# science will ban hunting in future?



## I like Meat (Feb 14, 2009)

Thanks to all those who vote for this clown..ukey:..Obama and his cohorts are *NOT* a friend of hunters or gun owners.....the sooner people wise up to that the better off this country will be.....:wink:


----------



## Harpoon Brother (Oct 11, 2008)

I was so angry and am still fuming over Obama banning polar bear hunts.  grrrr


----------



## bowmanhunter (Dec 27, 2003)

anything they ban is just a start!:mg:all downhill from here we'll have to fight for everything


----------



## bigbucks170 (Feb 2, 2006)

Yeah things should be the way it use to be..free to do what ever you like,
like the western times let kill all the bufflo...


bigbucks170


----------



## I like Meat (Feb 14, 2009)

ukey:


----------



## Scotsbowhunter (Mar 26, 2008)

It could be worse...


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

If all hunters can somehow work together and present a united rational arguement to the majority[ which are the undecideds in this country] the whacko PETA types will be seen for what they really are and our hunting tradition will continue.



...


----------



## Eric W (Jan 16, 2007)

*You're right*



Scotsbowhunter said:


> It could be worse...


And it will be very soon.
.


----------



## Eric W (Jan 16, 2007)

*??*

I'm not seeing the "good science" here.

I agree with you completely that they are trying to make this look scientically sound, but I'm just not seeing it.

Fotunately for them, 52% of the population is stupid and won't question it.
.


----------



## Campo (Sep 20, 2006)

All the problems facing our country, including total collapse, and this is what people are focusing on?

Go figure the Republicans were ousted! :wink: Kinda had their heads in an area where there isn't much shine! :wink:


----------



## Stanley (Jan 18, 2005)

There already are some protected animal & bird species. The bald eagle, song birds, bobcats & wolfs in some parts of the country, plus numerous others. Should we be allowed to hunt these as well?


----------



## bigrackHack (Jun 11, 2004)

Campo said:


> All the problems facing our country, including total collapse, and this is what people are focusing on?
> 
> Go figure the Republicans were ousted! :wink: Kinda had their heads in an area where there isn't much shine! :wink:


And what was Obama's first act? Turning terrorists loose? Man, that Obama is focused on what matters, all right! Great use of your vote! :lol:


----------



## Campo (Sep 20, 2006)

If you believe in torture and violations to the Geneva Convention, then sure, I guess it makes sense to keep them in Cuba.

After all, Guantanamo was put in Cuba so that the C.I.A. didn't have to follow cruel and unusual punishment laws and also so the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended for people in U.S. custody.

So, if you are for equal rights for all, then I don't see how you couldn't support this.


Unless of course people who oppose this are facists. :noidea:

Also, I find it funny you call them terrorists. Those still in custody in Guantanamo were not tried yet and had not been convicted. According to the constitution that runs our country, you can't call them a damn thing. Remember that little phrase "innocent until proven guilty"? Unless of course you think the constitution is hogwash as well?



bigrackHack said:


> And what was Obama's first act? Turning terrorists loose? Man, that Obama is focused on what matters, all right! Great use of your vote! :lol:


----------



## hoyt_hunter007 (Aug 29, 2006)

Stanley said:


> There already are some protected animal & bird species. The bald eagle, song birds, bobcats & wolfs in some parts of the country, plus numerous others. Should we be allowed to hunt these as well?


My first thought as well.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

thwackaddict said:


> Polar bears are not endangered at all!


How do you know? Do you have a lot of them running around Missouri?


----------



## ELKhuntR (Feb 5, 2006)

And you know this because why, you've been there and seen it first hand?

Are you helping with the studies? Just curious. I mean I trust scientists, but some bowhunter from MO screaming stating not endangered at all, makes me question your motives. 

I think the reality is, their home range is collapsing, literally! bears are being displaced and normal habitat is changing. Is now the time to say hey, lets go kill a bunch of Polar Bears. Come on fellas, one for the Super Slam!

I have nothing against hunting anything when legal but for now, seems that it might not be the best thing to do. Our earth is way to old to judge it by the last 100-200 years but in that short time, we've definitely impacted the animals here. We're a young country, a young society. And we've learned from our mistakes such as with the slaughter of buffalo, and what happened to the Merriam's elk?? Snow leopards? 



thwackaddict said:


> Polar bears are not endangered at all!


----------



## Aaron Betzner (Jan 6, 2009)

*Quote*



Scotsbowhunter said:


> It could be worse...


It will be worse!


----------



## Aaron Betzner (Jan 6, 2009)

Campo said:


> If you believe in torture and violations to the Geneva Convention, then sure, I guess it makes sense to keep them in Cuba.
> 
> After all, Guantanamo was put in Cuba so that the C.I.A. didn't have to follow cruel and unusual punishment laws and also so the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended for people in U.S. custody.
> 
> ...


The Geneva Convention only applies to soldiers that belong to a combat force. These werent Japanese Soldiers caught in formations with uniforms. And as for torture as long as there isn't any permanent injuries have at it.


----------



## Supershark (Dec 14, 2004)

I keep saying "may god help us for the next 4 years" and then good riddance to bad @*$&


----------



## jorjo (Jan 27, 2009)

Be glad you still have legal hunting over there.

In the Uk and Ireland it's banned. Here your either a target shooter or your a poacher. The archery shops won't even stock broad heads


----------



## Nimhates (Sep 30, 2008)

bigbucks170 said:


> Yeah things should be the way it use to be..free to do what ever you like,
> like the western times let kill all the bufflo...
> 
> Buffoon! I don't know what else to say.


----------



## I like Meat (Feb 14, 2009)

Campo... what a joke ukey:....not calling them terrorist's ....your kidding right .....typical left wing rhetoric or ignorance......probably both...Nah, they didnt want to kill our military, our guys on the battlefield were mistaken, right .....you probably think 9-11 was an inside job ukey:...your one sick puppy ukey:.....


----------



## affe22 (Sep 29, 2005)

I guess I am confused about how this is a big deal. Polar bears were listed under the previous administration. It would take a pretty big process to remove them now. As soon as they obtained listed status, importation of any and all parts into the United States was banned and will be banned until their removal.

I also think ELKhuntR has the best statements here. There is good evidence that, while populations are high, polar bears are facing some serious negative impacts (i.e. shrinking home range, drownings, numerous cases of hermaphroditic individuals). As a conservationist and hunter, I think a cautionary approach is a good thing here. If scientists are wrong and the bears are ok, we'll see that everything is ok and go back to hunting them (which isn't actually banned globally). If things aren't going to be ok, no sense in adding extra mortality to the potential issue. I would not support this approach in every wildlife case but I think this one warrants it.


----------



## BigDaddy1975 (Dec 4, 2008)

Campo said:


> All the problems facing our country, including total collapse, and this is what people are focusing on?
> 
> Go figure the Republicans were ousted! :wink: Kinda had their heads in an area where there isn't much shine! :wink:


Campo...You say what I cannot

Let me get you a beer.:darkbeer:


----------



## Cooter144 (Aug 5, 2006)

Um....this ban was started by the PREVIOUS administration wasn't it? 

