[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Gee, Bart, I never thought of considering the one-year annual trend

Anthony Watts called - he wants his blog post back.

You really are being an a$$hole, aren't you?

Ian Stirling's quote is about how polar bear cannibalism is some terribly new and unheard of thing (even though it isn't) and then you go on to say how the sea ice in the Beaufort Sea is somehow abnormal when the fact is that the sea ice coverage is as normal as it can be. Then you go on to make a big deal out of polar bears eating seals.

I'm sorry, but the observation of polar bears eating seals deserves no more a response than: "No sh*t? Really?"

As to what species of seals the bears eat do you really think the bears consult with their local biologists about what seals they should eat or do you think they're just big opportunists who are smart enough to eat whatever happens to be handy?

Because, as Dr. Stirling says, "Polar bears are the ultimate opportunists".

I don't think that Polar bears give a rip what they eat and I'll happily defer to Dr. Stirling on that point.

Which begs the question then of why it would be remarkable for opportunistic Polar bears to seize the opportunity presented by a new and plentiful food source?

Again, this is little more than taking a set of existing and long established facts and blowing them up into something they aren't, which is "proof" of global warming.

[Blue_Nose]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Ian Stirling's quote is about how polar bear cannibalism is some terribly new and unheard of thing (even though it isn't) and then you go on to say how the sea ice in the Beaufort Sea is somehow abnormal when the fact is that the sea ice coverage is as normal as it can be. Then you go on to make a big deal out of polar bears eating seals.

I'm sorry, but the observation of polar bears eating seals deserves no more a response than: "No sh*t? Really?"

You're really not that bright, are you? I'm going to try to explain this in baby-steps for you.

I never once made "a big deal out of polar bears eating seals" - I posted a link to the abstract of his article in Arctic, titled "Unusual predation attempts of polar bears on ringed seals in the southern Beaufort Sea : possible significance of changing spring ice conditions" - you know, the one that stemmed, and is cited in, the CBC report; the one you, if you were intelligent, would have sought out in the first place instead of tossing out page numbers in polar bear books.

In that original article, written by Ian Stirling himself, he describes the "unusual" predation attempts of polar bears - what's "unusual" is not the fact that they were eating seals, it was their ATTEMPT to catch seals by clawing holes in the rafted ice - holes that averaged 41 cm deep. The actual hunting success was LOW - in other words, what's "unusual" is that they weren't catching seals. Instead of simply reading what he wrote, though, you ramble on like a fool about how polar bears eating seals isn't a big deal at all.

The article abstract never indicated that Stirling refers to the cannibalism as "unusual", much less a "terribly new and unheard of thing" - it mentioned briefly that the observation of cannibalism is a further example that they were "nutritionally stressed".

But oh no, it doesn't stop there - you bring up a one year "ice area" record from 2007 that apparently means there's nothing abnormal about the past year - now, even if one were to accept a single year as evidence of a annual trend, the majority of Stirling's observations are from 2003 to 2006!!

The site, "Cryosphere Today", from which the graph originated, by the way, mentions the "dramatic loss of multiyear sea ice over the past year" and the "record setting Northern Hemisphere sea ice minimum of 2007" - I supposed next you'll debunk them with their own words, eh?

(Of course, we both know you're simply regurgitating that graphic because you saw it on a blog post you found on this topic).

You were wrong about the cannibalism, you were wrong about the seals, and now you're wrong about the ice record - maybe I'm an "a$$hole", but you're a god-damned moron that can't admit he's wrong.

[BartSimpson]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

maybe I'm an "a$$hole"

Maybe?

[sasquatch2]

$1:

"We found four different incidents where the bear had been killed by an adult male to eat — in other words, cannibalism," Stirling said Wednesday.

"I thought that was very unusual. I've never seen it, anywhere."

I fail to see anything vague about that direct quote....too many absolutes---

$1:

very unusual

$1:

I've never seen it

$1:

anywhere

Only possible conclusion----Stirling is deliberately lying----this contradicts his earlier published research.

[Xort]

Lets say that some human effort was causing the polar bears to starve to death.

If we cared about that so much that we wanted to do something about it, why not just feed the bears? Chopper in a some meat and let them eat. It would be much cheaper than trying to change the average arctic temp or the thickness / thiness / seal cover prodivedness of ice.

Maybe I'm just a dumb army grunt but for the amount of effort needed and the cost of other actions that looks like the cheapest, best and most likely to work solution.

[BartSimpson]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

$1:

"We found four different incidents where the bear had been killed by an adult male to eat — in other words, cannibalism," Stirling said Wednesday.

"I thought that was very unusual. I've never seen it, anywhere."

I fail to see anything vague about that direct quote....too many absolutes---

$1:

very unusual

$1:

I've never seen it

$1:

anywhere

Only possible conclusion----Stirling is deliberately lying----this contradicts his earlier published research.

Thank you.

[BartSimpson]

Xort Xort:

Lets say that some human effort was causing the polar bears to starve to death.

If we cared about that so much that we wanted to do something about it, why not just feed the bears? Chopper in a some meat and let them eat. It would be much cheaper than trying to change the average arctic temp or the thickness / thiness / seal cover prodivedness of ice.

Maybe I'm just a dumb army grunt but for the amount of effort needed and the cost of other actions that looks like the cheapest, best and most likely to work solution.

