A recent proposal by the United States, which would spell the end of the polar bear hunt in the far north was shot down in a recent CITES vote.
The proposal was rejected by a majority of Governments including Canada with 62 votes against, 48 in favour and 11 abstentions. The majority of the govenments rejected the proposal over concerns it would have a negative impact on indigenous communities that rely on the Polar Bear for their livelihood. It was found that northern trade practices do not pose a significant threat to the animals.
A disappointed United States emphasised that even a relatively small commercial trade in polar bears in the north could pose considerable pressure to an already stressed population.
I, for one, would have been greatly disappointed had the motion not been shot down.
Any thoughts?
Outdoorsguy
Not too knowledgable about this subject, but here are a few thoughts.
When did the US suddenly become concerned about the environment? Have they suddenly taken care of all of their ecological concerns domestically and are now ready to take on the world.
Has the US cleaned up their envoronment in Alaska?
Has the US stopped claiming the right to use the Northwest Passage as it clearly isn’t concerned about International law and a countries right to not allow passage to foreign traffic.
A country such as Canada who has an abundance of natural resources has the right to determine how the allocation of resouces are determined, if the US does not want those resources, that’s fine, there are other markets to sell to. It does not give the US the right to tell us how to use our resources.
It seems to me that we are now going down a path of no return. First the seal hunt, now polar bears. Once these activities are removed how long will it be before deer, bear, turkeys etc are the next to be picked on. Vegetarians want to force their beliefs on the rest of us, and we are heading down that slippery slope of these radicals (nutbars) have made it politically incorrect to use any animal in any form
Amen brother!
Tom, I may just bring on the wrath of Uncle Sam himself for saying so, but those are my sentiments exactly!
My guess is the move was more of a political one..in some attempt or response toward ‘fixing the global warming’ issue. And since the US has no real stake in the far north polar bear resources or communities..other than how a world of tree-huggers perceives the global warming/polar bear concerns..Obama figured this might be a good move for him politically..
I think not…
Outdoorsguy
Tom, keep in mind that a ‘conservation group’ uses conservation as a management tool – which implies the ‘wise use, management and harvest’ of our renewable natural resources.
These groups would have you touch nothing, manage nothing and simply leave everything alone as God and nature intended..that, my friend, is NOT conservation at all.
There is nothing ‘conserved’ with those actions only ‘preserved’..much like a large jar of pickles which are never used..and eventually go bad!
Outdoorsguy