considers himself apart from nature, almost alien in our determination and cunning. I feel a little differently: I think that man is nature at the extreme. Man is the ultimate predator on this planet. Or is he? There might still exist a surprise for us in the form of some un-emerged pathogen that may knock us back temporarily or permanently. Without that, other organisms have to depend upon our better judgement to save them. Otherwise, look for your favorite animals only in zoos and learn to be happy with the animals that thrive around us: Dogs, cats, cockroaches and ants.
Will I or other environmentalists let other organisms go extinct knowingly? Of course we do, everyday! There simply aren't enough scientists, enough money, enough political will to prevent it. We know it is happening, but we have to make decisions that sometimes fly in the face of sound science. Sometimes, the keystone species is some unattractive plant or hard to market animal. For them, what you consider "natural selection" continues apace. The rest of us are fighting a losing battle. We are much like the proverbial little Dutch girl using her finger to plug the hole in the dam. Other scientists have referred to themselves as speed bumps and traffic cops.
September 19, 2008
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
Greenleaf:
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I think we could fill pages and pages if we continued, but this is probably not the best forum for that discussion . . .
September 19, 2008
6:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
infidel,
Speaking as one who has lived and breathed this subject for 40 years, I think the discussion should proceed with as many pages and all the words we have. I feel it is that important that we ignore it at our children's and grandchildren's peril. You and I will probably be just fine, but them...well I just don't know.
Thanks for returning to at least acknowledge that you read my efforts.
September 20, 2008
12:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
greenleaf, many scientists believe the mass extinction of several species were a result of an asteroid hitting the Earth, near the Yucatan Peninsula. The severe negative affect on the environment caused the mass extinctions, not man. Scientists also believe the extinction of the mammoth and saber-tooth tiger (along with Neanderthals) were a result of the ice age that meant loss of suitable living habitat and food supplies for those species. Also not as a result of man. I'll agree that it's the right thing for us to reduce negative affects on the environment that we cause and we can control. Some things though, are a natural action of the environment that we can't control. Colorado used to be like the Amazon jungle at one point in history, and in another part of it, Colorado was in an underwater sea. Imagine that........
Anyway, speaking of Neanderthals, NatGeo has a program on Sunday about Neanderthals and how they actually might be in all of us. Throughout the history of the Earth, those species most adaptable to change in the environment have survived and thrived.
September 20, 2008
7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Cwilly,
I thought I would check this posting one last time. I'm glad I did and that you posted. My studies of Biology and Botany took some side trips with classes in Geology, Anthropology and Paleontology. Admittedly, this was long ago, but I've tried to keep up to date.
The asteroid event you are referring to in the Yucatan, which formed the Chicxulub crater, caused more than a few species to die. In reality, thousands of species of dinosaurs and much plant life died in that event. That occurred some 65 million years ago and gave rise to the time of mammals. I was speaking more specifically of the much more recent Pleistocene Era, the time of the Woolly Mammoth, Woolly Rhinocerous , and the Great Stag.
The "woollies" evolved during the Ice Age and were well adapted to it. In fact, an early version of global warming along with predation by humans is believed to have led to their extinction. They were not brought to extinction by the ice age but rather by the end of it and the rising capabilities of humans.
Consider this from Wikepedia: Most woolly mammoths died out at the end of the Pleistocene, as a result of climate change and a shift in man's hunting patterns. In 2008 a study conducted by the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales in Spain determined that warming temperatures had reduced mammoth habitat to only a fraction of what it once was, putting the woolly mammoth population in sharp decline before the introduction of humans into the territory.[7] Glacial retreat shrunk mammoth habitat from 7,700,000 km2 (2,970,000 sq mi) 42,000 years ago to 800,000 km2 (310,000 sq mi) 6,000 years ago. Although a similarly drastic loss of habitat occurred at the end of the Saale glaciation 125,000 years ago, human pressure during the later warming period was sufficient to push the mammoth over the brink.[8] The study employed the use of climate models and fossil remains to make these determinations.[7]
You mention the Neanderthals who evolved side by side with Cro-Magnon Man. Both were sub species of Homo Sapiens. Some scientists believe that Cro-Magnon killed off and out competed the Neanderthals, others believe that Cro-Magnons were more successful and more numerous and interbred with the Neanderthals assimilating their genes but destroying the pure lines of the original Neanderthals. Who knows? Scientists have been arguing this theory or that on this subject since I was a young grad student35 years ago.
I agree that the animals most able to change will, but I hope that doesn't leave us mostly alone on a planet populated by rats, cockroaches and ants along with a few companion animals we bring along for the ride. It is hard for anything to adapt to the rapid and continuous changes such as Global Warming may present. Certainly, something will emerge successfully on the other side...but what?
Thanks Cwilly!