Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:00 PM
Freddie Stubbs (29,085 posts)
Senate Votes On Polar Bear Carcasses In First Roll Call Since September
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) Congress is back in town after the election to find a way around automatic tax increases and spending cuts in January. But first, lawmakers are dealing with 41 polar bear carcasses.
In its first roll call since September, the Senate voted 92-5 on Tuesday to debate a bill to ease restrictions on hunters and fishermen and allow 41 U.S. hunters to bring home polar bear carcasses trapped in Canada due to a ban on trophy imports.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., immediately moved to block Republicans from amending the bill, potentially stalling further action on the bill for days.
Republicans had blocked the bill before the election, fearing that passage would boost the re-election prospects of the bills Democratic sponsor, Montana Sen. Jon Tester. Tester ultimately won re-election, narrowly defeating Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg.
Read more: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/senate-votes-on-polar-bear-carcasses-in-first-roll-call-since-september/
10 replies, 2540 views
Senate Votes On Polar Bear Carcasses In First Roll Call Since September (Original post)
|Freddie Stubbs||Nov 2012||OP|
|Jackpine Radical||Nov 2012||#4|
Response to SoapBox (Reply #1)
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:58 PM
JudyM (2,501 posts)
9. Couldn't be that 1 or more of those 41 hunters was a significant contributor to someone's campaign.
Just a hunch, since I agree with you: WTH?! This is about as small a commercial issue as can be imagined, and for sport and ego, no significant functional importance, unless I'm missing something.
Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:36 PM
Volaris (2,424 posts)
3. Right. These hunters have ALREADY gone and shot an ENDANGERED SPEICES...
really, as bothered as I am by THIS, what is the harm in bringing back the hide?
God, Harry needs to re-work the filibuster rules. The full Congress is supposed to have more important shit to do.
Response to Volaris (Reply #3)
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:47 PM
glinda (13,536 posts)
6. This might lead to loosening restrictions on future Endangered Species. Would like to see
them ban the importation of these carcasses this time and in the future.
Response to glinda (Reply #6)
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:16 PM
happyslug (13,665 posts)
7. "Vulnerable" NOT "Endangered".
A Vulnerable species is one which has been categorised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as likely to become Endangered unless the circumstances threatening its survival and reproduction improve. Vulnerability is mainly caused by habitat loss or destruction. Vulnerable species are monitored and are becoming threatened. However, some species listed as "vulnerable" may in fact be quite abundant in captivity, examples being the blue poison dart frog.
More on Polar Bear and its status:
The main threat to Polar Bears is NOT hunting, but Climate Change, even the Hunters know that (Through I do question if GOP Senators are that smart).
The list of the various status of animals is as follows:
Extinct (EX) No known individuals remaining.
Extinct in the Wild (EW) Known only to survive in captivity, or as a naturalized population outside its historic range.
Critically Endangered (CR) Extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.
Endangered (EN) High risk of extinction in the wild.
Vulnerable (VU) High risk of endangerment in the wild.
Near Threatened (NT) Likely to become endangered in the near future.
Least Concern (LC) Lowest risk. Does not qualify for a more at risk category. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category.
Data Deficient (DD) Not enough data to make an assessment of its risk of extinction.
Not Evaluated (NE) Has not yet been evaluated against the criteria.
When discussing the IUCN Red List, the official term "threatened" is a grouping of three categories: Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Vulnerable.
The ICUN "Red List":
The Red list had a Statement that needs to be quoted:
Other population stress factors that may also operate to impact recruitment or survival include toxic contaminants, shipping, recreational viewing, oil and gas exploration and development. In addition to this comes a potential risk of over-harvest due to increased quotas, excessive quotas or no quotas in Canada and Greenland and poaching in Russia.
Yes, hunting is a problem, but Toxic contaminants, shipping, recreational viewing, oil and gas exploration and development are considered more serious problems.
Response to onethatcares (Reply #5)
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:38 PM
happyslug (13,665 posts)
8. Five GOP voted AGAINST this bill along with Senator Boxer, three Senators did not vote.
Votes against the bill:
Not Voting - 3
Remember this is a Vote to Proceed There appears to be no real opposition to the bill, no one is really worried about these Bear, legally taken in Canada, the concern was GOP efforts to add things to the bill.
This was tied in with a motion to Cloture, held on September 22, 2012 but that was a seperate motion.
Please note this was a vote on a "Motion to Proceed" which is"
motion to proceed to consider - A motion, usually offered by the majority leader to bring a bill or other measure up for consideration. The usual way of bringing a measure to the floor when unanimous consent to do so cannot be obtained. For legislative business, the motion is debatable under most circumstances, and therefore may be subject to filibuster.
Thus no vote on the actual bill, the whole "fight" was over the GOP's plan to load down this bills with things they wanted for this Bill will pass.
Response to happyslug (Reply #8)
Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:40 PM
onethatcares (8,212 posts)
I pretty much understand the desire to tack unrelated items to bills that seem inocuous(?).
So I should presume this was defeated and not going to be brought to floor?
those Roberts Rules of Order as defined by our congress are kind of wierd.