Should polar bears be listed under the Endangered Species Act?

Yes
No
Resources for this issue
    Reviews of this issue

    This issue has been approved by whereIstand editors.

    Do not use this page to take a stand on this issue.

    This page shows the dialogue between users and editors regarding the merits of this issue. If you have comments about the issue's wording, relevance, etc., write them here. Only registered whereIstand members can edit an issue. Users must register in order to participate in all aspects of the whereIstand community.

    8/30/2008 1:46:12 PM

    Now that she's McCain's VP choice, gotta put this one up, don't you think?

    1/15/2008 1:15:06 PM

    Perfectly fine issue.

    1/15/2008 10:58:37 AM

    Yea, I think it's listed. Because it would be "listed as endangered under the act." So listed it is.

    1/15/2008 10:29:51 AM

    'listed' is definitely right, from what I just reviewed. its ready to be approved.

    1/15/2008 10:04:23 AM

    I took the wording from Palin's Op-Ed -- I originally had "...added to the Endangered Species list?"  Here's what she says: 

     

    Listing the bears under the Endangered Species Act is the wrong move at this time.

     

     

    1/15/2008 9:48:44 AM

    Well done. Looks like it's becoming a debate. I have no problem with the wording of this issue. It's well categorized too.

    1/15/2008 9:36:07 AM

    Interesting issue... I don't know too much about it, but if people are weighing-in, then I say we add it!

     

    Is it more that they'd be "added" to the Endangered Species Act... or is "listed" the appropriate word?

    1/15/2008 9:10:41 AM

    Er, NYT says yes.

    1/15/2008 9:10:14 AM

    Alaska Governor Sarah Palin says no.

     

    NYT says no, in an editorial:

     

    There is no urgency to lease Alaskan waters. President Bush’s suggestion that new oil production will bring short-term relief at the pump is nonsense, since oil fields take years to develop. It is urgent to help the bears.