Feds set aside 'critical habitat' for polar bear

[ProSense]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is setting aside 187,000 square miles in Alaska as a "critical habitat" for polar bears, an action that could add restrictions to future offshore drilling for oil and gas.

The total, which includes large areas of sea ice off the Alaska coast, is about 13,000 square miles, or 8.3 million acres, less than in a preliminary plan released last year.

Tom Strickland, assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at the Interior Department, said the designation would help polar bears stave off extinction, recognizing that the greatest threat is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change.

"This critical habitat designation enables us to work with federal partners to ensure their actions within its boundaries do not harm polar bear populations," Strickland said. "We will continue to work toward comprehensive strategies for the long-term survival of this iconic species."



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_polar_bears_habitat_5

[kestrel91316]

1. Sea ice is its critical habitat. How do we propose to ensure THAT isn't lost??

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Keep Caribou Barbie away from this area

[benld74]

3. OH so when the polar bears read this they will know to stay there?!?

[ProSense]

4. Reading

is what keeps them out of NYC.

[awoke_in_2003]

5. good to hear. nt

[Nihil]

6. Two points wrong with this:

> The Obama administration is setting aside 187,000 square miles in Alaska as
> a "critical habitat" for polar bears, an action that could add restrictions
> to future offshore drilling for oil and gas.
>
> The total, which includes large areas of sea ice off the Alaska coast, is about
> 13,000 square miles, or 8.3 million acres, less than in a preliminary plan
> released last year.

1) Reducing the area for the sake of "future offshore drilling for oil and gas"
is sick when the whole reason for that designated area is to try to preserve the
creatures that are suffering from the effects of excessive oil & gas extraction.

2) As this area "includes large areas of sea ice off the Alaska coast" and even they
recognise that "the greatest threat is the melting of Arctic sea ice", just how much
genuine help is it (as opposed to just being a puppet show news-bite) to give the
polar bears more empty water to drown in?


Smoke & f*cking mirrors again ...