Alot of intellegent comments here. Some of you need to get your heads out of your rear and realize that this nation has much bigger concerns than being able to hunt friggen polar bears.


----------



## bigrackHack (Jun 11, 2004)

Campo said:


> If you believe in torture and violations to the Geneva Convention, then sure, I guess it makes sense to keep them in Cuba.
> 
> After all, Guantanamo was put in Cuba so that the C.I.A. didn't have to follow cruel and unusual punishment laws and also so the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended for people in U.S. custody.
> 
> ...


We can debate that all day if you want to, however the ORIGINAL POINT you were making was "THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT THAN HUNTING POLAR BEARS" etc. I merely pointed out that your messiah is worried less about the problems this country faces than he is about advancing failed liberal agendas, increasing the size of government and enbolding those that wish to destroy us. 

Your attempt to redirect the debate away from Obama being in bed with PETA kooks is an epic fail on your part. Weak sauce, man. :thumbs_do


----------



## Stanley (Jan 18, 2005)

'If hooking up a terrorist prisoner's nuts to a car's battery cables will save just one GI's life, then I have just three things to say,'

'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet.'


----------



## Scorch07 (Dec 27, 2008)

Campo said:


> If you believe in torture and violations to the Geneva Convention, then sure, I guess it makes sense to keep them in Cuba.
> 
> After all, Guantanamo was put in Cuba so that the C.I.A. didn't have to follow cruel and unusual punishment laws and also so the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended for people in U.S. custody.
> 
> ...


The Constitution is for American citizens, not enemy terrorists. If they had done any "normal" domestic crimes I would agree with you, but we're talking about threats against the country here. That's not something to mess around with. Yeah, I know the purpose of Guantanamo is so the CIA can use less restrictive methods. Honestly, that's why it needs to stay there. Sure, it's harsh, but when we're dealing with protecting this country I say go all out if that's what it takes.

If you think taking such risks with the country's safety is such a good idea then just keep talking. Oh, you want your family to stay safe? I thought so.


----------



## pin cushion (Jan 1, 2007)

Scotsbowhunter said:


> It could be worse...


Yeah McCain could be president now . Gas 5.00 per gallon yada yada yada


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

Stanley said:


> 'If hooking up a terrorist prisoner's nuts to a car's battery cables will save just one GI's life, then I have just three things to say,'
> 
> 'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet.'


It is sad what this country has come to:sad:.

I sometimes wish I lived a long time ago.


----------



## Stanley (Jan 18, 2005)

wis_archer said:


> It is sad what this country has come to:sad:.
> 
> I sometimes wish I lived a long time ago.


I agree 911 was a short time ago.


----------



## kennyelp (May 30, 2007)

Stanley said:


> 'If hooking up a terrorist prisoner's nuts to a car's battery cables will save just one GI's life, then I have just three things to say,'
> 
> 'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet.'


Amen Brother.:icon_salut:


----------



## the-ghost (Sep 11, 2004)

Stanley said:


> 'If hooking up a terrorist prisoner's nuts to a car's battery cables will save just one GI's life, then I have just three things to say,'
> 
> 'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet.'


:darkbeer: cheers


----------



## paintedman (Aug 26, 2004)

Stanley said:


> 'If hooking up a terrorist prisoner's nuts to a car's battery cables will save just one GI's life, then I have just three things to say,'
> 
> 'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet.'


+1 on that


----------



## IChim2 (Aug 20, 2006)

As mentioned above.....the ban started before Obama.He won.....get over it.


----------



## bigrackHack (Jun 11, 2004)

pin cushion said:


> Yeah McCain could be president now . Gas 5.00 per gallon yada yada yada


Not really sure where that came from...:noidea:...hmm...but, ok.


----------



## missionperk (Jan 7, 2009)

Campo said:


> If you believe in torture and violations to the Geneva Convention, then sure, I guess it makes sense to keep them in Cuba.
> 
> After all, Guantanamo was put in Cuba so that the C.I.A. didn't have to follow cruel and unusual punishment laws and also so the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended for people in U.S. custody.
> 
> ...


woohoo i'm a facist. my college prof's called me one too its ok. the constitution was rendered hogwash with the civil war which was illegal for the union to attack the south.btw i think we should have just turned the middle east into a sheet of glass and been done with it. like the romans said "Let Civilization be for the Civilized"


----------



## thwackaddict (Sep 1, 2006)

*who do you believe?*



ELKhuntR said:


> And you know this because why, you've been there and seen it first hand?
> 
> Are you helping with the studies? Just curious. I mean I trust scientists, but some bowhunter from MO screaming stating not endangered at all, makes me question your motives.
> 
> ...


----------



## jorjo (Jan 27, 2009)

missionperk said:


> woohoo i'm a facist. my college prof's called me one too its ok. the constitution was rendered hogwash with the civil war which was illegal for the union to attack the south.btw i think we should have just turned the middle east into a sheet of glass and been done with it. like the romans said "Let Civilization be for the Civilized"


The best thing you government could do is to seal the borders.. (and throw away the key)


----------



## thwackaddict (Sep 1, 2006)

*Not about Obama....*

This post is not as much about Obama as it is about anti hunting. Many of you have dived off into subjects that have no relation to the intent of the post.

Are you a hunter? Do you want hunting outlawed? Do you think that it can't happen here? As we speak there are "scientists" creating all kinds of "data" that they intend to use to outlaw many types of hunting with.

Take those big longtailed kitty cats from out west for example. Several states out west have outlawed hunting them. Animal rights organizations like MLF, no thats not MILF:wink:, are spewing flat out lies that they are endangered as a species. There is no secret that there are probably more of them now than there was before we became America. The anti's would rather have government paid professionals shooting them in cities than to have a hunting season on them.

The elections are over , but the battle for hunting rights continues.


----------



## Beretta1984 (Sep 12, 2006)

I like Meat said:


> Thanks to all those who vote for this clown..ukey:..Obama and his cohorts are *NOT* a friend of hunters or gun owners.....the sooner people wise up to that the better off this country will be.....:wink:


He's not even a friend of America.....Fight terrorism both domestic and abroad, one liberal at a time.


----------



## LiteSpeed1 (May 21, 2005)

I like Meat said:


> Thanks to all those who vote for this clown..ukey:..Obama and his cohorts are *NOT* a friend of hunters or gun owners.....the sooner people wise up to that the better off this country will be.....:wink:


Obama has only been in office for a month and the current mess this country is in is the result of the last 8 years. If the previous administration's policies would have been allowed to continue, you'd have a lot more to worry about than hunting. It's time to dig ourselves out of the hole we are in first, then worry about what form of hunting is being banned.


----------



## skyhunter (Dec 1, 2003)

*Political Propaganda* = picture of polar bear on an ice flow. In reality, a polar bear hanging on a piece of ice is a seasonal normality.

As for the airheads that think illegals and Islamic extremists should be protected by our constitution; I have one question.

Do you even know what the constitution is?

I'm with Stan!


----------



## CareyHamil (Oct 4, 2005)

Campo said:


> If you believe in torture and violations to the Geneva Convention, then sure, I guess it makes sense to keep them in Cuba.
> 
> After all, Guantanamo was put in Cuba so that the C.I.A. didn't have to follow cruel and unusual punishment laws and also so the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended for people in U.S. custody.
> 
> ...



Well, I dont think those being held at gitmo are us citizens, and they are considered p.o.w s, and they do not follow under the protection of the US constitution . 

Wow, this converstaion really took a differnent direction didn't it. To play devils advocate, maybe obamas administration is trying to be proactive in the protection of animals that are borderline threatened/endangered, to keep them from reaching those statuses.


----------



## jesseo (Feb 16, 2009)

Holy jeebus. Pipe down, people. Most of you will never hunt a polar bear in your life, and you know it. This isn't the "beginning of the end." Relax.

It's amazing how many of you are still going on about Obama when several posters have mentioned that his administration didn't ban PB hunting in the first place... But any excuse to throw out some knee-jerk Rush-isms on the liberal socialist America-haters, right? 

All you're doing is polarizing the public's view of hunters. The general population knows the PETA-philes have a much higher "whacko ratio" than the hunters. Don't give them ammo to change their minds.


----------



## Nameless Hunter (Feb 10, 2007)

Ummmm.
Certain sub species are declining, some are increasing.
According to the CA govt., they count more this year than years past.
Canada regulates licensed kills.
It seems they have a clue, so why shouldn't the US operate by their findings?
Controlled hunting provides monies to local villages, which Canada supports. It seems our US judicial system prefers to operate on political emotion instead of facts.


----------



## jkm97 (Jul 8, 2004)

hambini said:


> Well, I dont think those being held at gitmo are us citizens, and they are considered p.o.w s, and they do not follow under the protection of the US constitution .
> 
> Wow, this converstaion really took a differnent direction didn't it. To play devils advocate, maybe obamas administration is trying to be proactive in the protection of animals that are borderline threatened/endangered, to keep them from reaching those statuses.


The problem is they were not actually considered POWs, if they had been then the U.S. would have been bound by the Geneva Convention rules. The Bush admin. classified them as "detainees", whatever that means, because it gave them a free hand. The problem is that it is not based in law, and if the U.S. is supposed to be the leader of the free world then we need to prove that the Rule of Law applies to everyone.

To your point about being proactive, I think that is a good idea. I believe that is why the polar bear has been placed on the list anyway. But it is not overhunting that threatens the polar bear, it is habitat loss.


----------



## Tom_in_CT (Mar 11, 2008)

MOTU said:


> Ummmm.
> Certain sub species are declining, some are increasing.
> According to the CA govt., they count more this year than years past.
> Canada regulates licensed kills.
> ...


+1 hunting HELPS the polar bear population far more than it hurts them....when someone is paying a lot of cash to hunt one, the locals and the gov't are gonna make darn sure that the population is doing ok. when they have no monetary value, it seems like locals would be more likely to SSS a bear that was a little too close to their village

Either way...the whole poalr bear hunting ban is based on Al Gore's global warming world tour. why he thinks that humans can control the global climate is beyond me. anyone ever hear of the ice age or the little ice age? were we responsible for global cooling and the subsequent warming? during the ice age, the place where I am sitting right now had miles of ice over it....was that the result of cyclical warming patterns? or were those darn cave people driving evil SUV's and trying to destroy the earth?


----------



## SputterFuss (Apr 12, 2006)

Bad science could be the downfall of hunting but I think good science could be its savior.


----------



## dx2 (Aug 25, 2007)

pin cushion said:


> Yeah McCain could be president now . Gas 5.00 per gallon yada yada yada


Democrats: the only place they'll drill is your wallet. :wink:


----------



## thwackaddict (Sep 1, 2006)

*intention of the thread*



SputterFuss said:


> Bad science could be the downfall of hunting but I think good science could be its savior.


This was the intention of my thread. To try to get people, hunters in general, to start to pay more attention to what the general public is being fed. Much of "science" can be politically motivated or money motivated, often both.

Hunting being saved for future generations needs to be a grass roots effort. The majority vote wins the elections. When anti hunters are voted in they can influence which direction "science" gets taken.

Notice the article doesn't say that polar bear hunting is being banned....

" In the first significant decision by the new Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) said that it will continue banning the import of polar bear trophies from Canada. The announcement was made of February 24, 2009."

What does this really say? We will just stop rich Americans from being allowed to bring their trophy back into the states. In other words the population can support hunting, but we will just discourage Americans from doing it because they won't be able to bring home what they shoot.

Sneaky sneaky sneaky!


----------



## Eric Cartman (Mar 5, 2008)

pin cushion said:


> Yeah McCain could be president now . Gas 5.00 per gallon yada yada yada


The only reason gas spiked is because the gas companies wanted Osama in office. Once he was elected, things went back to normal. Now he owes them a favor, like the rest of his campaign funding. 

Have you seen the conference with Holden announcing the push for another assault weapon ban? This first, then the rest of the guns. He will end up disarming this nation. History has shown a nation that is disarmed is more prone to violence. 

Guns and hunting go together. He will attack one piece at a time. 

This clown has already used more executive orders than his three predecessors. He is trying to be a dictator. 

Three years, 309 days to go.


----------



## jorjo (Jan 27, 2009)

jkm97 said:


> The problem is that it is not based in law, and if the U.S. is supposed to be the leader of the free world then we need to prove that the Rule of Law applies to everyone.
> .


Leader of the free world? Is that so....... well guys I guess that means war right there cause I didnt vote your country in over my own, so if you guys think your world leaders I guess you can expect to be shot dead for poaching off your turf. 
Wise yourselves up, America is far from being a world leader, your hypebole is bullshyste. America is indisputably the worlds biggest war machine (as if that's something to be proud off) Posting a garbage comment like that on the internet (international public space) is typical American ignorance. Don't you get it? THE FREE world is NOT America. The free world is the rest of this planet that America invades at will for oil and resources on at the slightest excuse. 
Your government and it's actions have the rest of the world getting twitchy about having to defend against America assuming a right to take over.
Guantanamo bay is illegal by INTERNATIONAL law. American actions there are ILLEGAL in the eyes of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY on the planet. You guys don't seem to know that the global view of America is that your government are playing power games like a global bully with a loaded gun.
Your excuse is a war on terrorism.. what terrorism? oh sure it's a great excuse to attack any country deemed to be a terrorist nation, but it harder to explain that your invading for oil first with Iraq and that Iraq won't be enough since you need control of Iran's oil too to meet your requirements within the next 5 years. What atrocity will your government need to stage to convince Joe average that Iran needs to be invaded next?

In a thread where your all complaining about you rights being taken from you by your government, try waking up and looking around at the rest of the worlds stance on whats going on. Your worried about polar bear legislation having no basis in facts... the rest of the planet is worried about America trying to take over with no basis in facts either. Nobody has any particular problem with America OTHER THAN THE ASSUMPTION THAT AMERICA THINKS ITS BECOME THE WORLD LEADER WITHOUT A VOTE OR A FIGHT. If the people of America don't catch on to this, were all screwed because no country is going to lay down and go quietly to a FOREIGN POWER and that's the point here folks. FOR 99% of this planet AMERICA IS JUST ANOTHER FOREIGN POWER. Just one country out of many, but the brashest and most egocentric in the assumption that it can do what it likes anywhere it likes and then screams foul if other countries slap it down for trespassing 

For the last 50 years, America has been at war constantly with one part of the world or another without a break. Just about every movie and TV show that comes out of your country is about killing one way or another. It's like Brainwashing. America under attack? From what? Your the most heavily armed country on earth. How come every other country can get by without being attacked without needing to be that heavily armed? Yet here you are as typical Joe public Americans stating that you already assume that America is a the leader of the free world... Nonsense the free world IS FREE because AMERICA does NOT run it. and it will TAKE A WORLD WAR to take that independence away from every other nation across the globe. Stack up your odds and wise up. If your government keep going the way they are aiming, sooner or later it going to be America V's the rest of the world, and your nutjob warmongers have their itchy fingers on their GLOBAL WIPE OUT BUTTON. For the rest of us that's kinda like having a suicide bomber in the room calling the shots. Do as we say or we will nuke the planet ! World leaders? yeah right. The American people see only what they are allowed to see in the American media. I for one support your second amendment and your right to assault weapons so you can pull down a corrupt government from within and start again. If you stand by and let your government try to take over as a leader of the free world, you can't gripe when the rest of the world stands up, objects and refuses to lay down to that without a fight.

It's an interesting observation, but thanks to the net, the world is meeting Americans on here regularly and it's opening up an interesting slant on racism. The American assumption that the net is part of your back yard and the the rest of the world has become an extension of you country is sickeningly disrespectful to every other nation. Look around this INTERNATIONAL board and you will see posts aplenty stating "this free country" 
YOUR NOT IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY ONLINE OLD CHUM ! 

Newsflash.. I'll laydown my life in a fire fight before I'd give up my Irish nationality to become an American. You tell me your the leader of the free world, I'll tell you NOT ON MY Watch and drop you on the spot as an invader.

Thus folks, I suggest you Americans who think your country runs the world, wake up and smell the coffee. Outside of your American borders you have no say. Your guests in the rest of the world just as visitors to your country are guests with no right to interfere. It's not international terrorism your up against. It's countries defending themselves against your government. Its not tricky. When you attack a country, that country is obliged to fight back. Why bytch about being nailed for trespassing while armed? Your government telling you that your the leaders of the free world is nonsense. The world IS ALREADY FREE and Americas new government is openly trying to take control. That's an act of war. If you guys can't see that. I guess the rest of the world will eventually be obliged explain it by putting the American government firmly back in its box. It's your mess. deal with it before the rest of the world is forced into a war to do it for you.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Campo said:


> If you believe in torture and violations to the Geneva Convention, then sure, I guess it makes sense to keep them in Cuba.
> 
> After all, Guantanamo was put in Cuba so that the C.I.A. didn't have to follow cruel and unusual punishment laws and also so the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended for people in U.S. custody.
> 
> ...


:bs:

And remember, the rights we have in the USA are expressly for citizens of USA, not the world over. If you believe our rights should be the world over, go change the OTHER Nations, please.

In terms of the "science" being used, it is NOT science. Its BALONEY paraded around by guys in white coats, but it is pure politics.

The USA and indeed North America has the MOST SUCCESSFUL wildlife and natural resource conservation model the world has ever seen. Its called the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.

Read it sometime, Campy, you just might learn what it means to be a sportsman in the process.

sheesh.


----------



## affe22 (Sep 29, 2005)

Or jorjo, so many things are wrong with your statements. No other countries have been attacked and all are peace-loving? How about Britain, N. Ireland, Spain and the entire Middle East for a start for that contradiction. I guess that is all due to the United States though, right? If memory serves me correctly, the U.S. was more or less invited to join three different wars in the 20th century that started without any influence from them. I'm starting to think you might be the brainwashed one when so many facts fly in the face of what you say. While I don't think all U.S. foreign policy is correct, I also dislike someone who obviously knows nothing of my country spouting off.


----------



## skynight (Nov 5, 2003)

Hey jorjo, Al Gore invented the internet. Ergo, it's an American thing. Welcome to our backyard :blah:


----------



## BigDaddy1975 (Dec 4, 2008)

jorjo said:


> Leader of the free world? Is that so....... well guys I guess that means war right there cause I didnt vote your country in over my own, so if you guys think your world leaders I guess you can expect to be shot dead for poaching off your turf.
> Wise yourselves up, America is far from being a world leader, your hypebole is bullshyste. America is indisputably the worlds biggest war machine (as if that's something to be proud off) Posting a garbage comment like that on the internet (international public space) is typical American ignorance. Don't you get it? THE FREE world is NOT America. The free world is the rest of this planet that America invades at will for oil and resources on at the slightest excuse.
> Your government and it's actions have the rest of the world getting twitchy about having to defend against America assuming a right to take over.
> Guantanamo bay is illegal by INTERNATIONAL law. American actions there are ILLEGAL in the eyes of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY on the planet. You guys don't seem to know that the *global view of America *is that your government are playing power games like a global bully with a loaded gun.
> ...



OK. Some of this guys post is almost crazy:wink::wink::wink:...

But there are a couple of nuggets of info that I deem valid/ legitimate. Re-Read and look for the nuggets of gold amidst this ton of ore.


----------



## Milliron (Feb 6, 2009)

*In the name of Science*

I heard that the satalite that moniters the polar ice cap messed up and the ice cap was underestimated in size,,,,,,,,, A area the size of California was not included in the study..ukey:

Think of the Billions of our $ that these baffon's waste every year!


No animal has ever gone extinct do to sport hunting!


----------



## Silver Pine (Dec 9, 2005)

Stanley said:


> There already are some protected animal & bird species. The bald eagle, song birds, bobcats & wolfs in some parts of the country, plus numerous others. Should we be allowed to hunt these as well?





affe22 said:


> I also think ELKhuntR has the best statements here. There is good evidence that, while populations are high, polar bears are facing some serious negative impacts (i.e. shrinking home range, drownings, numerous cases of hermaphroditic individuals). As a conservationist and hunter, I think a cautionary approach is a good thing here. If scientists are wrong and the bears are ok, we'll see that everything is ok and go back to hunting them (which isn't actually banned globally). If things aren't going to be ok, no sense in adding extra mortality to the potential issue. I would not support this approach in every wildlife case but I think this one warrants it.




Where are you guys getting you information from? Green Piece? Hollyweird? The I-want-to-marry-my-goldfish, animal-rights groups?

The fact is that there are more polar bears today than there were 4 decades ago. 


_In the 1960s, there were probably 5,000 polar bears around the globe. Forty years later - thanks largely to a reduction in hunting - the World Conservation Union (IUCN) counts five-times that many.

The world's 25,000 polar bears live in 20 distinct populations. Two populations are growing. Most are stable. Just two are waning.


Al Gore bases his claim of "drowning" bears on *a single sighting of four dead bears the day after an abrupt windstorm*. The sighting occurred in an area where polar bear numbers are increasing.

