Reader comments
Officials say polar bears to be protected species

Oh no!
What do the liberals want next?
The protection of all sentient beings?

Key word in the last sentence is "could". I guess they "could" also increase in number. Pseudo science at its worst...

First of all, global warming isn't a fact. Secondly, these critters are adaptable and will adjust to survive. Most of them will probably move to Alaska and live out of the garbage dumps.

Recent scientific studies out of New Zealand indicate that there is a cooling of tropical seas, possibly due to some newly discovered current patterns, that may mean we are in for a period of global cooling (i.e. another ice age) during this century before global warming really kicks in.

Watch out, this may impact our tropical species more next.

The Bush Administration admitting to global warming and acting on it? Wow.

The entire notion of endangered species preservation is crummy science; biological reactionarism, if you will. Species change, species come and go. Some become extinct, others take their place. Circle of Life, etc. Review your Darwin.
To attempt to "freeze" the earth in one state; weather, life species, etc; and have nothing change is scientific hogwash.
Environmentalist need to quit fearing change, and lose the arrogant God-complex that makes them think they can stop it.
Billions spent trying to affect the polar bears will be MONEY WASTED.

Shouldn't we be protecting species where the numbers are declining, not increasing. In 1972 there were estimated 5,000 polar bears out there. Now there are at least 25,000? So, in 36 years there is a 500% increase, and NOW they need protection.

How dumb are we? This is a sham so that some environmentalist movement can put up a "Do no drill here" sign, AND so that they can force the manmade global warming myth on everybody.

I don't know about everyone else, but I am sure tired of EVERYTHING being attributed to so-called "man-made global warming".

There has been no discernible warming of the earths atmospheric temperature since 1998. At what point will these pseudo-scientists be totally discredited and society gets back to a point where we are not spending BILLIONS of dollars, to stop something that does not exist?

Already, carbon dioxide is considered a green-house pollutant. When are these "scientists" going to demand that all living creatures stop breathing? We do, after all, exhale carbon dioxide. Or when will a massive "carbon tax" be applied to all beer and soft drinks? They too contain CO2.

If those of that are still sane do not demand that a stop be put to this nonsense, we as a species will soon cause ourselves to become extinct.

This stupidity needs to stop.

Now the environmentalists will have free rule and reign over all the populations in the United States. Any person or manufacturing facility whatsoever that uses energy will be subject to a lawsuit because they contribute to the addition of CO2 into the atmosphere, and thereby are supposedly killing off the polar bear. As of now it can never be said that the US is a free society. It is under the rule and reign of the kingdom of environmentalism.
This is now part of the beginning of the down fall of the United States of America.

The polar bear population has increased 25% over the past 10 years, inspite of so called global warming. Opps.

In a recent report, the WWF reported in Nov 2007 that the sea ice went from 13 million to 7 million sq miles - what they failed to report though is that the sea ice was 14 million sq miles in March of this year thanks to a 1 degree cooler over all temperature!!!

Environmentalism is all about people who want to tell everyone else what they can do.

(that and Gore getting stinking rich selling environmental indulgences to the feeble minded)

Don't drink the koolaid, America.

Like the liberal's global-warming hoax, polar bears don't exist either.

I don't understand why most Utahns are so against saving the planet. I am not a "liberal" but I did live in SoCal for several years so maybe I just see the value in going "green" because I've lived in highly-condensed populated areas. Once the salt lake valley fills up with houses and people and winter inversions worsen and the valley is a concrete mess, I hope to see more Utahns care about the issue. It saddens me to think that they will only care when it affects them personally, but my experiences with Utahns is as such.

So some people want to ensure the continued existence of polar bears. What's so bad about that? Oh, it costs money. Well. I'd rather spend money saving polar bears then killing people. Relax. My experience is that most Utahns hardly pay taxes to begin with, due to the large families and single incomes.

On the plus side, when people feel the pinch of all the effort and foolishness expended to save the increasing population of polar bears and save the highly-stable climate from global warming, environmental alarmists might finally be put out of business.

It ain't about saving a bears life. it is about someones (usually an enviromentalist) soap box. Hasn't anyone heard of cycles, they exist in everything, economics, prices in gas, prices for grain, a woman, and believe it or not weather too. We are in a warming cycle, although some of us in northern Idaho woiuld say we have been in a cooling cycle this winter, yes it's still winter up in northern Idaho.

Just another program the government can and will throw money at. I agree with most of the comments, so much for Bush and his desire to open up the Alaska frontier for oil drilling. Maybe this is his way of pleasing his oil buddies who are in his back pocket. see if we drill for oil in Alaska, it will increase supply and decrease prices, you know like a cycle, but his oil buddies love the BILLIONS they are making, so they convinced him to sign this bill. To think I voted for him twice, dumb. Saving the polar bear is as dumb as protecting wolves.

Pretty sad when the article on the China disaster only has 2 comments and the one on polar bears has 16. We really have our priorities straight libs.

You must pretty full of yourself thinking you are capable saving a planet or that it needs saving.

Not sure I follow your comment. I don't intend to save the planet single handedly. We all have that responsibility. Man has killed off species due to previous negligence.

Why do you not think the planet needs saving? We are using up resources. Even if you don't think it needs saving, fine. But my experience from the Mormon book of scripture is that man is a steward over the planet. Killing off entire species irresponsibly, depleting the seas of its inhabitants, drilling for oil in areas that are currently preserved so you can save a quarter, etc don't seem like things a good steward would do.