Image: Alan D Wilson, Wikipedia

I invite you to join me at Xomba. The Writers place.

http://www.xomba.com/referral/77777d6e

It does not look very good for polar bear. There should be a means of saving them, at least thought out. An array of used gallows in Washington and public observations of them may have helped 15-16 years ago. . .Gallows still should be erected. Could the current admin run fast enough? (You will also need to hold them heels over head and shake them clean of the money they have stolen while perpetuating the hoax.

BELOW I have taken text from the federal register; from the proposal to list the Polar Bear as threatened. And if you keep up with the literature and the science you will see this administration now trying to arrange some ameliorating considerations, likely as an effort to thwart hanging -- and will see Secretary of Interior, Kempthorne, start sounding the horn for listing as "endangered," not threatened. We will see.

By the way, USGS is a "Heavyweight" in Science.

And this Heavyweight in Science, the USGS, "weighed in" this month with an assessment that ought to point out the need for listing polar bear in "endangered" status. The report is an absolutely compelling report, more than a "strong recommendation" for listing as endangered. Somewhere, the current population of polar bears is now estimated at 16,000 -- not the 20,000 to 25,000 many organizations have been suggesting.

Look at the executive summary, here:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/executive_summary.pdf

IN the USGS report, there is a "bolding" of the main compelling conclusion:

The overall conclusion of the USGS research effort is:

Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.

Be it known: The USGS is as "conservative" as can be quoted. It has nothing to do with opinion -- it is only the Science of the projections. The real point is that with the 1 standard deviation error in the IPCC models -- we may be pointing out the loss (death) of 3/4 or more of the polar bear species.

See my post about the IPCC's underestimates of the sea ice disappearing:

http://www.xomba.com/thirty_years_ahead_of_schedule_the_arctic_sea_ice_will_vanish_ipcc_current_models_too_conservative

What the IPCC errors mean is that our species has 30 years less time to even formulate a plan for the survival of the polar bear. (September 23,2007 update: it may be 50 years sooner not 30.)

This animal's future, along with many others in the Arctic includes extinction much sooner than most had thought. We, especially Americans, have squandered more than half that time (that 30 years) with a do nothing political system, sold to the highest corporate bidder. It is time to readjust what we think Corporations are, and how we let them exist. And what we should render them into. These are monsters, directed by monsters, and these which have damaged so many life forms on Earth should be the modern Beowulf's target. Read on, perhaps you will see something new to you . . .

http://www.xomba.com/arctic_ice_vanishing

Much of the following was extracted from the Federal Register, the publication proposal for listing polar bear as threatened. I do not think the proposal, this one, is going to save this species. I think the Congress and the Administration act far too slowly unless their political survival is at stake. I just posted about Noreen Parks article in ScienceNow where the problems in the 18 IPCC models become obvious; the models just don't reflect what we have already observed. I am beginning to think James Hansen et. al. at Goddard and many cohorts elsewhere are 100% correct in their conclusions that the IPCC's predictions for sea ice and sea level changes are woefully in error.

General Description: Polar Bear

Polar bears are the largest of the living bear species (DeMaster and Stirling 1981 p. 1; Stirling and Derocher 1990 p.190). They are characterized by large body size, a stocky form, and fur color that varies from white to yellow. They are sexually dimorphic; females weigh 181 to 317 kilograms (kg) (400 to 700 pounds (lbs)) and males up to 654 kg (1,440 lbs).

[Les Porter's Note: Males may weigh in some instances up to 800 kg (1760 lb), http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/facts.htm.]

Polar bears have a longer neck and a proportionally smaller head than other members of the bear family (Ursidae), and are missing the distinct shoulder hump common to grizzly bears. The nose, lips, and skin of polar bears are black (Demaster and Stirling 1981 p. 1; Amstrup 2003 p. 588). Polar bears are evolutionarily adapted to life on sea ice. Adaptations to this life include: (1) White pelage with waterrepellent guard hairs and dense underfur; (2) a short furred snout; (3) small ears for reduced surface area; (4) teeth specialized for a carnivorous rather than an omnivorous diet; and (5) feet with tiny papillae and ‘‘suction cups’’ on the underside, for increased traction on ice (Stirling 1988, p. 24). Additional adaptations include large, paddle-like feet (Stirling 1988, p. 24), and claws that are shorter and more strongly curved than those of grizzly bears, and larger and heavier than those of black bears (Ursus americanus) (Amstrup 2003, p. 589).

Speciation

The raccoon and bear families are believed to have diverged about 30 million years ago. The spectacled bear split from other bears around 13 million years ago. The six distinct ursine species originated some 6 million years ago.

According to both fossil and DNA evidence, the polar bear diverged from the brown bear roughly 200 thousand years ago; fossils show that between 10 and 20 thousand years ago the polar bear's molar teeth changed significantly from those of the brown bear.

Polar bears have, however, bred with brown bears to produce fertile grizzly–polar bear hybrids, suggesting that the two are close relatives. But neither species can survive long in the other's niche, and with distinctly different morphology, metabolism, social and feeding behaviors, and other phenotypic characters, the two bears are generally classified as separate species.

[Post Ovulation implant delay, as below, is one reason the brown bear would have trouble in the polar bear's environment. - Les Porter]

In a widely cited paper published in 1996, a comparison of the DNA of various brown bear populations showed that the brown bears of Alaska's ABC islands shared a more recent common ancestor with polar bears than with any other brown bear population in the world.[@1]

Also to see how the bear species once split yet are still connected, polar bears still have HIT (hibernation induction trigger) in their blood, but do not now utilize this to hibernate as the brown bear does.

They may occasionally enter a dormant state referred to as "denning" (pregnant females in particular), though their body temperature does not decrease during this period as it would for a typical mammal in hibernation.[@2]

[@1] Lisette P. Waits, Sandra L. Talbot, R.H. Ward and G. F. Shields (April 1998). Mitochondrial DNA Phylogeography of the North American Brown Bear and Implications for Conservation 408-417. Conservation Biology. Retrieved on August 1, 2006.

[@2][b] Stirling 1988, Polar Bears...& also... Bruce et al.,1990 in Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav., 35: 705-711[b]

[This speciation section was modified and adapted from Wikipedia.--Les Porter.]

[=13]
=====================================

Image: USFWS

Image: USGS  Note the small number of polar bear - human conflicts.

See the whole report on Human-Bear conflicts:www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm

Distribution and Movements

Polar bears evolved to utilize the Arctic sea ice niche and are distributed throughout most ice-covered seas of the Northern Hemisphere. They are generally limited to areas where the sea is ice-covered for much of the year; however, polar bears are not evenly distributed throughout their range.

They are most abundant near the shore in shallow-water areas, and in other areas where currents and ocean upwelling increase marine productivity and serve to keep the ice cover from becoming too solidified in winter (Stirling and Smith 1975, p. 132; Stirling et al. 1981, p. 49; Amstrup and DeMaster 1988, p. 44; Stirling 1990, pp. 226–227; Stirling and Oritsland 1995, p. 2607; Amstrup et al. 2000b, p. 960).

Over most of their range, polar bears remain on the sea ice year round or spend only short periods on land. They occur throughout the East Siberian, Laptev, and Kara Seas of Russia; Fram Strait, Greenland Sea, and Barents Sea of northern Europe (Norway and Greenland (Denmark)); Baffin Bay, which separates Canada and Greenland, through most of the Canadian Arctic archipelago and the Canadian Beaufort Sea; and in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas located west and north of Alaska.

The distribution of polar bears in most areas varies seasonally with the seasonal extent of sea ice cover and availability of prey. In Alaska in the winter, sea ice may extend 400 kilometers (km) (248 miles (mi)) south of the Bering Strait, and polar bears will extend their range to the southernmost proximity of the ice (Ray 1971, cited in Amstrup 2003, p. 587).

Sea ice disappears from the Bering Sea and is greatly reduced in the Chukchi Sea in the summer, and polar bears occupying these areas move as much as 1,000 km (621 mi) to stay with the pack ice (Garner et al. 1990, p. 222; Garner at al 1994b, pp. 407–408). Throughout the polar basin during the summer, polar bears generally concentrate along the edge of or into the adjacent persistent pack ice. Significant northerly and southerly movements of polar bears appear to depend on seasonal melting and refreezing of ice (Amstrup et al. 2000, p. 142).

[This heating and cooling and lack of refreezing thing. That may be mankind's fault.]

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-npole.shtml North pole webcam page

Live! from the north pole:www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np.html

In other areas, for example, when the sea ice melts in Hudson Bay, James Bay, Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, portions of the Canadian High Arctic, and some portions of the Barents Sea, polar bears remain on land for up to several months while they wait for winter and new ice to form (Jonkel et al. 1976; Schweinsburg 1979; Prevett and Kolenosky 1982; Schweinsburg and Lee 1982; Ferguson et al. 1997; Lunn et al. 1997 all cited in Amstrup 2003, p. 587; Mauritzen et al. 2001, p. 1710).

The distribution patterns of some polar bear populations during the open water and early fall seasons have changed in recent years. In the Beaufort Sea, for example, greater numbers of polar bears are being found on shore during this period than recorded at any previous time (Schliebe et al. 2006b, p. 559). In Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, western Hudson Bay and other areas of Canada, Inuit hunters are reporting an increase in the numbers of bears present on land during summer and fall (Dowsley and Taylor 2005, p. 2; Dowsley 2005, p. 2). The exact reasons for changes may involve a number of factors, including changes in sea ice (Stirling and Parkinson 2006, p. 272).

Data from telemetry studies of adult female polar bears show that they do not wander aimlessly on the ice, nor are they carried passively with the ocean currents as previously thought (Pedersen 1945 cited in Amstrup 2003, p. 587). Results show strong fidelity to activity areas that are used over multiple years. Some polar bear populations are closely associated with pack ice.

In the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea areas of Alaska and northwestern Canada, less than 10 percent of the polar bear locations obtained were on land (Amstrup 2000, p. 137; Amstrup, USGS, unpublished data); the majority of the land locations were locations with bears occupying maternal dens during the winter. A similar pattern was found in East Greenland (Wiig et al. 2003, p. 511). In the absence of ice during the summer season, some populations of polar bears in eastern Canada, Hudson Bay, and the Barents Sea are remaining on land for protracted periods of time until ice again forms and provides a platform for them to move to sea ice.

Bearded seal. (Young.)

Ringed seal.A ringed seal - Phoca hispida - the smallest of all Alaska pinnipeds.
Image ID: anim0260, NOAA's Ark - Animals Collection
Photo Date: 1959 Summer
Photographer: Mr. Ardo X. Meyer, NOAA (ret.)

SORRY THE IMAGES I HAD HERE WERE APPARENTLY TOO SENSITIVE for our government to allow display. They showed a tagged ring seal and a ringed seal with its young.

Food Habits

Polar bears are carnivorous and an upper level predator of the Arctic
marine ecosystem. Polar bears prey heavily throughout their range on ringed
seals (Phoca hispida) and, to a lesser extent, bearded seals (Erignathus
barbatus) and in some locales, other seal species. On average, an adult polar bear needs approximately 2 kg (4.4 lbs) of seal fat per day to survive (Best 1985, p. 1035).

Sufficient nutrition is critical and may be obtained and stored as fat when prey is abundant. Although seals are their primary prey, polar bears also have been known to kill much larger animals such as walruses (Odobenus rosmarus), narwhal (Monodon monoceros), and belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) (Kiliaan et al. 1978; Smith 1980, p. 2206; Smith 1985; Lowry et al. 1987, p. 141; Calvert and Stirling 1990, p. 352; Smith and Sjare 1990, p. 99). In some areas and under some conditions, prey and carrion other than seals may be quite important to polar bear sustenance. Stirling and Oritsland (1995, p. 2609) suggested that in areas where ringed seal populations were reduced, other prey species were being substituted. Like other ursids, polar bears will eat human garbage (Lunn and Stirling 1985, p. 2295), and when confined to land for long periods they will consume coastal marine and terrestrial plants and other terrestrial foods (Russell 1975, p. 122; Derocher et al. 1993, p. 252), but the significance of other terrestrial foods to polar bears may be limited (Lunn and Stirling 1985, p. 2296; Ramsay and Hobson 1991, p. 600; Derocher et al. 2004, p. 169).

Reproduction

Polar bears are characterized by a late age at sexual maturity, small litter sizes, and extended parental investment in raising young, factors that combine to contribute to a very low reproductive rate. Reproduction in the female polar bear is similar to that in other ursids (bears). Females generally mature and breed for the first time at 4 or 5 years and give birth at 5 or 6 years of age. Litters of two cubs are most common, but litters of three cubs are seen sporadically across the Arctic. When foraging conditions are difficult, polar bears may ‘‘defer’’ reproduction in favor of survival (Derocher et al. 1992, p. 564).

[Les Porter’s note: The last sentence is a really questionable way to say something that is very important. Look, "survival" is necessary for reproductive success. If the mother starves or must eat her young then that was not successful for the overall species survival let alone individual survival.]

Polar bears, unique among mammals, enter a prolonged estrus between March and June, when breeding occurs. Ovulation is thought to be induced by mating (Wimsatt 1963; Ramsay and Dunbrack 1986; Derocher and Stirling 1992; all cited in Amstrup 2003, p. 599), and implantation is delayed until autumn.

The total gestation period is 195 to 265 days (Uspenski 1977 cited in Amstrup 2003, p. 599), although active development of the fetus is suspended during most of this period. The timing of implantation, and therefore the timing of birth, is likely dependent on body condition of the female, which depends on a variety of environmental factors.

Newborn polar bears are helpless, have hair, but are blind and weigh only 0.6 kg (1.3 lb) (Blix and Lentfer 1979, p. 68). Cubs grow rapidly, and may weigh 10 to 12 kg (22 to 26 lbs) by the time they emerge from the den in the spring. Young bears will stay with their mothers until weaning, which occurs most commonly in early spring when the cubs are 2.3 years of age. Female polar bears are available to breed again after their cubs are weaned, so the reproductive interval for polar bears is 3 years.

Polar bears are long-lived mammals not generally susceptable to disease,
parasites, or injury. The oldest known female in the wild was 32 years of age
and the oldest known male was 28, though few polar bears in the wild live
to be older than 20 (Stirling 1988, p. 139; Stirling 1990, p. 225). Due to extremely low reproductive rates, polar bears require a high rate of survival to maintain population levels. Survival rates increase up to a certain age, with cubs-of-the-year having the lowest rates and prime age adults (between 5 and 20 years of age) having survival rates that can exceed 90 percent.

Polar Bear—Sea Ice Habitat Relationships

Polar bears are distributed throughout the ice-covered waters of the
circumpolar Arctic (Stirling 1988, p. 61), and are reliant on the sea ice as
their primary habitat (Amstrup 2003, p. 587). Polar bears depend on sea ice for a number of purposes, including as a platform from which to hunt and feed upon seals; as habitat on which to seek mates and breed; as a platform to move to terrestrial maternity denning areas, and sometimes for maternity denning; and as a substrate on which to make long-distance movements (Stirling and Derocher 1993, p. 241). Mauritzen et al. (2003, p. 123) indicated that habitat use by polar bears during certain seasons may involve a trade-off between selecting habitats with abundant prey availability versus the use of safer retreat habitats with less prey. Their findings indicate that polar bear distribution may not be solely a reflection of prey availability, but other factors such as energetic costs or risk may be involved.

Stirling et al. (1993, p. 15) defined seven types of sea ice habitat and classified polar bear use of these ice types based on the presence of bears or tracks in order to determine habitat preferences. The seven types of sea ice ere: stable fast ice with drifts; stable fast ice without drifts; floe edge ice; moving ice; continuous stable pressure ridges; coastal low level pressure ridges; and fiords and bays. Polar bears were not evenly distributed over these sea ice habitats, but concentrated on the floe ice edge, on stable fast ice with drifts, and on areas of moving ice (Stirling 1990 p. 226; Stirling et al. 1993, p. 18). In another assessment, categories of ice types included: pack ice; shore-fast ice; transition zone ice; and polynyas (i.e., open water areas within the ice); and leads (USFWS 1995, p. 9).

Pack ice, which consists of annual and multi-year ice in constant motion due to winds and currents, is the primary summer habitat for Alaskan polar bears. Shore-fast ice is used for feeding on seal pups, movements, and occasionally for maternity denning. Open water at leads and polynyas attracts seals and other marine mammals and provides preferred hunting habitats during winter and spring . Polar bears must move throughout the year to adjust to the changing distribution of sea ice and seals (Stirling 1988, p. 63; USFWS 1995, p. 4). In some areas, such as Hudson Bay and James Bay, polar bears remain on land when the sea ice retreats in the spring and they fast for several months (up to 8 months for pregnant females) before fall freeze-up (Stirling 1988, p. 63; Derocher et. al. 2004, p. 163).

Some populations unconstrained by land masses, such as those in the Barents, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, spend each summer on the multiyear ice of the polar basin (Derocher et al. 2004, p. 163). In intermediate areas such as the Canadian Arctic, Svalbard, and Franz Josef Land archipelagos, bears stay with the ice most of the time, but in some years they may spend up to a few months on land (Mauritizen et al. 2001, p. 1710). Most populations use terrestrial habitat partially or exclusively for maternity denning; therefore, females must adjust their movements in order to access land at the appropriate time (Stirling 1988, p. 64; Derocher et al. 2004, p. 166).

Sea ice changes between years in response to environmental factors may have consequences to the distribution and productivity of polar bears as well as their prey. In the southern Beaufort Sea, anomalous heavy ice conditions in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s (thought to be roughly in phase with a similar variation in runoff from the MacKenzie River) caused significant declines in productivity of ringed seals (Stirling 2002, p. 68). Each event lasted approximately three years and caused similar declines in the natality of polar bears and survival of subadults, after which reproductive success and survival of both species increased again.

Map from USGS.

See text at USGS site below (where the above map comes from).
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/polarbears/den_distribution.htm

Maternal Denning Habitat

Throughout the species’ range, most pregnant female polar bears excavate
dens in snow located on land in the fall early winter period (Harington 1968, p. 6; Lentfer and Hensel 1980, p. 102; Ramsay and Stirling 1990, p. 233; Amstrup and Gardner 1994, p. 5). The only known exceptions are in Western and Southern Hudson Bay, where polar bears first excavate earthen dens and later reposition into adjacent snow drifts (Jonkel et al 1972, p. 146; Ramsey and Stirling 1990, p. 233), and in the southern Beaufort Sea, where a portion of the population dens in snow caves located on pack and shorefast ice.

Successful denning by polar bears requires accumulation of sufficient snow for den construction and maintenance. Adequate and timely snowfall combined with winds that cause snow accumulation leeward of topographic features create denning habitat (Harington 1968, p.12). A great amount of polar bear denning occurs in core areas (Harington 1968, pp. 7–8) which show high use over time.

In some portions of the species’ range, polar bears den in a more diffuse pattern, with dens scattered over larger areas at lower density (Lentfer and Hensel 1980, p. 102; Stirling and Andriashek 1992, p. 363; Amstrup 1993, p. 247; Amstrup and Gardner 1994, p. 5; Messier et al. 1994, p. 425; Born 1995, p. 81; Ferguson et al. 2000a, p. 1125; Durner et al. 2001, p. 117; Durner et al. 2003, p. 57). Habitat characteristics of denning areas vary substantially from the rugged mountains and fjordlands of the Svalbard archipelago and the large islands north of the Russian coast (Lono 1970, p. 77; Uspenski and Kistchinski 1972, p. 182; Larsen 1985, pp. 321–322) to the relatively flat topography of areas such as the west coast of Hudson Bay (Ramsay and Andriashek 1986, p. 9; Ramsay and Stirling 1990, p. 233) and north slope of Alaska (Amstrup 1993, p. 247; Amstrup and Gardner 1994, p. 7; Durner et al. 2001, p. 119; Durner et al. 2003, p. 61), to offshore pack ice pressure-ridge habitat.

The key characteristic of all denning habitat is topographic features that catch snow in the autumn and early winter (Durner et al. 2003, p. 61). Across the range, most polar bear dens occur relatively near the coast. The main exception to coastal denning occurs in the western Hudson Bay area, where bears den further inland in traditional denning areas (Kolenosky and Prevett 1983, pp. 243–244; Stirling and Ramsay 1986, p. 349).

Polar bears are largely food deprived while on land in the ice-free period; during this time they survive on stored fat reserves. Pregnant females that spend the late summer on land prior to denning may not feed for 8 months (Watts and Stirling 1988, p. 627). This may be the longest period of food deprivation of any mammal, and it occurs at a time when the female gives birth to and then nourishes new cubs.

Current Population Status and Trend

The total number of polar bears worldwide is estimated to be 20,000 – 25,000. Polar bears are not evenly distributed throughout the Arctic, nor do they comprise a single nomadic cosmopolitan population, but rather occur in 19 relatively discrete populations. The boundaries of these populations are based on behavioral and ecological factors and were developed from decades of intensive scientific studies as well as traditional knowledge (Lunn et al. 2002, p. 41). Although there is overlap in areas occupied by members of the populations, with the exception of the Arctic Basin population, these boundaries are sufficiently discrete to manage the populations independently. Correspondence between genetic data and movement data reinforces current population designations (Paetkau et al 1999, p. 1571; Amstrup 2003, p. 590).

===========

www.fws.gov/home/feature/2006/PolarbearFAQ.pdf

(from 2006)

Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposal to List Polar Bears as Threatened Species

Within Alaska, there are an estimated 4,700 animals shared with Canada and Russia in three populations – 1,500 in the Southern Beaufort Sea, 1,200 in the Northern Beaufort Sea, and 2,000 in the Chukchi Sea. The former two populations are shared with Canada, and the latter with Russia. There are no overall data on global polar bear population trends. However, long-term scientific studies in Canada’s Western Hudson Bay have identified reduced adult weights and cub survivorship, resulting in a decline of that population to an estimated 935 animals -- a 22% decline -- correlated with loss of sea ice.

More recent studies of the estimated 1,200 individuals in the Southern Beaufort Sea population in Alaska do not currently show a statistically significant decline, but this population is now experiencing the same pattern of reduced adult weights and cub survival as Western Hudson Bay. While such detailed studies are not available for other polar bear populations, the Service believes they may be facing the same situation, given their similar life history.

The projected threat to polar bears is the worldwide loss of their sea ice habitat. Recent data indicate a rapid and unprecedented retreat of Arctic sea ice (including earlier spring melt, later fall freeze-up and overall thinner ice) and there are projections of an ice-free Arctic Ocean within the foreseeable future. Since polar bears live on sea ice for a majority of the year and depend upon sea ice habitats for their key life functions, loss of sea ice would detrimentally affect all polar bears, world-wide.

This primary potential threat to polar bears appears to be unique because it stems from conditions throughout the Arctic rather than in any one localized area. The future status of the species is being predicted through models of the projected effects of sea ice change on polar bear populations which still need further development, testing, and enhancement before a final decision can be made about their future status.

What is the process for addressing a petition to add a species to the list of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act?

The Endangered Species Act requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. This finding is based on information contained in the petition, supporting information submitted with the petition, and information otherwise available to the FWS at the time of the finding. To the maximum extent practicable, the Service makes this finding within 90-days of the receipt of the petition and publishes this 90-day finding promptly in the Federal Register.

If the Service finds that substantial information is presented, it commences a review of the status of the species which is to be completed, if feasible, within 12 months of receipt of the petition. In the 12-month finding, one of three determinations can be made: (1) the petitioned action is not warranted; (2) the petitioned action is warranted, but precluded by other pending listing actions; or (3) the petitioned action is warranted, and the species is proposed for listing.

What is the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision on the petition to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act?

Today, the Service is not making a final decision on this petition. However, the Service finds, based on currently available data, that there is sufficient scientific evidence of a global threat to the polar bear to warrant proposing it for listing as a threatened species under the ESA. This is the next step in a lengthy process which was initiated in 2005 and which will still require much additional work to enhance existing scientific models and analyses before a final decision can be made on whether to list the species.

The Service now will actively seek additional scientific and commercial data, information, and comments on the proposed rule. The Service will accept comments for 90 days following the publication of the 12-month finding in the Federal Register, and will also hold one or more public hearings where the public can obtain information and offer comments. A copy of the proposed rule and other information about the proposal is available on the Internet at:

http://alaska.fws.gov

A final decision will take into account these comments and any other new information the Service obtains, and will be published one year from the date of this proposed rule.

What are the criteria for listing a species as threatened or endangered under the ESA?

The Service’s current proposal is to list the polar bear as “Threatened” throughout its range. As we evaluate public comments and any new information, we will consider all possible actions.

By definition in the ESA, an “Endangered” species is likely to go extinct within all or a significant portion of its range, while a “Threatened” species is likely to become Endangered in the foreseeable future. Under threatened status the species is protected and managed for recovery, but FWS may also adopt special rules tailored to the conservation needs of the species.

The ESA requires that a species be listed if it is imperiled by one or more of the following five criteria:

• Present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range;

• Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes;

• Disease or predation;

• Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

• Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Thus identification of any one of these factors as a threat to a species can require the listing of the species under the ESA. In the case of the polar bear, the melting of sea ice is the potential threat to the species. The ESA does not discriminate between natural or manmade causes.

Which of these ESA criteria is judged to be most important to the future status of the polar bear?

In the case of polar bears, the decision to propose this listing as Threatened is based on the future effect of the continued expected modification or curtailment of its habitat or range, specifically from receding sea ice, and the absence of any known regulatory mechanisms at the national or international level effectively addressing this threat to polar bear habitat.

The ESA uses the term: “foreseeable future”; what is this?

The ESA does not define “foreseeable future.” In other ESA listings, it has often been interpreted to be a function of generations of the species in question and/or habitat regeneration cycles. In this status review, based on the opinion of polar bear experts, the Service has adopted three generations as the upper limit. Using this measure, since a polar bear generation is defined as 15 years, the “foreseeable future” addresses the next 45 years.

If the final decision is made to list the polar bear under the ESA, how would this listing help the species?

The ESA requires that decisions be made solely on the basis of the five listing criteria outlined above, without regard to the level of knowledge or ability to address the threats to the species. A final decision to list the polar bear as threatened would not have any direct effect on the predicted reduction in sea ice habitat. However, listing would require the initiation of a recovery planning process, unless it is determined that this would not promote the conservation of the species. This planning process would include the cooperative efforts of International, Federal, State and local officials and agencies, Arctic Native groups, industry, and private entities to identify practical and feasible measures to provide for conservation of the species. These efforts would help increase public awareness about the status of polar bears and would assist in developing and implementing future polar bear management strategies. Listing would also require Federal agencies to consult (under Section 7 of the ESA) with the Service for any actions which might affect polar bears within the United States.

Is sport hunting or subsistence harvesting of polar bears legal today?

Hunting polar bears is prohibited by Norway and Russia, although some illegal harvest is occurring in Russia. Canada and Greenland allow subsistence take by Native communities as well as regulated sport hunting of certain populations.

In the United States, the Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits sport hunting, but subsistence harvest of polar bears by Alaskan Natives is allowed.

A user group management agreement is in place between the Inupiat of Alaska and the Inuvialuit of Canada to help ensure that subsistence harvest of the shared Beaufort Sea polar bear population is sustainable.

Legislation to implement a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia, which would provide for joint management and regulation of harvest of shared populations in the Chukchi Sea, has passed Congress and is now awaiting presentation to the President for signature.

If polar bears may be threatened, how can we allow any harvest or utilization at all?

Subsistence harvest of polar bears is of great social, cultural and economic importance to Native peoples throughout much of the Arctic, and the proposed rule finds that subsistence harvest is not a threat to the species.

[Les Porter: For black practical humor, see my posting on the New Canadian Polar Bear Hunting Rules, where actual "sportsmanship" and the nature of the "True American Sportsman" is brought into focus somewhat. This is akin to Native Americans wanting to kill endangered whales for cultural purposes, social "subsistence" kinds of things -- but they often use "motorboats" and high-strength high-tech steel harpons -- (a longtime native cultural tradition?) -- and motorized equipment to distribute the wealth of cultural reward from the endangered or threatened species. . . . For the Traditional American Sportsman, where is the "sport" in using a 300 Magnum to kill a polar bear? My black humor piece tries to suggest a means to return the idea of a 'sporting' sport to a meaningful concept. Under the new rules, "Real Men and women could test themselves in sport against a truly endanged 'subsistence' hunter. Bears prefer the blubber of the seals they hunt to the meat, and the carcasses they leave behind are food for other species. A subsistence hunter that can stalk you would be a challenge. Polar Bears are just trying to live in a world we are too rapidly changing or contributing the change so that this animal and other species are unlikely to survive. My black humor proposal would still allow the Native Peoples to benefit from the situation.]

Therefore, maintaining a harvest within sustainable limits, in relation to population sizes and trends, remains a priority for the Service. If the species is listed as threatened, the subsistence harvest by Alaskan natives currently allowed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act would continue to be allowed under the Endangered Species Act.

This situation would change only if there was a change in subsistence harvest which resulted in a material, negative impact on polar bear populations. If the species is listed, the Service would also be willing to consider a special rule allowing export of polar bear handicrafts.

Some Native communities in arctic Canada also obtain significant financial benefits from allocating a portion of their overall subsistence quota to trophy hunters from the United States and other nations, and from providing guiding services to such hunters. Under standards set by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Service currently allows the import of sport-hunted trophies only from those Canadian populations which have a sustainable harvest. If the species is listed as threatened, the Service would work with the Marine Mammal Commission, Congress, and all interested parties to consider a special rule allowing continued import of trophies from healthy populations.

Is it true that Native groups in some of these areas claim that traditional knowledge indicates that local polar bear populations are actually increasing?

The Service respects and makes use of traditional knowledge in all of its decision-making processes, and will evaluate information from Arctic Native communities in Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, Western Hudson Bay, and other areas of Canada, which have recently reported increasing numbers of bears present on land.

These traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased population, though others note that this could just be the result of a change in polar bear distribution. In the declining polar bear population of Canada’s Western Hudson Bay, extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat.

Are there reliable figures for changes in the Arctic sea ice cap over the last several decades?

Observations have shown a decline in late summer Arctic sea ice to the extent of 7.7 percent per decade and in the perennial sea ice area of 9.8 percent per decade since 1978. Observations have likewise shown a thinning of the Arctic sea ice of 32 percent from the 1960s and 1970s to the 1990s in some local areas.

Why is the sea ice melting?

The predominant reasons for amplified decreases in the extent of sea ice are:

(a) the sea ice albedo effect (i.e., less sea ice cover, which has a high reflectivity, causes more absorption of solar radiation in the ocean and hence more heat storage in the ocean, and a warmer ocean further delays formation of new sea ice cover in the fall);

(b) the thinning of the sea ice (including the reduction in perennial ice), which leads to more rapid melting of sea ice;

(c) an increase in melt season length, which enhances the ice albedo feedback, and decrease in ice season length, which limits the winter ice extent and the average thickness of ice during the season; and

(d) the movement of ice out of the Arctic Ocean.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, using satellite images, estimates that the Arctic ice cap has shrunk by 20% since 1979.

[Les Porter: Does this sound like the possiblity of 'Global Warming?']

Why couldn’t polar bears adapt to these changes in their habitat?

Genetic research indicates the polar bears evolved from an isolated population of the grizzly or brown bears 250,000 years ago. They are usually considered marine mammals since they are highly adapted to life on sea ice.

Their fur, short snout, and small ears are adaptations to the cold; their teeth are specialized for a completely carnivorous diet (primarily of arctic seals); their feet have tiny papilae and “suction cups” for increased traction on ice; and their claws are shorter and more curved than grizzly bears. Their body structure and locomotion is adapted to walking on ice and swimming between ice flows, and they are not as efficient in walking or running on land as grizzly bears.

If polar bears had to adapt to spending more of their lives on land, they would have to compete with grizzlies and other predators for prey items for which they are not as well adapted. Some polar bears spend portions of their on land waiting for the ice to return – for example, the Western Hudson Bay population – but during these periods when they do not have access to their regular food supply, they typically do not eat and instead live off their stored fat reserves. All of these factors would mean that it could be difficult for polar bears to adapt to living without ice.

What is the perspective of the Administration on climate change, in light of this proposal to list the polar bear due to threats of sea ice melting?

The President treats climate change very seriously and recognizes the role of greenhouse gases in climate change.

The Administration is taking aggressive steps to implement a sensible course of action, promoting a widespread use of the best of today’s technologies and accelerating the time when new technologies are available to make even greater progress.
The President is committed to a portfolio of actions. The President have [has?] dedicated more than $29 billion to climate science and research, and more than 60 mandatory, incentive based, and voluntary programs and smart choices by consumers to meet the President’s goal of reducing green house gas intensity 18% by 2012.