Campaigners like Gore usually base their claims about 'vanishing' polar bears on observations of just one population. This well-studied group in Canada's western Hudson Bay did decline from 1,200 in 1987 to fewer than 950 in 2004.

But back in the early 1980s, the population numbered just 500. In other words, it's actually doubled over two decades. The much-publicised 'decline' depends on when you start counting._

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/3310555/The-not-so-disappearing-polar-bear.html


----------



## elk country rp (Sep 5, 2005)

how's about less political fussin, and more wisdom? instead of reacting to a reaction, let's try to fix the causes....
habitat, habitat, and more habitat
mother nature is going to decide polar bears' fate, not us. no matter what we do to protect them, we can't keep them on the planet if they lose their habitat. i applaud the intention of trying to keep such a beautiful & powerful part of nature alive, but i don't applaud the way it's carried out. lawmakers seem to run myopic when it comes to wildlife management. limiting access for the folks who hunt/love them (& in my opinion hunters love animals much more than tree huggers) only placates the verbal masses. then the verbal masses move on to their next "pet project" and forget all bout the last one (anyone had a hard time finding a wolf or a grizzly in SW Mt or the north half of Id lately?). the USA has succeeded in "saving" a few species, only to fail at managing the recovered populations. meanwhile, the verbal masses push more & more human structures into wild lands- thereby doing irrepairable damage to all species (animal AND plant) in the local ecosystem. bans don't fix anything. respecting wild places & letting them stay wild is the only way. sure, things will die- it's the natural way. we're the only species on the planet who doesn't seem to get that.
you can find science to support any idea that you need to support. it's much harder to find wisdom- which is why all of you who feel so strongly should tell your congressional representatives!!! at a state level, the USA is still a democracy. they work for us- help them do a better job!

ps- affe22- GO GRIZ!!


----------



## LiteSpeed1 (May 21, 2005)

Eric Cartman said:


> *The only reason gas spiked is because the gas companies wanted Osama in office. Once he was elected, things went back to normal*. Now he owes them a favor, like the rest of his campaign funding.
> 
> Have you seen the conference with Holden announcing the push for another assault weapon ban? This first, then the rest of the guns. He will end up disarming this nation. History has shown a nation that is disarmed is more prone to violence.
> 
> ...


So the $4.00 and $5.00 per gallon that we've been paying didn't have anything to do with two oilmen being in office?


----------



## BigDaddy1975 (Dec 4, 2008)

Eric Cartman said:


> The only reason gas spiked is because the gas companies wanted Osama in office. Once he was elected, things went back to normal. Now he owes them a favor, like the rest of his campaign funding.
> 
> Have you seen the conference with Holden announcing the push for another assault weapon ban? This first, then the rest of the guns. He will end up disarming this nation. History has shown a nation that is disarmed is more prone to violence.
> 
> ...


So what will you attack when the country turns around and economy gets better...

Or you will just say that Bush set the countrys prosperity into motion and Obama reaped the benefits...make up your mind please. He could turn this country into a Utopia and you would still find fault. Eventually people like you will be extinct and this WORLD will be a better place.

Is he a clown because hes black or just doesnt look, walk or talk like you???

Bottom line. Its hard to fund research to refute what the PETA-types are saying about the environment when a war is going on. Its a fact that social programs and programs to support infrastructure and natural resources have to be cut to fund the war machine.

Bush is listed as #32 as far as historians are concerned. He served America well. I think he had the worst supporting cast of any president in our lifetime.


----------



## Silver Pine (Dec 9, 2005)

elk country rp said:


> mother nature is going to decide polar bears' fate, not us. no matter what we do to protect them, we can't keep them on the planet if they lose their habitat. i applaud the intention of trying to keep such a beautiful & powerful part of nature alive, but i don't applaud the way it's carried out.



There are 5 times as many polar bears today than there were 4 decades ago.

Why should they be considered an "endangered" species?

More or less sea ice doesn't affect their habitat. They live on the land. Some of their food sources do live in the water. Maybe seal populations shrinking? Are there reports of polar bears starving, that I'm not aware of?

More animals, of any particular species, indicate that the animals habitat is adequately supporting and encouraging propagation.

:cocktail:


----------



## Silver Pine (Dec 9, 2005)

BigDaddy1975 said:


> So what will you attack when the country turns around and economy gets better...
> 
> Or you will just say that Bush set the countrys prosperity into motion and Obama reaped the benefits...make up your mind please. He could turn this country into a Utopia and you would still find fault. Eventually people like you will be extinct and this WORLD will be a better place.
> 
> ...



Who are you arguing with? Yourself?

You're making up strawman arguments, race-baiting and inventing "facts" about cutting social progams and infrastructure. 

I can't tell which side is winning........ you or you?

:dontknow:


----------



## hoytmonger (Sep 16, 2008)

Campo said:


> If you believe in torture and violations to the Geneva Convention, then sure, I guess it makes sense to keep them in Cuba.
> 
> After all, Guantanamo was put in Cuba so that the C.I.A. didn't have to follow cruel and unusual punishment laws and also so the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended for people in U.S. custody.
> 
> ...



Those being held in Gitmo are enemy combatants and do not receive the rights of US citizens. If you have a link to support your assertions of torture and the violation of the Geneva Convention please post it.


----------



## hoytmonger (Sep 16, 2008)

LiteSpeed1 said:


> So the $4.00 and $5.00 per gallon that we've been paying didn't have anything to do with two oilmen being in office?


No.


----------



## rocklocker2 (Feb 12, 2007)

*wake up call*

its a matter of time before you people who say it wont happen start saying WHEN DID IT HAPPEN,guess i missed it just like other countries did


----------



## elk country rp (Sep 5, 2005)

Silver Pine said:


> There are 5 times as many polar bears today than there were 4 decades ago.
> 
> Why should they be considered an "endangered" species?
> 
> ...


i can't argue with ya. polar bears have a pretty precarious spot in a very harsh ecosystem, but that ain't because of us. they've lived up there for a long time without our help or concern. as far as numbers, i haven't been up north to see for myself, so i really can't say if i have an opinion about whether or not they should be listed, but i have a strong opinion about whether or not they deserve to live. it reminds me of when they listed griz & wolves. big drama, then no solution for "what do we do after they recover?" folks say whatever they can come up with to get an emotional response from disney- i mean the American public. big knee jerk reaction & the tv cameras shift to the next big crisis (without exploring any future management policies). i never, and i mean NEVER accept what i see on tv as proof of anything- same goes for the internet. spend enough time out there & you can get footage of just about anything. truthfully, i don't think it matters what kind of status they get labeled with- hunting makes far less of an impact than development of their habitat. 
it kinda seems to me we should take advice from those who have lived with them the longest, anyways. what do the natives in that part of the world have to say about the bears?
:darkbeer:


----------



## affe22 (Sep 29, 2005)

Silver Pine said:


> More or less sea ice doesn't affect their habitat. They live on the land. Some of their food sources do live in the water.


Arctic sea ice is their habitat for a large portion of the year. That is not even questioned. It is a fact.



Silver Pine said:


> Where are you guys getting you information from? Green Piece? Hollyweird? The I-want-to-marry-my-goldfish, animal-rights groups?


