Re: Polar Bears Thrive, Contrary to WWF Claims
tunderbar
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/675
>
> Polar Bears Thrive, Contrary to WWF Claims
>
> You've probably seen the commercials; TV actor Noah Wyle (ER, The Librarian)
> somberly informs us of an impending grave catastrophe: "A tragedy is
> unfolding in the world today. Climate change is threatening one of the
> most magnificent wild animals on the planet. Polar bears. They're struggling
> to survive."
>
> Heart-tugging violins accompany video footage of a mother polar bear and
> her cuddly cub on a small ice flow.
>
> ...
>
> However, there are several big problems with this picture and message. First
> of all, there is no evidence provided in the commercial or by WWF in its
> literature or on its website that this particular polar bear and her cub
> are weak, starving, or in any distress whatsoever. For all we can tell
> they are healthy and happy, floating on their iceberg as polar bears do
> and have done since they've been around on this planet. It is only the
> narration and the music that suggest otherwise. But, more importantly,
> the main message of the commercial is a ... big lie. No sense in mincing
> words. Completely contrary to the WWF's maudlin claims that the cuddly
> predators are on "their way to extinction," polar bear populations have
> been exploding. The number of polar bears in the world is four to five
> times greater than it was 50 years ago, increasing from around 5,000
> to an estimated 25,000.
Some estimates put the numbers above 30,000.
enigma
Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:05pm EDT
* Alaska-area polar bear population declining
* Loss of ice, illegal hunting in Russia blamed
* Concern over walruses, no firm numbers yet
By Yereth Rosen
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, June 18 (Reuters) - Polar bear populations in and
around Alaska are declining due to continued melting of sea ice and
Russian poaching, according to reports released Thursday by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fewer polar bears have survived in the southern Beaufort Sea, which
extends from northern Alaska to parts of Canada, and in the Chukchi
and Bering Seas between northwestern Alaska and Russia, the agency's
draft population assessments show.
Officials say the drop among the Chukchi and Bering bears is likely
steeper than for those in the Beaufort, due to a more dramatic melt of
sea ice -- which the bears need to travel and forage for food -- and
an illegal Russian hunt believed to be killing 150 to 250 bears a
year.
The assessments, though incomplete, are disturbing, said an attorney
with the Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned and later
sued the federal government to add polar bears and walruses to the
U.S. Endangered Species Act list.
"That information, when you look at it, paints a pretty grim picture
for the species," attorney Brendan Cummings said.
The United States officially recognized polar bears as an endangered
species last year as a result of the warming Arctic climate, which has
wiped out much of the summer sea ice critical to the animals'
survival.
Russian poaching, believed to be spurred by a market for bear hides,
represents what the Fish and Wildlife Service describes as a potential
compounding threat to the population, said Bruce Woods, the agency's
spokesman in Alaska.
"Of course, since it's illegal hunting, it's very difficult to
quantify," Woods said.
There was an estimated 0.3 percent annual decline in the polar bear
population in the southern Beaufort Sea between 2001 and 2007, with
the total numbers likely hovering between 1,397 and 1,526 animals,
according to the draft assessments.
It has been more difficult to study the Chukchi and Bering population,
which stretches across the border, although the Fish and Wildlife
Service has determined the minimum population there is about 2,000
animals, according to the assessments.
The worldwide polar bear population is generally believed to be about
20,000 to 25,000, according to the International Union for
Conservation of Nature, which lists the species as "vulnerable".
The recent declines in the Alaska area follow decades of growth and
stability that started in 1972 when the United States outlawed sport-
hunting of polar bears. Prior to the ban, sportsmen killed hundreds of
Alaskan polar bears annually, often using aircraft to track the
animals.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also issued on Thursday preliminary
population information showing the Pacific walrus, another marine
mammal dependent on sea ice, had been impacted by habitat warming.
A reliable overall population estimate for the Pacific walrus, under
consideration for Endangered Species Act protection, is expected to be
released by early 2010, Woods said.
Cummings, however, expressed frustration at the delay.
"By the time they get around to issuing a complete population estimate
for the walrus, it'll likely be out of date," he said. "We don't need
to know how many walruses there are, because if there's no sea ice,
there's no walrus habitat, and we're going to lose the
walrus." (Editing by Bill Rigby and Paul Simao)
enigma
Blue
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/675
> Polar Bears Thrive, Contrary to WWF Claims
>
> You've probably seen the commercials; TV actor Noah Wyle (ER, The Librarian)
> somberly informs us of an impending grave catastrophe: "A tragedy is
> unfolding in the world today. Climate change is threatening one of the
> most magnificent wild animals on the planet. Polar bears. They're struggling
> to survive."
>
> Heart-tugging violins accompany video footage of a mother polar bear and
> her cuddly cub on a small ice flow.
> ...
>
> predators are on "their way to extinction," polar bear populations have
> been exploding. The number of polar bears in the world is four to five
> times greater than it was 50 years ago, increasing from around 5,000
> to an estimated 25,000.
We are given the impression that the Polar Bear has been around since
the year dot and that to lose them would mean the end of the world.
However, it was only recently in earth time scale that some Brown bears
were seperated and adapted to their icy surroundings.
----
So just when did polar bears arise as a separate subspecies? Genetic models
show that the emergence of the polar bear could have taken place as recently as 70,000 years ago
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/arctic-bears/how-grizzlies-evolved-into-polar-bears/777/
----
Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first "polar bear",
Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear
dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced
and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a
high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed
polar-bear-type teeth.
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html
This isn't to say that all creatures that have undergone recent changes
are of any less value. But there is no natural law that I know of that
says a recent adaptation to the surrounding must allow that animal to
survive even when the environment has changed again. Like from Ice Age to Interglacial.
Giga
Considerring the fact that there must be an element of inaccuracy counting
such animals, in such a difficult enviroment, this is laughable, clutching
at straws, and if anything shows how stable the population is. Especially if
it is true that poachers are taking a few hundred every year. In a
population of 6000 animals, say, that would be 5% not 0.05%. If it was just
joke this kind of research would be funny. The fact that tax payer's money
is going towards such rubbish is not.
"enigma" <enigm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:780f1b7d-313a-4ec0...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
I M @ good guy
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>Hee hee, 0.3% decline over seven years, that's less than 0.05% per year.
>Considerring the fact that there must be an element of inaccuracy counting
>such animals, in such a difficult enviroment, this is laughable, clutching
>at straws, and if anything shows how stable the population is. Especially if
>it is true that poachers are taking a few hundred every year. In a
>population of 6000 animals, say, that would be 5% not 0.05%. If it was just
>joke this kind of research would be funny. The fact that tax payer's money
>is going towards such rubbish is not.
What do you mean poachers, the last I heard,
about 600 licenses are issued each year in Canada,
but only about 500 or so are used.
If that has changed, the bear population
may double in 20 years, a bear behind every
house, wouldn't that be great.
Giga
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:31rrj510d8v0acjr5...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 11:21:17 -0000, "Giga" <"Giga"
> <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
>>Hee hee, 0.3% decline over seven years, that's less than 0.05% per year.
>>Considerring the fact that there must be an element of inaccuracy counting
>>such animals, in such a difficult enviroment, this is laughable, clutching
>>at straws, and if anything shows how stable the population is. Especially
>>if
>>it is true that poachers are taking a few hundred every year. In a
>>population of 6000 animals, say, that would be 5% not 0.05%. If it was
>>just
>>joke this kind of research would be funny. The fact that tax payer's money
>>is going towards such rubbish is not.
>
>
> What do you mean poachers, the last I heard,
> about 600 licenses are issued each year in Canada,
> but only about 500 or so are used.
>
> If that has changed, the bear population
> may double in 20 years, a bear behind every
> house, wouldn't that be great.
>
Really, lol, what are these people on about then!?
Giga
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR-Ms2LTV0Y
>
No need to watch some propaganda frankly. If you cannot argue rationally
then not sure I can really engage.
I M @ good guy
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>news:31rrj510d8v0acjr5...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 11:21:17 -0000, "Giga" <"Giga"
>> <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>>
>>>Hee hee, 0.3% decline over seven years, that's less than 0.05% per year.
>>>Considerring the fact that there must be an element of inaccuracy counting
>>>such animals, in such a difficult enviroment, this is laughable, clutching
>>>at straws, and if anything shows how stable the population is. Especially
>>>if
>>>it is true that poachers are taking a few hundred every year. In a
>>>population of 6000 animals, say, that would be 5% not 0.05%. If it was
>>>just
>>>joke this kind of research would be funny. The fact that tax payer's money
>>>is going towards such rubbish is not.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean poachers, the last I heard,
>> about 600 licenses are issued each year in Canada,
>> but only about 500 or so are used.
>>
>> If that has changed, the bear population
>> may double in 20 years, a bear behind every
>> house, wouldn't that be great.
>>
>
>Really, lol, what are these people on about then!?
http://www.ehow.com/how_2146518_hunt-polar-bears.html
http://www.polarbearhunting.net/
Blue
> http://www.polarbearhunting.net/
----
Quotas vary by province and polar bear population area
for example, this year hunters are allowed to harvest
105 polar bears in the Baffin Bay region.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=will-canada-ban-polar-bear-trophy-h-2009-04-17
----
"We harvest more polar bears in Nunavut than the rest
of the world combined," said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut's
head of wildlife management.
"Our annual harvest is between 450 and 500 bears a year.
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/722760--the-bear-facts-about-the-polar-bear-hunt
I M @ good guy
And good management of the harvest is the
best thing for the bear population.
While I have never hunted, I do understand
what wildlife management is about, I have seen
the effects of deer herds not harvested properly,
they need to be restricted to the number the
land will support through the winter.
But please don't any nuts apply this to
humans, most humans today are supported
through the winter by good grain and potato
storage, good cold storage, and food imported
from warmer climates and grown in greenhouses.
Blue
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:49:22 +0000, Blue <bl...@there.com> wrote:
>
>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>> http://www.polarbearhunting.net/
>> ----
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=will-canada-ban-polar-bear-trophy-h-2009-04-17
>>
>> ----
>>
>> http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/722760--the-bear-facts-about-the-polar-bear-hunt
>
>
> And good management of the harvest is the
> best thing for the bear population.
>
> While I have never hunted, I do understand
> what wildlife management is about, I have seen
> the effects of deer herds not harvested properly,
> they need to be restricted to the number the
> land will support through the winter.
>
> But please don't any nuts apply this to
> humans, most humans today are supported
> through the winter by good grain and potato
> storage, good cold storage, and food imported
> from warmer climates and grown in greenhouses.
It would seem that a decline in Polar Bear numbers is
directly related to an increasing native people population.
This is a North American continent problem.
Canada Baffin Bay 500
Russia 270
USA Alaska area 100
Other Canada area 100s
1,000 Polar Bears killed per year by bullets.
~0 by drowning.
I M @ good guy
I missed the claim of the population reduction,
I would have thought the license numbers would be
a direct result of a minor over-population.
George
> I M @ good guy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:49:22 +0000, Blue <b...@there.com> wrote:
>
> >> I M @ good guy wrote:
> >>>http://www.polarbearhunting.net/
> >> ----
> >> 105 polar bears in the Baffin Bay region.
>
>
> >> ----
> >> "Our annual harvest is between 450 and 500 bears a year.
>
>
> > And good management of the harvest is the
> > best thing for the bear population.
>
> > While I have never hunted, I do understand
> > what wildlife management is about, I have seen
> > the effects of deer herds not harvested properly,
> > they need to be restricted to the number the
> > land will support through the winter.
>
> > But please don't any nuts apply this to
> > humans, most humans today are supported
> > through the winter by good grain and potato
> > storage, good cold storage, and food imported
> > from warmer climates and grown in greenhouses.
>
> It would seem that a decline in Polar Bear numbers is
> directly related to an increasing native people population.
>
> This is a North American continent problem.
>
> Canada Baffin Bay 500
> Russia 270
> USA Alaska area 100
> Other Canada area 100s
> 1,000 Polar Bears killed per year by bullets.
> ~0 by drowning
I'll have to question as to how the figure of zero drownings of Polar
Bears was arrived at.
Seeing that its a sea going mammal and any drownings will sink to the
sea floor and be eaten there.
I M @ good guy
I doubt it George, I think the "fur" is
hollow tubes, and there is usually inches of
blubber, and sea water may be more dense
than even lean flesh and bone.
But Polar Bears can swim hundreds of
miles, more if they get lucky and dive into
a school of fish.
The bad thing for them is storms,
but they probably have a nose for that
and stay on a big flow or land.
I think only a couple have been seen
dead, and it was right after a bad storm.