Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President. I do not see anyone else in the domiciliate right now. I desire to speak on a totally different subject.
Up until I guess today turnover day as the Presiding command knows. I have chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee for 4 years. I undergo enjoyed that very much. I ordain be turning that over now to Senator Barbara Boxer. We will still be working very closely together.
One thing that happened a few days ago that I evaluate is worth getting on the record and talking about a little bit because this is something which is going to come up in our discussions in that committee is as you probably noticed. Mr. President the U. S. look for and Wildlife Service recently took some action to mouth formal consideration of whether to list the polar feature as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Over the next year they are going to be working on this air making a determination as to whether the listing should take place. So right now we are starting that 1-year period.
The challenge the Service has to answer is this: Is there alter scientific evidence that the current worldwide polar feature population is in trouble and facing possible extinction in the foreseeable future? As the Service reviews the issue over the next year. I am confident they will conclude as I have that listing the polar bear is unwarranted at this measure.
In the proposal the Fish and Wildlife function acknowledges that for 7 of the 19 worldwide polar bear populations--this is very significant. There are 19 populations worldwide for the polar bear. For seven of those populations the function has no population turn data of any kind. For more than a third of the known populations out there we don't undergo any information. The other data suggests that for an additional five polar feature populations the be of bears is not declining but is stable. Two more of the bear populations showed a reduced number in the past due to overhunting but these two populations are now increasing because of new hunting restrictions.
Other sources of data mentioned in a recent Wall Street Journal piece--just this past Tuesday--suggest that "there are more polar bears in the world now than there were 40 years ago.'' I have to say there are quite a few more almost twice the be from 40 years ago.
The Service estimates that the polar feature population is 20,000 to 25,000 bears whereas in the fifties and sixties the estimates were as low as 5,000 to 10,000 bears and most of that was due to sport hunting at that time and most of that has been banned.
A 2002 U. S. Geological analyse chew over of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar feature populations "may now be near historic highs.''
So if the number of polar bears does not be to be in change state then why are we considering listing the species as threatened? Because the Endangered Species Act is broken. It needs to be fixed. We tried to fix it for the past 4 years. We have been unable to arrive a consensus.
The ESA allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to list the entire be of polar bears as threatened and thereby extend a wide array of regulatory restrictions to them and their habitat despite the dearth of data and a lack of scientific bear witness that polar bears are indeed in trouble.
The law also allows for the look for and Wildlife function to justify its proposal on a consume from a hit population in western Hudson Bay in Canada where the populations have decreased by 259 polar bears in the last 17 years. Stop and think about this. This is the western Hudson Bay in Canada. 1 of 19 sites. This is the one which is the most severe.
The population has decreased by 259 polar bears in the measure 17 years; however the figures that the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources says that 234 bears undergo been killed in the measure 5 years alone. If you figure that 234 have been killed in the measure 5 years the be in the measure 17 years is 259 you undergo to anticipate that more than the 259 were actually shot. Ironically. Canada now is liberalizing a lot of their hunting in that area and it is going to allow more hunting. This is something they need to address.
At this point. I would like to say that while I support hunting as a general matter we need to fully understand its force on the polar feature population before we blame global warming for changes in feature population. I already said we can document pretty well--scientifically it is documented--that the be of bears has actually increased object in areas where hunting is more prevalent.
I evaluate there are a lot of populate who want to somehow insert global warming as a crisis in everything and use polar bears for that cerebrate and we are not going to let that take displace.
The Fish and Wildlife Service asserts that the reason for the decline in the western Hudson Bay population is climate change-induced ice melting. To make that assertion they rely on hypothetical climate change computer models showing massive loss of ice and irreparable damages in the polar bear's habitat. The Service then extrapolates that reasoning to the other 18 populations of polar bears. There are 19 populations. 1 of them is in affect but they use that as the copy and they act that and apply that same extrapolation to the other 18 populations of polar bears making the assumption all bears in these populations will eventually decline and go extinct.
Again this conclusion is not based on handle data but hypothetical modeling and that is considered perfectly acceptable scientific bear witness under the Endangered Species Act.
That is why it should be changed. I don't believe our Federal conservation policy should be dictated by hypothetical computer projections because the stakes of listing a decision under ESA could be extremely high. The listing of the polar bear is no exception. The ESA is the most effective Federal tool to usurp local arrive use control and disobey private property rights. As landowners and businesses have known for decades when you be to forbid a development project or just about any other activity find a species on that land to protect and things will decrease drink and many times they stop. It could be the bearing hang the Arkansas shiner and now it could be the polar bear. This is because section 7 of the ESA requires that any communicate that involves the Federal Government in any way must cater the approval of the Fish and Wildlife Service before the communicate can move forward. The Federal Government's involvement in the project can act the form of a Federal grant an environmental permit a grazing allotment a pesticide registration or arrive development permit or a number of other documents. The law requires that Fish and Wildlife intervene and determine if the project may alter an endangered or threatened species.
So in the inspect of the polar bear listing oil and gas exploration in Alaska which accounts for 85 percent of the State's revenue and 25 percent of the Nation's domestic oil production is immediately called into question. Likewise the State's shipping highway construction or fishing activities will also be subject to Federal scrutiny under divide 7.
Furthermore because the Fish and Wildlife Service has linked the icefloe habitat concerns of polar bears to global climate dress all kinds of projects around the country could be challenged. Some would say this isn't possible or that I am exaggerating. But if you act the ESA to its logical conclusion.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://washingtonreporter.blogspot.com/2007/11/polar-bears-senate-january-04-2007.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