I am not sure you'll have access to any of these, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Here is a small sampling of some of the research that has come out in the past few years on polar bears. Like I said, it seems appropriate to take a conservative approach to management right now given what scientists are noticing. 

Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea 

Genotyping of pseudohermaphrodite polar bears in Nunavut and advances in DNA sexing techniques 

Using expert knowledge to assess uncertainties in future polar bear populations under climate change

Unusual Predation Attempts of Polar Bears on Ringed Seals in the Southern Beaufort Sea

Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay

Seasonal and annual movement patterns of polar bears on the sea ice of Hudson Bay

Melting under pressure the real scoop on climate warming and polar bears.

Population parameters and harvest risks for polar bears (Ursus maritimus) of Kane Basin, Canada and Greenland

P.S. - I tend not to get my scientific wildlife information from the likes of Hollywood, Al Gore, PETA or any other source that isn't heavily involved in research themselves.


----------



## Silver Pine (Dec 9, 2005)

affe22 said:


> Arctic sea ice is their habitat for a large portion of the year. That is not even questioned. It is a fact.



You're right. I can't even tell you what I was trying to say. :dontknow:




affe22 said:


> I am not sure you'll have access to any of these, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Here is a small sampling of some of the research that has come out in the past few years on polar bears. Like I said, it seems appropriate to take a conservative approach to management right now given what scientists are noticing.
> 
> 
> P.S. - I tend not to get my scientific wildlife information from the likes of Hollywood, Al Gore, PETA or any other source that isn't heavily involved in research themselves.



Thanks for providing 20 hours of light reading, especially when most of the links start with the dreaded word "Abstract". :BangHead:


I did get the number of polar bears correct.

_Superficially, polar bears might appear secure. They are widely distributed throughout the ice covered seas of the circumpolar Arctic, especially in their preferred habitat, the annual ice over the biologically productive waters of the continental shelf where ringed seals are most abundant. They still inhabit the majority of their original habitat and their worldwide abundance, in 19 subpopulations, is estimated at 20,000 to 25,000 (IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group 2006)._


I notice that the future predictions rely on the "soothsaying" ability of the dreaded IPCC which is/has proved to be incorrect. 

_The renewed prediction of continued climate warming from the *Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)* in January 2007 indicates that the long-term negative changes to the sea ice will continue to be unidirectional in the foreseeable future._


_Media Mix-ups
Against this extensive backdrop of long-term studies that document the negative effects of continued climate warming on sea ice and polar bears, *and projections by the IPCC * that those trends will continue, the press continues to cite minority contrarian opinions as if they have equal credibility._


_In the long term, the loss of an iconic species such as the polar bear is but a symbol of much larger and hugely significant changes that will occur in many ecosystems throughout the world if the climate continues to warm and especially *if, as projected by the IPCC*, such warming is largely a consequence of excess anthropogenic productivity of greenhouse gases. For polar bears, habitat loss is the most critical single concern. The symptoms of climate warming on polar bears are becoming clearer. Highly specialized species are particularly vulnerable to extinction if their environment changes, and polar bears fi t that prescription. If the population of the planet is truly concerned about the fate of this species, we need to collectively reduce greenhouse gas production significantly and quickly._


----------



## 20ftup (Mar 19, 2007)

less than 2 months in office and he has done what let terrorist go got a spending (pork barrel) bill passed that wasnt even read by most who voted for it and will cost us 9 trillion in debt over 10 yrs he is pushin for another multi trillion dollar spending bill now,Bush may have been bad but we looked long and hard for the worse possible replacement


----------



## skyhunter (Dec 1, 2003)

> Originally Posted by LiteSpeed1
> So the $4.00 and $5.00 per gallon that we've been paying didn't have anything to do with two oilmen being in office?


The US produces a small fraction of the worlds oil supply. Overseas, many countries were paying 2 X what we were paying when demand for oil had peaked.

Are you saying that the high price overseas was also Bush's fault?


----------



## bigbuckdn (Sep 19, 2007)

Beendare said:


> If all hunters can somehow work together and present a united rational arguement to the majority[ which are the undecideds in this country] the whacko PETA types will be seen for what they really are and our hunting tradition will continue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


this is the most inteligent post I have read on the topic of hunting bans since the elections and i would love to add that we need to start by fighting Peta and hsus wher it counts with thier money supply.
just some examples 
Ben and Jerry's ice cream not allowed in my house and i wrote them a letter why. 
my brother just made the ford dealer switch the tires on his new truck ford has a contract with mitchlend (spelling probaly wrong but you know the big white gey)tires the contribute to both my brother told the ford dealer you tires are anti hunting the dealer switched but if all hunters did it ford would dump mitch.
no build a bear toys in my house 
all companies recieve a letter as to why i won't buy there product. 
these are just a few of the companies but if you company supports peta or hsus I refuse to support that company


----------



## skyhunter (Dec 1, 2003)

> The world IS ALREADY FREE and Americas new government is openly trying to take control.





> Your guests in the rest of the world just as visitors to your country are guests with no right to interfere.


If you look at history it's America "interfering" with zionism that has resulted in the freedoms that most countries enjoy today.

Are you so short sighted that you don't see that you would have been toast had we (Americans) not saved your sorry ass, as well as the rest of Europe and the world.


----------



## LiteSpeed1 (May 21, 2005)

skyhunter said:


> The US produces a small fraction of the worlds oil supply. Overseas, many countries were paying 2 X what we were paying when demand for oil had peaked.
> 
> *Are you saying that the high price overseas was also Bush's fault?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> No...What I mean is that Bush and Cheney, both being oil men could have cared less if gas got to $10.00 a gallon. I don't think they did enough to get the best prices for oil. It didn't matter, what foriegn oil we didn't buy was made up by domestic oil, the small fraction you speak of. It was in their best interest.


----------



## skyhunter (Dec 1, 2003)

> No...What I mean is that Bush and Cheney, both being oil men could have cared less if gas got to $10.00 a gallon. I don't think they did enough to get the best prices for oil. It didn't matter, what foriegn oil we didn't buy was made up by domestic oil, the small fraction you speak of. It was in their best interest.


Our own oil supply is a very small fraction of what US consumers consume. The high price we saw was worldwide and not governed by our country.


----------



## AKRuss (Jan 10, 2003)

*In defense of science ...*

Science is neither liberal or conservative. It observes and records. "Good" science is good observations with statistically valid data sets. Pro and anti hunting stances are political. Your arguments are with political types who try to adapt science to their views. Polar bears have evolved over some 10,000 years to hunt on sea ice and water and do very poorly on land. Loss of habitat is very problematic to any species. We should be concerned about their future. The global warming/climate change thing is real. The argument over whether it's natural or caused by man is still a sporting issue in my book. I can drive to the nearest glacier in about half an hour and it has receded tremendously over the last 10 years or so. The planet has gone through many large and small cycles of warming and cooling and many plants and animals have flourished or become extinct. The lasting cooling cycle of note is termed the Little Ice Age and ended about 1850. The History Channel even had a nifty show about it. It is virtually impossible to predict when the earth will end this warming phase and begin cooling again. I'd like to think it will end soon so I can move to the Florida Keys without having to be concerned with sea level rise, LOL. There may be evidence of global cooling but it will take more time and measurements to determine if it is a trend. I guess there are those who could care less and those that are interested enough to enquire. A local saying goes; adapt, migrate or die ...


