Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Opinion
May. 27, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

LETTERS: Polar bear listing an extremist fraud

To the editor:

A small Associated Press story on Page 5A of Thursday's Review-Journal probably did not get much attention. It reported that Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska will sue to prevent the polar bear from being added to the threatened species list, which is one step below endangered.

Most Popular Stories
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: What stops mass murderers? A gun
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Call evil by its rightful name
  • EDITORIAL: Terrorism on trial
  • EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror
  • LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well
  • LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans
  • EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'
  • Our politicians are the greatest, all right
  • EDITORIAL: I believe in free speech, but ...
  • LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada




    • The Endangered Species Act is one of the most harmful pieces of legislation ever to come out of Congress. Billions of dollars in infrastructure projects have been delayed or canceled, many others shot down before they got started, and thousands of jobs lost to protect questionable "species." The most famous example was the spotted owl, which destroyed logging in the Northwest. Many of these "species" are essentially the same as others and could not be distinguished by the mommy bird or anyone else.

    In the case of the polar bear, the possible ramifications are enormous, especially if paired with another hoax, human-caused global warming. The way it works is as follows: Polar bears are threatened through loss of habitat. The habitat loss is due to global warming. Therefore, anything the environmental extremists say causes global warming is prohibited -- all construction, energy and road-building projects.

    Now let's look at polar bear numbers. No one knows for certain how many polar bears are now alive. It is uncertain whether their population is increasing, static or decreasing. The famous picture used by environmental extremists of a polar bear standing on a tiny section of ice was actually taken during the summer, when such a scenario is the usual situation.

    When the world's experts on polar bears met in Alaska in 1965 for their first meeting, they realized that they did not know how many of the bears existed. According to the Canadians, there had been a report in 1959 estimating the polar bear population near the Alaskan coast between 2,000 and 2,500. They extrapolated from that number that the total polar bear population was 17,000 to 19,000. A 1961 estimate gave a world population of 5,000 to 8,000 animals. In 1964, another estimate placed it at more than 10,000.

    There have been other attempts to document the number of polar bears in 1993, 2001 and at the last meeting of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, in 2005. At that time, it became clear that no one really knows how many polar bears there are. Much of the "data" examined seemed little more than guesswork.

    In view of the above, it is perfectly clear that the push to brand polar bears as threatened is a means for anti-industrial, anti-growth environmental extremists to gain a stranglehold on the American economy.

    Stan Ames

    HENDERSON

    Back in my day ...

    To the editor:

    Remember the days when you were a kid? I had a bat, glove, a ball, a bike and a baseball card in my spokes. My buddies and I used a paper plate for home and played outside from morning to night. I am 53, and I don't consider myself that old, but I'm sure many of you are too young to relate.

    Today, kids have iPhones, iPods, Wiis, Game Boys, XBoxes, laptops, satellite radio and TV, HDTV, big screens, Grand Theft Auto IV and text messaging. And their parents have payments, payments and more payments. Not to mention huge power bills.

    I had a transistor radio and rabbit ears, but my dad always had money in the bank.

    Now, when gasoline goes up $20 a tank, it's President Bush's fault, Big Oil's fault, the Arabs' fault -- but never our own fault.

    Shudder to think, but we drank water from the tap. We even had to pull open our own garage door.

    It's a wonder that I'm still alive.

    Richard Dramm

    HENDERSON

    What law?

    To the editor:

    Ever notice how quickly the Keystone Cops leap into action when laws start to affect politicians?

    Term limits says 12 years and you're out. It doesn't say it's retroactive or non-retroactive, or if it starts on any given date, just that 12 years and you're done. It's a pretty clear law, but in Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury's case, it's now 27 years.

    Our politicians say it doesn't mean what it says, it means something else.

    Our judges are experts at rearranging laws they don't agree with. They rearranged the voter-mandated, legislative supermajority required for tax increases. They rearranged our term-limit initiative and took themselves off of it after we passed the first vote in 1994. They rearranged the law of the Legislature and took away the duties of the Clark County clerk.

    What are they telling us? They can do anything they please with the law, and there's not one thing, as taxpayers, we can do about it, but pay and pay and pay.

    AL WENGERT

    BOULDER CITY

    Political junket

    To the editor:

    With all the revenue shortfall problems and personal issues our esteemed Gov. Jim Gibbons has on his plate, what is he doing going to Iraq to visit our Nevada troops, and which budget is paying for this boondoggle?