These actions include:

• voluntary partnerships with 15 trade associations representing 14 industry sectors to meet specific goals to address greenhouse gases;

• an international methane-to-markets partnership with specific reduction targets for methane;

• new fuel standards for light trucks;

• new mandatory appliance efficiency standards;

• the awarding by the Treasury of $1.3 Billion in tax credits to leverage over $10 Billion in clean coal, low carbon energy;

• an Asia-Pacific partnership with 6 nations that include half the world’s populations and half the greenhouse gas emissions to advance clean energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and enhance economic development.

Much of the science cited in the document proposing listing of the polar bear regarding sea ice conditions was generated as part of this Administration's unprecedented levels of investment in climate research.

The President has acknowledged that the globe is warming and that human factors are a contributing factor. [See below for “What President Bush Has Said About Climate Change.”]

Specifically, how does loss of sea ice threaten polar bears?
Although some females will use snow dens on land for birthing cubs, polar bears are almost completely dependent upon Arctic sea-ice for survival. They use sea ice as a platform from which to hunt and feed upon seals, to seek mates and breed, to move to maternity denning areas on land, and to travel long distances. Thus any significant changes in the abundance, distribution, or existence of sea ice would have profound effects all stages of the animal’s life cycle.

Are polar bears currently recognized as being an at-risk species by any nations or organizations?

Polar bears are listed as species of concern in both Canada and in Russia. In addition, in June 2005, the IUCN World Conservation Union’s Polar Bear Specialist Group – which includes the world’s leading polar bear scientists – reclassified polar bears under the IUCN’s “Red List of Threatened Species” to be a species vulnerable to global extinction due to sea ice change, with prediction of more than a 30% population decline in the next 45 years.

What is currently being done to protect polar bears in Alaska?

There are three polar bear populations in Alaska: the Southern Beaufort Sea population, estimated 1,500 animals, shared with Canada; the Northern Beaufort Sea population, estimated at 1,200 animals, also shared with Canada; and the Chukchi Sea population, estimated 2,000 animals, shared with Russia.

Management of these polar bears is already the responsibility of the Service under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the U.S. Geological Survey (Survey) is also actively involved in research.

The Service and the Survey are pursuing an active program, in cooperation with a broad array of organizations, which includes studying population status and trends, learning more about polar bear relationship to sea ice habitat, monitoring subsistence harvest, and minimizing bear-human conflicts, among many other topics, all designed to help conserve polar bears in the face of a changing environment.

Key partners in these local, national, and international cooperative efforts include the State of Alaska, Alaskan Natives, the oil and gas industry, other bureaus within the Department of Interior, other countries, and non-governmental conservation organizations.

In early December, Congress passed new legislation, the United States-Russia Polar Bear Conservation and Management Act of 2006, which will implement a bilateral agreement negotiated with Russia for the joint management of subsistence harvest of polar bears in the Chukchi Sea population. This will establish a coordinated management regime for the shared population, including determination and implementation of sustainable harvest levels.

What additional research efforts would most benefit polar bears?

Current projections of the future status of polar bears are based on models of the effects of a changing environment on polar bear populations. Much new information and effort is needed to develop and enhance these models and improve confidence levels in our understanding of the future of polar bears. This will play a key role in the decision about what is needed to ensure the conservation of polar bears.

How would oil and gas development affect polar bears?

There is an extensive data base of knowledge about how to incorporate measures to ensure the conservation of polar bears from oil and gas development in the North Slope. Based on mitigation measures in place now and likely to be used in the future, historical information, the lack of direct quantifiable impacts to polar bear habitat from these activities, and the localized nature of these potential development activities or spills, the proposed listing of the polar bear finds that these activities will not threaten the species throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

The Service and the industry have worked cooperatively for many years to develop and implement regulations specifying appropriate safety measures for both workers and polar bears.

Mitigation measures and polar bear encounters are tracked and evaluated through the Service’s Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental Take Program. Similarly successful cooperation is ongoing between the Service and the oil and gas industry for two species of ducks already listed under the ESA, the spectacled and Steller’s eiders.

[Les Porter: If an area is exploited, even if it is a nationally owned resource which harbors endangered species, someone is going to make a bundle on it, depending on the political winds -- and there will be species interactions of a non-sporting type. Next; Quotes from President Bush, about climate change, working backwards in time. You should all love this section, and its, ummm... consistent coherence and clarity.]

WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH HAS SAID ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE:

“ We -- first of all, there is -- the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: Is it manmade or natural. Put that aside. It is in our interests that we use technologies that will not only clean the air, but make us less dependent on oil. That's what I said in my State of the Union the other day. I said, look -- and I know it came as quite a shock to -- for people to hear a Texan stand up and say, we've got a national problem, we're addicted to oil. But I meant what I said.

Being addicted to oil is a problem for our economy. In a global economy, when burgeoning economies like India and China use more fossil fuels, it affects the price of gasoline here in America. In a world in which sometimes people have got the oil we need, or don't like us -- it's kind of a undiplomatic way of putting it -- it means we've got a national security issue.

[Les Porter: yeah, 4.5% of the world population produces 27% of the CO2 emitted...]

"I have -- much of my position was defined early on in my presidency when I told the world I thought that Kyoto was a lousy deal for America. And I tell you why it was a lousy deal for America. It meant that we had to cut emissions below 1990 levels, which would have meant I would have presided over massive layoffs and economic destruction. I believe the best way to put technologies in place that will not only achieve national objectives like less addiction to oil, but also help clean the air, is to be wealthy enough to invest in technologies, and then to share those technologies with parts of the world that were excluded from the Kyoto Protocol.

[Les Porter: Now if the US Supreme Court had not interfered with the vote of the people Bush might have been saying the things that Al Gore might have said . . .]

And so I guess I should have started differently when I first became President, and said, we will invest in new technologies that will enable us to use fossil fuels in a much wiser way. And what does that mean? Well, it means that we've got to figure out how to use ethanol more in our cars. Ethanol is produced mainly by cane and corn. But we're near some breakthroughs that we can use sawgrass and biomass to be able to produce ethanol.

That means we got to continue investing in hybrid batteries. Ours is a country where many people live in urban centers, like Washington, D.C., and it's possible to have a hybrid battery breakthrough which says that the first 40 miles of an automobile can be used by electricity alone. Right now the hybrid vehicles, as you know, switch between gasoline and electrical power. But that consumes gasoline, which means we're still reliant upon oil. The idea is to get off of oil.
On the electricity front, we need to be using nuclear power more in this country, in my judgment. It is a renewable source of energy that has zero gas emissions. We've got a great natural resource here in America called coal. We have 250-plus years of coal reserves. But we also recognize that by -- burning coal causes environmental problems, and so we're spending billions on research to come up with clean coal technologies. And we'd like to share those technologies with other nations of the world that are beginning to grow so that they are good stewards of the environment, as well.
And so I got a comprehensive plan that uses technologies to help this nation from a national and economic perspective, but also will help improve the global economy -- the environment from those new, burgeoning economies that are -- like China and India, to be exact.”
March 29, 2006

“… [O]vercoming extreme poverty goes hand-in-hand with improving the environment. Stagnant economies are one of the greatest environmental threats in our world. People who lack food and shelter and sanitation cannot be expected to preserve the environment at the expense of their own survival. Poor societies cannot afford to invest in cleaner, more efficient technologies. India Gandhi spoke of poverty and need as the greatest polluters. The long-term answer to environmental challenges is the rapid, sustained economic progress of poor nations.