----------



## Fullboar (Dec 14, 2006)

skyhunter said:


> If you look at history it's America "interfering" with zionism that has resulted in the freedoms that most countries enjoy today.
> 
> Are you so short sighted that you don't see that you would have been toast had we (Americans) not saved your sorry ass, as well as the rest of Europe and the world.


Don’t make out like the US got into WW11 out of the goodness of your heart. The only reason you got involved was because you got attacked at Pearl Harbor. Churchill and a number of other leaders had asked (begged) for support for years but you were happy to sit back and make a ton of money giving war loans and selling machinery and arms to Britain and others. Even after a number of your merchant ships had been attacked and sunk and you were pretty much prisoners in your own country you still didn’t get involved. So don’t make out you got into that war to help us out because you didn’t. At least we can say every war after WW11 you were in we got involved out of the goodness of our hearts to help you out.

And to say interfering with Zionism has got us freedom makes you look like a total idiot. Dropping all those Jews in the middle of Palestine after WW11 is why the world is the **** it’s in today and I think most will agree. I don’t agree with the way the Palestinians (I don’t even like them) are bombing or firing rockets at Israeli civilians but what the Jews are doing to them is just plain wrong.


----------



## jorjo (Jan 27, 2009)

skynight said:


> Hey jorjo, Al Gore invented the internet. Ergo, it's an American thing. Welcome to our backyard :blah:


 AND YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT ???  


Shame your completely wrong


And then a real kick in the teeth for you claim that gore invented it

Oh look... he managed to come up with a name for it after everyone else did the inventing...... Astounding how a politician only needs to name it to be though of as owning it.. I guess that explains everything right there. It must all be true, 'cause one of your politicians said so... and they don't lie (unless their lips are moving.)


----------



## lightbeer (Jan 1, 2009)

All I can say is thank god they havn't banned grizzley bear hunting in California. I have never seen one but when I do I am going to shoot em trap em put him in a cage with a bull or a tiger and charge a dollar for all to see.
:darkbeer:


----------



## badgerhunter84 (Dec 17, 2005)

but yet we allow the police to torture americans with taser guns before they are tried or convicted, but lets protect them terrorists!


----------



## skynight (Nov 5, 2003)

jorjo said:


> AND YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT ???
> 
> 
> Shame your completely wrong
> ...


Hey jorjo, grow a sense of humor and quit threatening to go to war with everyone on the internet.


----------



## Silver Pine (Dec 9, 2005)

Fullboar said:


> Don’t make out like the US got into WW11 out of the goodness of your heart. The only reason you got involved was because you got attacked at Pearl Harbor. Churchill and a number of other leaders had asked (begged) for support for years but you were happy to sit back and make a ton of money giving war loans and selling machinery and arms to Britain and others. Even after a number of your merchant ships had been attacked and sunk and you were pretty much prisoners in your own country you still didn’t get involved. So don’t make out you got into that war to help us out because you didn’t. At least we can say every war after WW11 you were in we got involved out of the goodness of our hearts to help you out.



You're quite the revisionist aren't you. Plus you act like Australia is some kind of third world country being led around by the U.S. instead of a world power making its own decisions for its own best interest. :nono:

Let's start out by remembering that WWII was almost 70 years ago and only 20 years had passed between WWI and WWII. The U.S. was split approxmately 50/50 about not entering into another "European" war versus stopping the Nazi and everything they stood for. Years of trench warfare was still fresh in everyones mind. 

As far as being held prisoner, shipping to Europe was being attacked (which should have been enough incentive for our involvement, IMHO) but trade with Australia, South America, Africa and most of Asia was not. 

OK, let's remove the U.S. military involvement in WWII. Assume Pearl Harbor didn't happen and let's rethink the war in the Pacific. 

Imperial forces had built a huge navy but to what purpose? The conquest of their closest neighbors China and Korea didn't require Yamato class battleships with 18" guns and aircraft carriers would be limited to coastline engagements (landbases would be available and cheaper). A large, modern, well equipped navy would be required to control the Pacific and to support land invasions far from Japan.

The only other naval forces of sufficient strength were Nazi or British. The Russians were outdated, outgunned and outclassed. In 1939, Australia wasn't prepared for any kind of a major conflict. The Australia naval force (under British command) were no match for the Imperial fleet in a one-on-one fight and most of the British fleet was busy in the Atlantic. 

Japan intended to invade Australia IF the Aussies contested their conquest of the Pacific region and maybe even if they didn't. Australia didn't declare war on Japan until after Pearl. On December 26, 1941, Aussie Prime Minister John Curtin said, "Without any inhibitions of any kind I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom" and Darwin wasn't even bombed until Feburary of 42. The Australia government then turned control of Australia forces over to Douglas MacArthur.

But if the U.S. wasn't involved and Pearl never happend and MacArthur wasn't there, control of the Pacific would have been dominated by the Imperial Fleet. At least until the British arrived in force which would have been right after they defeated the Nazi which would only have been possible if England invented the atomic bomb before the Nazis did. 

I'm not talking about just repelling a Nazi invasion, I'm talking about destroying the Nazi war machine completely and nullifing the joint protection treaty with Japan. A cessation of hostilities, treaty or capitulation would have prevented the Brits from riding to the rescue. 

Aussie imports/exports could/would have been strangled. I'm not familiar enough with late 40's Australia to answer the next question - Would they have been able to survive without imports of raw materials and foods? :dontknow:


----------



## I like Meat (Feb 14, 2009)

Damn, didnt the Aussie's lose most of their gun rights.....ukey:......I spent some time in Sydney(twice) back when I was in the Marines as a Sniper....kicked the crap out of two of 'em in a bar there....they never were much for holding their beer or fighting.....:darkbeer:


----------



## Silver Pine (Dec 9, 2005)

affe22 said:


> I am not sure you'll have access to any of these, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Here is a small sampling of some of the research that has come out in the past few years on polar bears. Like I said, it seems appropriate to take a conservative approach to management right now given what scientists are noticing.
> 
> Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea


Charles Monnett and Jeffrey S. Gleason suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues. 

Based on what?

That 55 polar bears (Ursus maritimus) were seen, 51 were alive and of those 10 (19.9%) were in open water. In addition, four polar bear carcasses were seen floating in open water and had, presumably, drowned.

Presumably? Without actually examining the carcasses (they only observed them from the rail of a passing ship) these two boobs ASSUMED that these 4 polar bears had drowned. They then assumed that these bears had drowned because of a regression of the pack ice.

I'm going to assume that these two alleged "scientists" should find another line of work.



affe22 said:


> Genotyping of pseudohermaphrodite polar bears in Nunavut and advances in DNA sexing techniques


Female pseudohermaphroditism is characterized by gonads consistent with chromosomal sex combined with ambiguous, masculinized external genitalia. 

Is this something about transgender polar bears?



affe22 said:


> Unusual Predation Attempts of Polar Bears on Ringed Seals in the Southern Beaufort Sea


Sterling, Richardson, Thiemann and Derocher examined 212 polar bears from the southeastern Beaufort Sea from about Atkinson Point to the Alaska border and found they were more nutritionally stressed (less fat? or starving?) than 325 polar bears at Banks Island or in Amundsen Gulf. They arrived at two possibile explainations. 1) A decadal-scale downturn (ie. decline) in seal populations (the major source of polar bear nutrition) and 2) less sea ice and more open water possibly influenced by climate warming possibly resulting in fewer seals available for the bears to eat. 

They suggest that their discovery of 14 bear-clawed holes, averaging 41 cm deep indicate that bears are trying harder than normal to reach tasty seal pups. They also conclude that, "considering the huge scale of the sea-ice area occupied by polar bears in SB, the probability of finding a hole 40–60 cm in diameter clawed through the ice, or the remains of a cannibalized or starved bear, all of which (plus associated tracks) could disappear overnight in drifting snow, is extremely small. Thus, we may have passed over clawed holes in 2003 or 2004 that were already obscured by drifted snow."

Not exactly a smoking gun proving an endangered status.



affe22 said:


> Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay


Sterling, Richardson, Gough and Rode respond to a study by Dyck. M.G., Soon, W., Baydack, R.K., Legates, D.R., Baliunas, S., Ball, T.F., Hancock, L.O. but I would have to see the Dyck study itself before commenting and my eyes are crossing.




affe22 said:


> Seasonal and annual movement patterns of polar bears on the sea ice of Hudson Bay


This E.K. Parks, A.E. Derocher and J.J. Lunn studies the movement of polar bears in and around Hudson Bay. It suggests that decreased sea ice and earlier ice breakup have been linked to shifts in seal distribution and abundance in Hudson Bay and may result in a reduction of polar bear numbers. 

They are only referring to Hudson Bay in this study and not the other 18 relatively discrete populations of polar bears which number around 25,000. 

It's noted that satellite-collared female polar bears had annual home-range of 106,613 square kilometers (which points out a possible flaw in the Sterling, Richardson, Thiemann and Derocher study and their discovery of only 14 holes). 

And finally - _the dramatic decline in bear movement that we found in this study should be regarded with caution because the time period is relatvely short (6 years) and sample sizes in 1994 and 1995 were very low_.



affe22 said:


> Melting under pressure the real scoop on climate warming and polar bears.


Ian Stirling takes time out of his busy day to trash contrarian articles that continue to appear in the popular press, much to his dismay, questioning climate warming in general and more specifically, denying the potential negative effects on polar bears.

He's convinced that "actual sightings" of more polar bears around Nunavut, Canada is not proof that the polar bear population was increasing. Huh? 

It's interesting to note that he says, _"Additional concerns arise from using model projections to estimate future population trends in relation to harvesting, based on short term mark-recapture studies, because they cannot account for unknown but likely fluctuations in environmental conditions,"_ while he wholeheartedly supports the IPCCs use of modeling projections for man-made CO2 global warming. I guess the accuracy of any modeling depends on whether or not it proves Stirling's position.


----------



## skyhunter (Dec 1, 2003)

Fullboar said:


> Don’t make out like the US got into WW11 out of the goodness of your heart. The only reason you got involved was because you got attacked at Pearl Harbor. Churchill and a number of other leaders had asked (begged) for support for years but you were happy to sit back and make a ton of money giving war loans and selling machinery and arms to Britain and others. Even after a number of your merchant ships had been attacked and sunk and you were pretty much prisoners in your own country you still didn’t get involved. So don’t make out you got into that war to help us out because you didn’t. At least we can say every war after WW11 you were in we got involved out of the goodness of our hearts to help you out.You are accusing me of seeing things one sided, yet you don't see yourself as doing so. Are you not forgetting that the US often reluctantly used it's resources to stop the spread of fascism. Don't think for a minute that all our citizens shared the views of administrations that felt a responsibility to act on oppressive regimes. We don't enjoy watching our young men and women give the ultimate sacrifice in the name of human rights.
> 
> And to say interfering with Zionism has got us freedom makes you look like a total idiot. Dropping all those Jews in the middle of Palestine after WW11 is why the world is the **** it’s in today and I think most will agree. I don’t agree with the way the Palestinians (I don’t even like them) are bombing or firing rockets at Israeli civilians but what the Jews are doing to them is just plain wrong.


Sorry, cerebral malfunction; based on what we were discussing, I obviously meant fascism. No need to call me an "idiot" for an obvious brain fart. That's another debate. Fact is the US has bailed out a lot of butts that would face tyranny today had we not got involved. Personally I would like our country to feel less obligortory.


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

Beretta1984 said:


> Fight terrorism both domestic and abroad, one liberal at a time.


LOL! +1 :tongue:


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

Eric W said:


> I'm not seeing the "good science" here.
> 
> I agree with you completely that they are trying to make this look scientically sound, but I'm just not seeing it.
> *
> ...


That's right. Most of our population doesn't care, and just listens to what CNN and NBC tells them to believe. If they would listen to all sides of the argument, most of them would not have voted for Obama.

I heard on talk radio a lot when the elections were still going on: people would call in supporting Obama. The host would go down the list of all of his policies, and 90% of the time, people would disagree with Obama's ideas and policies. They would then turn around and vote for him. :dontknow: Just doesn't make much sense to me...


----------



## IChim2 (Aug 20, 2006)

dx2 said:


> Democrats: the only place they'll drill is your wallet. :wink:


Thats funny......seems Republicans drilled into our wallet's for past several yrs just to give it to big oil companies they supported...even Replubicans got tired of it and crossed over. Need to check up on your history for past 8 yrs and see who really got drilled.This is a great time for Dem's.....Obama...and than Mrs Clinton.


----------



## skyhunter (Dec 1, 2003)

> This is a great time for Dem's.....Obama...and than Mrs Clinton.


I would say you are correct, especially if you believe that increasing government's control over every aspect of a citizens life, is a good thing.

They now seek control over:

1) the banking industry
2) the automotive industry
3) the health care industry

What will be next? How long until a soft core tyranny evolves into hard core facism?


----------



## I like Meat (Feb 14, 2009)

Yea....Ahbama is really doing a great job...:thumbs_do....stock market is tanking because he has no idea what he is doing, even top economists agree Obama is in the dark with this and his so called stimulus package....Dems are going after our guns(Dem. Bobby Rush and others), Obama appoints an animal activist to a position within his administration, there are over 9000 earmarked items in Obamas new budget and he said he wasnt going to do any...:tongue:.....He is ready to stop our missile defense and cave in to Russia...his cap and trade plan will destroy what is left of this economy...his "health plan" is a disaster.....he is willing to stop the drilling for oil in this country because he is beholden to the enviro nuts......he is giving Palestine and a terrorist organization HAMAS 900 million dollars.....and all he gives the British is 25 DVD's....yea, he's the bomb....:thumbs_do.....Liberal Democrats....stupid is as stupid does....I'll bet Carter is sure proud ...:darkbeer:


----------