    Bruce Yarborough

    LAS VEGAS

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 14 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    boggy wrote on May 28, 2008 02:15 AM: You know whats worse than roaches, us, the human race. We suck up every nook and cranny that we can find without any consideration to other living creatures. Thats because we have the big bad guns and consider ourselves more important than any other living thing on this earth. Yes, several billion humans are more important than 10,000 polar bears. So those 10,000 polar bears or the spotted owels should move aside so we can reproduce more humans and push out these inferior animals. Sounds like the Germans of WWII, doesn't it?

    I think Stan Ames would not mind taking his grand children to a museum instead of a zoo.

    I am sure we can live without a couple of factories in Alaska and there are plenty of other places for logging. I think we can sacrifice a small portion of earth for the other animals, don't you?


    Rob wrote on May 27, 2008 06:03 PM: I must admit that the editorial about the polar bear being a threatened species written by Mr. Ames was gramitically correct... no typos or incomplete sentences. Well done! His logic, however, is a bit fuzzy. If we are unsure about something, we should assume the best and carrying on accordingly. It doesn't matter that we might be wrong, and that reality does not always coincide with "what's best." No news is good news... is that correct Mr. Ames? If you thought that you might have a serious health condition, but your physician could find nothing wrong, would you assume the best, carry on, and live with the consequences? Or, would you take a more precautionary approach and continue getting second and third opinions until you were comfortable with the diagnosis? It is a scientific fact that the Arctic snowpack is a fraction of what it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Whether it is due to global warming, or some other factor, don't you see a need to find out? Because there is not enough scientific data to convince you, don't you see the ignorance in moving forward on "projects" that may, or may not, be harmful to future generations? To me, your article is less about polar bears and global warming, and more of a diatribe against those who disagree with your political position. Next time, before referring to "anti-growth, anti-industrial extremist," stop and take a deep breath. Name calling only makes you look like a bitter person with a chip on his shoulder, and gives less credibility to your argument. And by the way, what did a spotted owl ever do to you?


    El Cid wrote on May 27, 2008 03:02 PM: Fred L.- That's not even her correct name, ya fart-knocker!


    Fred L. wrote on May 27, 2008 12:36 PM: I wonder if Gov Jim is being accompanied in Iraq by Cindy Mazzeo, his parking garage squeeze. After all, he is a free man now. Gee, you don't have to wonder why Dawn bailed out, do you?


    DaveC wrote on May 27, 2008 11:11 AM: At some point the Polar Bear will decline, when a species that has higher numbers than any time in the last 50 years is “protected” instead of managed the population will outgrow its food and habitat and starvation and disease will set in which will be followed by a decline in their population. At which time, the groups that “protect” these animals will claim they need to “protect” them even more. In the U.S., where not limited by anti groups, states DOW have managed big game animals so well there are more of the managed species in the U.S now than their was before Columbus sailed here. We need to remove politics from wildlife management set guidelines for these management organizations to protect them from whatever is PC at that time, so they can do their job free from political pressure.


    Steve wrote on May 27, 2008 10:20 AM: It's amazing to see the clowns talking about Gibbons goin to Iraq to visit Nevada's military personnel but not one word from the fools about the upcoming Congressional junket to Venice to stay at 5 star hotels and eat at 3 and 4 star restaurants while "touring" several extremely expensive vacation sites ALL AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE!


    Judy wrote on May 27, 2008 07:44 AM: Bruce - perhaps Jimbo is already spending the alimony he is seeking in his divorce from Dawn? The man will excise cash from where ever he can. He is a leach.


    Russ wrote on May 27, 2008 07:42 AM: What a bunch of old sticks in the mud. My wife and I are in our late fifties and we love our wii and wii fit games like Tiger Woods golf. You can have both if you have any brains and will power. Life's short live it up!!


    2zero wrote on May 27, 2008 07:30 AM: Talk about; "questionable species"! LOL


    Dave L wrote on May 27, 2008 07:04 AM: Stan Ames; So President Bush is a liberla polar bear hugging conservationist? LOL! My observation is that if members of his bureaucracy are saying something is endangered things must be dire!

    Richard Dramm; Thanks for the laugh! I don't know how we made it from the 1950's to today without killing ourselves! (can't say the same for the yougsters today what with a cell phone glued to their head 14 hours a day they gotta be growing tumors in their brain!)


    Read All Comments