The best way to help nations develop while limiting pollution and improving public health is to promote technologies for generating energy that are clean, affordable and secure. Some have suggested the best solution to environmental challenges and climate change is to oppose development and put the world on an energy diet. But at this moment, about two billion people have no access to any form of modern energy. Blocking that access would condemn them to permanent poverty, disease, high infant mortality, polluted water and polluted air.”
June 30, 2005

“Our alliance is determined to show good stewardship of the earth -- and that requires addressing the serious, long-term challenge of global climate change. All of us expressed our views on the Kyoto protocol -- and now we must work together on the way forward. Emerging technologies such as hydrogen-powered vehicles, electricity from renewable energy sources, clean coal technology, will encourage economic growth that is environmentally responsible. By researching, by developing, by promoting new technologies across the world, all nations, including the developing countries can advance economically, while slowing the growth in global greenhouse gases and avoid pollutants that undermine public health. All of us can use the power of human ingenuity to improve the environment for generations to come.”
February 21, 2005

“America and the world share this common goal: we must foster economic growth in ways that protect our environment. We must encourage growth that will provide a better life for citizens, while protecting the land, the water, and the air that sustain life.

In pursuit of this goal, my government has set two priorities: we must clean our air, and we must address the issue of global climate change. We must also act in a serious and responsible way, given the scientific uncertainties. While these uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the human factors that contribute to climate change. Wise action now is an insurance policy against future risks….

Today, I'm confident that the environmental path that I announce will benefit the entire world. This new approach is based on this common-sense idea: that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies.
This new approach will harness the power of markets, the creativity of entrepreneurs, and draw upon the best scientific research. And it will make possible a new partnership with the developing world to meet our common environmental and economic goals….

I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and it's central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate. Our immediate goal is to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the size of our economy.

My administration is committed to cutting our nation's greenhouse gas intensity -- how much we emit per unit of economic activity -- by 18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, to stop and then reverse the growth of emissions….

[By] giving companies incentives to cut emissions, by diversifying our energy supply to include cleaner fuels, by increasing conservation, by increasing research and development and tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean technologies, and by increasing carbon storage, I am absolutely confident that America will reach the goal that I have set.

If, however, by 2012, our progress is not sufficient and sound science justifies further action, the United States will respond with additional measures that may include broad-based market programs as well as additional incentives and voluntary measures designed to accelerate technology development and deployment.

Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort over many generations. My approach recognizes that economic growth is the solution, not the problem. Because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments and new technologies….

The hope of growth and opportunity and prosperity is universal. It's the dream and right of every society on our globe. The United States wants to foster economic growth in the developing world, including the world's poorest nations. We want to help them realize their potential, and bring the benefits of growth to their peoples, including better health, and better schools and a cleaner environment….

To clean the air, and to address climate change, we need to recognize that economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand. Affluent societies are the ones that demand, and can therefore afford, the most environmental protection. Prosperity is what allows us to commit more and more resources to environmental protection. And in the coming decades, the world needs to develop and deploy billions of dollars of technologies that generate energy in cleaner ways. And we need strong economic growth to make that possible.”
February 14, 2002

“… my Administration’s climate change policy will be science-based, encourage research breakthroughs that lead to technological innovation, and take advantage of the power of markets. It will encourage global participation and will pursue actions that will help ensure continued economic growth and prosperity for our citizens and for citizens throughout the world.”
July 13, 2001

“The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.

My Cabinet-level working group has met regularly for the last 10 weeks to review the most recent, most accurate, and most comprehensive science. They have heard from scientists offering a wide spectrum of views. They have reviewed the facts, and they have listened to many theories and suppositions. The working group asked the highly-respected National Academy of Sciences to provide us the most up-to-date information about what is known and about what is not known on the science of climate change.

First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.

There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

Yet, the Academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.
For example, our useful efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming, because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space. And, finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.

The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.”
June 11, 2001

--------------------------ICE and other STUFF------------------------

http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/massisit.htm

MASS BALANCE: What does this mean?

The Arctic ice pack is governed by two processes: thermodynamics and dynamics. The mass balance of sea ice is a straightforward thermodynamic concept. It is simply the balance of how much the ice grows in the winter and melts in the summer.

For Arctic sea ice virtually all of the growth occurs on the bottom of the ice. Melting occurs on both the top and the bottom of the ice. In the vast majority of cases all of the snow melts during the summer, typically in just a couple of weeks.

The mass balance is a powerful concept since it is the great integrator of the heat budget.

If there is a net increase of heat, then the ice will thin.

A net cooling will result in thicker ice.

Simple. Accurately measuring it is the trick.

The combined results of earlier sea ice mass balance studies (Untersteiner, 1961; Hanson, 1965; Koerner, 1973; Maykut and McPhee, 1995; Morison et al., 2002; Perovich et al., 2003) suggest that in addition to spatial differences, there is significant interannual variability in the ablation/accretion rate of the sea ice cover.

Measurements of the ablation of unponded, level multiyear ice are presented in the bar chart below. Surface melt ranged from 20 to 70 cm, while bottom melt varied from 10 to 60 cm.

Comparing data from similar locations indicates that the interannual variability at a particular location may be greater than the latitudinal variability in a single year.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/365869main_earth2-20090707-full.jpg">

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/365869main_earth2-20090707-full.jpg">http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/365869main_earth2-20090707-full.jpg

The results show that there was thinning at every point of comparison. The thinning average 40%, representing a decrease from about 3 m to less than 2 m.

