Companies get OK to annoy polar bears

WASHINGTON - Less than a month after declaring polar bears a threatened species because of global warming, the Bush administration is giving oil companies permission to annoy and potentially harm them in the pursuit of oil and natural gas.
The Fish and Wildlife Service issued regulations this week providing legal protection to seven oil companies planning to search for oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea off the northwestern coast of Alaska if “small numbers” of polar bears or Pacific walruses are incidentally harmed by their activities over the next five years.

I just wouldn’t get too close, if I were going to annoy them.



I’d be careful, if I was an oil company executive. Bush promised telephone companies that he would protect them if they let him illegally tap the phone conversations of American citizens.

Now he’s begging Congress to pass a law protecting them from prosecution, and Congress is having none of it. Likely, some of them are going to be spending time in Club Fed.

“Issuing a regulation” that defies the law pretty much works only so long as no one cites the law.

If this means oil for use here in the USA then ANNOY AWAY LOL. But I must say I don’t think I would get to close to an annoyed polar bear.:smiley:

A human weighs 150 pounds. A polar bear weighs … 1700 pounds. [Yike. I didn’t know they were THAT big!!!]

Somehow, I get the idea that the humans are merely going to be guests for lunch.

I don’t care how much oil there is up there!!!

I read that link thing … good grief … and some bureaucrat decided they are endangered! Obviously, he (or she) never tried to pet one!!!]

[It says polar bears are not finicky eaters.]

There are basically three types of bears in the US:

A black bear (some of them are cinnamon or brown in color) which sees a human and thinks a picnic basket must be nearby. (think Yogi Bear)

A brown bear (aka grizzly bear) who sees a human and thinks he might take the picnic basket from her cubs.

A polar bear who sees a human and thinks LUNCH!

You’re gonna need armoured vehicles to drive around up there.

Even an uparmoured humvee isn’t going to do the job. That would be like … spam in a can.

Yeah. Wave the regulation at the polar bears.

1700 pounds.

770+ kg.

1700 pounds!

One of my cars weighted less than that … fully loaded!!!

polar bears ought to count their blessings that their fat, fur or carcass is not a cheap efficient source of fuel.

I don’t know. I am conflicted on this. On the one hand, I think we should definitely be drilling anywhere that we can for oil because we need it to lower gas prices which are way too high. On the other hand, I don’t want to see the polar bear population decline either. So yeah, I really don’t know what I think about this.

When I see comments like this, I feel people are asking themselves “do I want oil or polar bears”. The problem with a choice like this is that oil is not a renewable resource. So in the end, you have neither oil or polar bears.

It’s time to find a better energy source.


Animals tend to adapt if possible. in ANWR



Everbody knows the best places to fish on a river include the cooling towerr outflows from a coal or nuclear plant…the fish hang out in the warm water.

The chemical plant I used to work at was next to a wildlife refuge. They did not build the plant in the refuge…the plant CREATED and maintains the refuge. Business isn’t all evil.

I would never advocate rampant misuse of our natural resources…that is bad stewardship over the earth God gave us. But people ARE more important than animals.

I have read many times that the bear, especially polar bears, have increased tremendously. That is why Alaska has filed suit agianst the US for imposing the safety act.

Here is an interesting site I found on Alaskan bear and human contact. Lots of good graphing too.

… In considering all species and their encounter-attack rates, many are surprised by 2 facts: 1) polar bears have not lived up to the commonly held belief that they - above all other bears - will stalk and hunt down a human. Wouldn’t we have more than 7 incidents total in 100 years if this statement were true?..This subjective assessment attempts to place fault on bears or humans based on the details provided by the person involved. In some cases it is quite clear that even after people did everything right they still ended up in a face-to-face showdown with a bear. In other instances, however, it seems that people made bears offers that they just couldn’t refuse, such as hiding a slab of bacon in their tent. In such instances who could conclude that the bear was at fault? Importantly, we see that a large number of bear-human encounters could have been avoided had people done the right things (e.g., store food properly, make noise while hiking through dense brush, not pushing bears when attempting to photograph them, etc.)…In this final graphic, we can see that bear attacks have consistently occurred in habitats where visibility is poor, underscoring the fact that given a chance, most bears will avoid a conflict with people.

as far as i know, no polar bears have been killed by drilling for oil offshore in alaska. let’s not forget, that there has been a great amount of drilling within state waters, within 3 nautical miles which is prime polar bear habitat. this ruling is directed to federal water drilling, > 3 nautical miles.

native villages on the north slope of alaska kill an average of 40 polar bears a year. yet the numbers of polar bears are healthy. we never hear about the state lease sales or the polar bears killed by villagers. i personally do not have a problem with native lifestyle, but i do have a problem with the hypocracy of the environmentalism.

a usgs study on the effects of oil drilling on polar bear population is found to be insignificant.

Why are wells that were dry twenty years ago producing oil again at the original if not higher rate then originally pumped?

According to the June issue of Townhall magazine, US Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) estimates there are currently 20-25,000 polar bears, up from a record-low population of 5-10,000 in the 1950s and 60s. The real reason environmentalists want to put the polar bear on the endangered species list is that it would keep us from drilling in Alaska. They believe that our carbon emissions are causing global warming, which is melting the ice the bears live on, and reducing our oil supply would mean, for them, reducing global warming. :rolleyes:

I say DRILL, for crying out loud!! :crying:

??? Where did we hear that?

There are many oil deposits in Alaska (and the rest of the country) that are drilled and then merely “capped”. They sit there until a company wants to pump out the crude…so they’re not producing. Are you thinking of that kind of situation?

Yeah really this will have little threat to the polar bears. They will be in much more danger as the ice they hunt on slowly becomes scarcer and scarcer. Polar bears need that ice to hunt seals…they can swim…but polar bear vs seal in open water equals seal just about everytime if not everytime.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit