Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I never denied hunting isn't a problem, I'm simply saying polar bears won't exist at all if they continue to lose their habitat due to climate change. I fully supportShow me the numbers being killed by the natives and compare the numbers to the loss of habitat, harder access to food, etc, etc.. I see a pattern, everything has some obscure cause as long as it goes against the AGW message..Did this Polar Bear dance just last week. FACT IS --- Hunting by natives is more of problem to Polar Bears than Global Warming will ever be. The natives SELL their hunting permits for big bucks. And if there was TRULY a population crisis -- the hunt would curtailed or stopped.
The NATIVES know more about the polar bear populations than the scientists sitting on their asses. We should ask them. Want to help the Polar Bears? Stop the LEGAL hunting of them..
You're joking, right?
Joking about marking up a permit to shoot and kill a polar bear to a white hunter with $50,000 or so?
No I'm not David. It's big biz to the natives up there. Unlike YOU who have already be channeled to react to GW and NOT THINK or research any of this --- must sound DAMN strange that regular hunting permits are going out year after year to placate the natives. Eh???
Actually David -- that entire discussion about hunting pressure on polar bears is on the SAME website you referenced in the thread (among many other places) Estimate is 600 to 800 native permits issued worldwide, probably another 200 or so from poachers in Russia. That's A LOT OF PRESSURE..
And as usual -- when policy makers want to change something that won't make the natives happy --- they MAKE UP EXCUSES. So what's a more convienient excuse than GWarming eh? Pretty slick eh. Don't have the guts to cut hunting permits to the Indians. But if GLOBAL WARMING is killing the polar bears --- well then -- the natives will just have to understand..
Cutting hunting permits and combating global warming, glad to know you accept the reality of climate change.
That's a huge number, and Polar bears are already feeling the effects, much like Other species. Want to read up from nat geo or NASA?I never denied hunting isn't a problem, I'm simply saying polar bears won't exist at all if they continue to lose their habitat due to climate change. I fully supportShow me the numbers being killed by the natives and compare the numbers to the loss of habitat, harder access to food, etc, etc.. I see a pattern, everything has some obscure cause as long as it goes against the AGW message..You're joking, right?
Joking about marking up a permit to shoot and kill a polar bear to a white hunter with $50,000 or so?
No I'm not David. It's big biz to the natives up there. Unlike YOU who have already be channeled to react to GW and NOT THINK or research any of this --- must sound DAMN strange that regular hunting permits are going out year after year to placate the natives. Eh???
Actually David -- that entire discussion about hunting pressure on polar bears is on the SAME website you referenced in the thread (among many other places) Estimate is 600 to 800 native permits issued worldwide, probably another 200 or so from poachers in Russia. That's A LOT OF PRESSURE..
And as usual -- when policy makers want to change something that won't make the natives happy --- they MAKE UP EXCUSES. So what's a more convienient excuse than GWarming eh? Pretty slick eh. Don't have the guts to cut hunting permits to the Indians. But if GLOBAL WARMING is killing the polar bears --- well then -- the natives will just have to understand..
Cutting hunting permits and combating global warming, glad to know you accept the reality of climate change.
The 0.5degC change in global temperature during your lifetime is not killing polar bears TODAY.. Maybe at some future date -- it could be a different story. The world's been warming for 300 years since the end of the LittleIceAge...
Guns and population increases in the sub-Arctic is..
LOL.
There are fewer than 25,000 polar bears left in the wild, according to the nonprofit organization Polar Bears International. Near the southernBeaufort Sea (map), for instance, the population has dropped about 40 percent between 2001 to 2010, from 1,500 to 900 bears.
You do realize they're still hanging on thanks to environmentalists?
Sure, a non-profit organization named Polar Bear International wouldn't "adjust" the data in their favor. Un huh!
I never denied hunting isn't a problem, I'm simply saying polar bears won't exist at all if they continue to lose their habitat due to climate change. I fully support
Cutting hunting permits and combating global warming, glad to know you accept the reality of climate change.
That's a huge number, and Polar bears are already feeling the effects, much like Other species. Want to read up from nat geo or NASA?
That's a huge number, and Polar bears are already feeling the effects, much like Other species. Want to read up from nat geo or NASA?I never denied hunting isn't a problem, I'm simply saying polar bears won't exist at all if they continue to lose their habitat due to climate change. I fully supportShow me the numbers being killed by the natives and compare the numbers to the loss of habitat, harder access to food, etc, etc.. I see a pattern, everything has some obscure cause as long as it goes against the AGW message..Joking about marking up a permit to shoot and kill a polar bear to a white hunter with $50,000 or so?
No I'm not David. It's big biz to the natives up there. Unlike YOU who have already be channeled to react to GW and NOT THINK or research any of this --- must sound DAMN strange that regular hunting permits are going out year after year to placate the natives. Eh???
Actually David -- that entire discussion about hunting pressure on polar bears is on the SAME website you referenced in the thread (among many other places) Estimate is 600 to 800 native permits issued worldwide, probably another 200 or so from poachers in Russia. That's A LOT OF PRESSURE..
And as usual -- when policy makers want to change something that won't make the natives happy --- they MAKE UP EXCUSES. So what's a more convienient excuse than GWarming eh? Pretty slick eh. Don't have the guts to cut hunting permits to the Indians. But if GLOBAL WARMING is killing the polar bears --- well then -- the natives will just have to understand..
Cutting hunting permits and combating global warming, glad to know you accept the reality of climate change.
The 0.5degC change in global temperature during your lifetime is not killing polar bears TODAY.. Maybe at some future date -- it could be a different story. The world's been warming for 300 years since the end of the LittleIceAge...
Guns and population increases in the sub-Arctic is..
It's sad what is occurring to these beautiful creatures.
4 Ways Polar Bears Are Dealing With Climate Change
It's a tough time to be a polar bear.
The Arctic predators—which depend on constantly diminishing amounts of sea ice to catch marine mammals such as seals—are declining in number, and fast.
There are fewer than 25,000 polar bears left in the wild, according to the nonprofit organization Polar Bears International. Near the southernBeaufort Sea (map), for instance, the population has dropped about 40 percent between 2001 to 2010, from 1,500 to 900 bears.
And as their habitat shrinks, they've have been acting strangely. On Wednesday, five bears surrounded a team of scientists at a weather station in Russia, trapping the people inside.
On the same day, elsewhere in the Arctic, scientists representing Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States announced a ten-year planto prevent polar bears from going extinct. Actions include preserving polar bear habitat and working with policymakers and the public to addressclimate change.
Also this week, President Obama became the first sitting president to visit the U.S. Arctic, traveling through several Alaska cities to highlight threatsposed by global warming.
Oh my, another asshole that only does yellow rag journalism. Why don't you post something from a peer reviewed scientific journal?
How about if we consider it another denier lie? Good? Okay.
Population and distribution
Polar bears investigate the submarine USS Honolulu 450 kilometres (280 mi) from the North Pole.
The polar bear is found in the Arctic Circle and adjacent land masses as far south as Newfoundland Island. Due to the absence of human development in its remote habitat, it retains more of its original range than any other extant carnivore.[30] While they are rare north of 88°, there is evidence that they range all the way across the Arctic, and as far south as James Bay in Canada. Their southernmost range is near the boundary between the subarctic and humid continental climate zones. They can occasionally drift widely with the sea ice, and there have been anecdotal sightings as far south as Berlevåg on the Norwegian mainland and the Kuril Islands in the Sea of Okhotsk. It is difficult to estimate a global population of polar bears as much of the range has been poorly studied; however, biologists use a working estimate of about 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears worldwide.[1][31]
There are 19 generally recognized, discrete subpopulations.[31][32] The subpopulations display seasonal fidelity to particular areas, butDNA studies show that they are not reproductively isolated.[33] The thirteen North American subpopulations range from the Beaufort Seasouth to Hudson Bay and east to Baffin Bay in western Greenland and account for about 70% of the global population. The Eurasianpopulation is broken up into the eastern Greenland, Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, and Chukchi Sea subpopulations, though there is considerable uncertainty about the structure of these populations due to limited mark and recapture data.
The range includes the territory of five nations: Denmark (Greenland), Norway (Svalbard), Russia, the United States (Alaska) and Canada. These five nations are the signatories of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, which mandates cooperation on research and conservation efforts throughout the polar bear's range.
Modern methods of tracking polar bear populations have been implemented only since the mid-1980s, and are expensive to perform consistently over a large area.[34] The most accurate counts require flying a helicopter in the Arctic climate to find polar bears, shooting a tranquilizer dart at the bear to sedate it, and then tagging the bear.[34] In Nunavut, some Inuit have reported increases in bear sightings around human settlements in recent years, leading to a belief that populations are increasing. Scientists have responded by noting that hungry bears may be congregating around human settlements, leading to the illusion that populations are higher than they actually are.[34]The Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN takes the position that "estimates of subpopulation size or sustainable harvest levels should not be made solely on the basis of traditional ecological knowledge without supporting scientific studies."[35]
Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data, as of 2009.[7][31]
Polar bear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conservation status, efforts and controversies
This map from the U.S. Geological Survey shows projected changes in polar bear habitat from 2001 to 2010 and 2041 to 2050. Red areas indicate loss of optimal polar bear habitat; blue areas indicate gain.
Estimates of the status of the global population of polar bears vary widely. As of 2008, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) reports that the global population of polar bears is 20,000 to 25,000, and is declining.[1] In 2006, the IUCN upgraded the polar bear from a species of least concern to a vulnerable species.[146] It cited a "suspected population reduction of >30% within three generations (45 years)".[1] However, a report published in July 2013, estimates that the global population of polar bears increased by an average of almost 4,200 bears since 2001.[147] Risks to the polar bear include climate change, pollution in the form of toxic contaminants, conflicts with shipping, stresses from recreational polar-bear watching, and oil and gas exploration and development.[1] The IUCN also cited a "potential risk of over-harvest" through legal and illegal hunting.[1]
I do not see any data that would support 5K to 25K population growth.
According to the World Wildlife Fund, the polar bear is important as an indicator of Arctic ecosystem health. Polar bears are studied to gain understanding of what is happening throughout the Arctic, because at-risk polar bears are often a sign of something wrong with the Arctic marine ecosystem.[148]
I consider anything that you or any other nutjob posts, trying to convince others that AGW/CC is real, or the polar bear population is in decline, to be nothing but bullshit!
IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, 2009.15th meeting of PBSG in Copenhagen, Denmark 2009: Press Release. Retrieved 10 January 2010.
and
Polar Bears and Conservation and "Polar bear FAQ". Polar Bears International. Retrieved 14 July 2009.
Are the sources of the comments about declining polar bear populations. If one of you has something better that says they AREN"T declining, Let Us Fucking See It.
And, statistically, the most likely assumption regarding the unknown populations is that they match the known. And, realistically, can any of you fools come up with a reason why the polar bear population, in the face of the ice loss taking place, might be growing?