`
`

U.S. Navy Photo: Oct. 2003; Chief Yeoman Alphonso Braggs, US-Navy

THE THREE BEARS and the USS Honolulu, 280 nautical miles "south" of the North Pole

Three Polar bears approach the starboard bow of the Los Angeles-class fast attack submarine USS Honolulu (SSN 718) while surfaced 280 miles from the North Pole. Sighted by a lookout from the bridge (sail) of the submarine, the bears investigated the boat for almost 2 hours before leaving. Commanded by Cmdr. Charles Harris, USS Honolulu while conducting otherwise classified operations in the Arctic, collected scientific data and water samples for U.S. and Canadian Universities as part of an agreement with the Arctic Submarine Laboratory (ASL) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). USS Honolulu is the 24th Los Angeles-class submarine, and the first original design in her class to visit the North Pole region. Honolulu is assigned to Commander Submarine Pacific, Submarine Squadron Three, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

It is not uncommon for Polar Bears to investigate anything that rises out of the sea ice. Submarines are commonly investigated. Any seaman wanting to venture on the ice from the boat should have lookouts posted above since polar bears will investigate them as potential food. It is best to avoid hungry bears. Bears have been seen near the pole.

In April 2003, the American submarine Connecticut (SSN 22) poked its sail and rudder through an area of polar ice between Alaska and the North Pole. According to StrategyPage.com, "A large (700-800 lb) polar bear was seen approaching the sub and loitering for about 40 minutes around the subs rear rudder. It took a bite out of the rudder and, finding it inedible, stayed around the area of broken ice near the rudder for a time, apparently thinking a seal might use it as an air hole. The bear finally left when he heard the noise of an approaching helicopter." Photos of the polar bear at the submarines rudder were taken from the periscope camera and distributed to the media. [Les Porter: I had seen the photo's; I tried to locate them for this posting, gave up, settled for the Honolulu.]
===========================================

"How will these beasts survive . . ?"

In mid-September, NSIDC Director Roger Barry spent time in the Laptev Sea on an arctic icebreaker. The ship entered only one area of continuous ice to the east of Severniya Zemvya, one of the most northern island chains of Russia. "That whole area was covered in thick multiyear ice last year, in September of 2004." The Northeast Passage, north of the Siberian coast, was completely ice-free from August 15 through September 28.

===================== MELT ANOMALIES

These maps show anomalies between “normal” timing of spring melting (the long-term mean) and when melting started in the year indicated. Melt began earlier on average in all four years, but was most widespread in 2002 and 2005.

The 2005 map shows particularly early melt in the region north of the Bering Strait , which is consistent with the warm temperatures observed during the spring and summer. The satellite does not pass directly over the North Pole; this lack of data is indicated by the gray circle in each image.

===============

NSIDC Director Roger Barry "mused" about the possible effects of the sea ice decline, including the impact on Arctic animals. “We saw several polar bears quite close to the ship,” he said. “Polar bears must wait out the summer melt season on land, using their stored fat until they can return to the ice. But if winter recovery and sea ice extent continue to decline, how will these beasts survive?”

Since 2002, satellite records have also revealed that springtime melting is beginning unusually early in the areas north of Alaska and Siberia. The 2005 melt season arrived even earlier, beating the mean melt onset date by approximately 17 days, this time throughout the Arctic.

In addition, arctic temperatures have increased in recent decades. Compared to the past 50 years, average surface air temperatures from January through August, 2005, were 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than average across most of the Arctic Ocean

============================== REAL ACTIVISM ===

http://www.seashepherd.org/

Captain Paul Watson, one of the original founders of Greenpeace, now director and principal conscience of the Seashepherd Conservation Society, has had a preservation stance for all marine mammals including the harp seal, whales, and others on a worldwide basis, and for many years. (Yes, this is the man who has taken on the Japanese Whaling Fleet, hunting and killing of hundreds of whales 'for scientific purposes' in the Southern Ocean around Anarctica. Japanese whalers along with denied Russian whalers have singlehandedly all but eliminated the Pacific right whale. The Japanese this year have elected to kill endangered humpback whales in the Southern Ocean. The good ol' boys do not like Captain Watson.)

Many years ago, when Greenpeace turned into a big business money raiser, Watson, an original founder was divorced from the organization he helped found. Watson can speak to this and does, but there is a clear difference between his principles and activisim and those of Greenpeace which seems to have turned into an icon for raising money and legal fees but has little real engagement in the species conservation realm. (My opinion; Les Porter)

http://www.seashepherd.org/

Captain Paul Watson's website is insightful and well worth visiting. The organization has staked out a position on Polar Bears that is worth examination -- and has actively pursued the listing of the polar bear.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_061116_1.html

(Below is excerpted from The Polar Bear segment of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's posting:)

--Sea Shepherd is also requesting that the U.S. and European governments put pressure on Canada to ban the recreational sport hunting of polar bears in Canadian territory.--

--About 60 percent of the world's estimated 22,000 to 27,000 polar bears live in Canada's North.--

--Sea Shepherd is in complete disagreement with the Greenpeace Foundation and the Center for Biological Diversity positions that the polar bear hunt should not be eliminated.--

[emphasis mine: Les Porter]

--Melanie Duchin, who is with Greenpeace in Anchorage, Alaska, says her group is not against the hunting of polar bears. "If the species of certain populations against the backdrop of global warming can sustain a commercial hunt, than we're not going to oppose it," said Duchin.--

[Ludicrous! They say money is the factor. Beautiful word warbling; of course man ('The human species, Inuit, et al') can maintain a commercial operation right to the point of exctinction! It raises the price per trophy! Greenpeace for you. --Les Porter]

--Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, says if polar bears are listed under the Endangered Species Act, it might affect the importation of polar bear trophies to the United States. However, she said there are precedents whereby trophies have been allowed for animals listed under the legislation.--

--"We want the sport hunting to be sustainable," Siegal said. "We have some concerns about hunting levels in Greenland, in parts of Russia, and in some parts of Canada, but it was not the intent of this petition to impact sport hunting in Canada."--

[One way to "sustain sport hunting" is to preserve the summer sea ice --so the polar bear at least has an abode until hunted to extinction.--Les Porter.]

---end excerpt---

Last year, the Seashepherd Conservation Society wrote to US Fish and Wildlife Service, requesting the Polar Bear be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

See this page for the US Fish and Wildlife Service response:

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_061116_1b.html

You can propose listing of endangered species as well:

http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/Listing/Listing.pdf

========================================

To protect some large business interests, the current Bush Administration is wanting to "reassess" the magnificent polar bear's plight in 45 years, meaning there will be no enactment of constraints to CO2 in the air -- and much more burning of C.

I'll be long gone, and so will many of you readers. The polar bear deserves better, and so do you. Impeach and hang would be a good approach; but the most important thing this species can do right now is restructure how a Corporation is chartered and permitted to exist. Change those things, recover the money they have paid as bonuses and you "may" have saved more than the polar bear. But you need to get after it.

Otherwise begin now writing what you did not do that you could have to save many species. Explain why you allowed the Polar Bear to become extinct? Explain this to the next 50 to 100 generations that you actually could have stopped it. You could have rid the world of those amongst us that brought this into so rapid an emergency. You could have turned it around. But you didn't. . . Because. . .?