Or if their food supply is not enough to sustain their population then we need to have a nice little Polar bear hunt to thin out the population to a sustainable level.

[ssra]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Unusual spring ice conditions in the Beaufort Sea? Hmmm, according to the Univ. of Illinois the ice conditions are text book normal.

Again: the Arctic is not ONLY in Canada.

You know, this entire convo is pointless in the end, as it's the global warming convo as well, simply because in the end ppl won't belive anything but what affects them. So you'll never belive something that other ppl from other countries tell that is happening simply because your lives aren't affected by it. There's a word for that and it's called ignorance, but that's a common event and i ain't completely immune to it either so who am i to judge. In the end you can be bombarded with proofs and documentaries, but all pointless because if there isn't a 50 degrees summer on your head than you won't belive it or refuse to belive it.

In my opinion, if ppl don't understand a simple mechanism as the one affecting the polar bears, than how can they be expected to understand something that affects the entire planet EXEPT of course Canada?

Btw, if you want to feed the polar bears in an organised human effort, besides the fact that there would be alot of money involved which i doubt any govermment will agree to pay, it would also make the bears stop hunting and they would die imediately after the humans have left or the food had ran out because they would be dependent on the humans to feed them. I've seen some scietists feeding the bears out of pitty because they couldn't find food, but they didn't feet it like a dog.

PS: Those who try to tare down that guy's arguments, can you pls stop doing it like little children? Throw up some rational arguments if you're so all-knowing, instead of saying "to many absolutes" bla bla bla.

[BartSimpson]

ssra ssra:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Unusual spring ice conditions in the Beaufort Sea? Hmmm, according to the Univ. of Illinois the ice conditions are text book normal.

Again: the Arctic is not ONLY in Canada.

Pay attention. We're not discussing the whole arctic, just the part that's relevant to this discussion.

And for that part, the Beaufort Sea, the ice coverage this year is relatively normal and better than it was from 1979 to 2000.

And back to my comment, polar bear cannibalism is also perfectly normal, as noted expert Dr. Ian Stirling said in his 1999 book.

[Xort]

ssra ssra:

Btw, if you want to feed the polar bears in an organised human effort, besides the fact that there would be alot of money involved which i doubt any govermment will agree to pay, it would also make the bears stop hunting and they would die imediately after the humans have left or the food had ran out because they would be dependent on the humans to feed them. I've seen some scietists feeding the bears out of pitty because they couldn't find food, but they didn't feet it like a dog.

Because hundreds of billions of dollars spent trying to reduce world wide CO2 emissions is so much cheaper than trying to feed 1,500 bears.

We could feed the bears for the rest of time for a tiny fraction of what we spend on any number of public services. Just throw in feeding the polar bears to our medical system, say it helps people's mental health making the feel better about the bears. DONE, and cheaper than medication for people worrying about the bears.

[N_Fiddledog]

I also didn't didn't click that link to the paper. I slap my hand for that. I even know better. I know how stuff can be exaggerated by the writers of articles purporting to be quoting what a paper says.

I can save you guys a read (although it's worth it). Here's the pertinent stuff. Gather ye what info ye may.

The CBC article's opening paragraphs

$1:

Polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea are starving as they struggle to adapt to a warming Arctic climate, according to the latest research by a Canadian polar bear expert.

Changing spring sea ice is making it more difficult for the bears to hunt their primary prey, the ringed seal, said Ian Stirling of the Canadian Wildlife Service.

In an article published in the March issue of Arctic, the journal of the Arctic Institute of North America, Stirling documents finding three bears starving to death on the Beaufort Sea ice.

He told CBC News that he also found bears resorting to extreme measures to stay alive.

"We found four different incidents where the bear had been killed by an adult male to eat — in other words, cannibalism," Stirling said Wednesday.

"I thought that was very unusual. I've never seen it, anywhere."

Ringed seals usually make homes of snow on the large, smooth expanses of sea ice during the spring. But Stirling's research has found that global warming has caused thin ice to layer and bunch together to create ice formations in which seals can hide.

Those new hiding places have meant that the bears must claw through thick layers of ice to get to the seals, he added.

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=32125

What a dumb assumption I made there. I assumed he was talking about this year. When you think about it though how could that be? Has the record ice of this cold year even broken up there yet?

Opening paragraph of the Stirling paper

$1:

In April and May 2003 through 2006, unusually rough and rafted sea ice extended for several tens of kilometres offshore in the southeastern Beaufort Sea from about Atkinson Point to the Alaska border. Hunting success of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) seeking seals was low despite extensive searching for prey. It is unknown whether seals were less abundant in comparison to other years or less accessible because they maintained breathing holes below rafted ice rather than snowdrifts, or whether some other factor was involved. However, we found 13 sites where polar bears had clawed holes through rafted ice in attempts to capture ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in 2005 through 2006 and another site during an additional research project in 2007. Ice thickness at the 12 sites that we measured averaged 41 cm. These observations, along with cannibalized and starved polar bears found on the sea ice in the same general area in the springs of 2004 through 2006, suggest that during those years, polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea were nutritionally stressed. Searches made farther north during the same period and using the same methods produced no similar observations near Banks Island or in Amundsen Gulf. A possible underlying ecological explanation is a decadal-scale downturn in seal populations. But a more likely explanation is major changes in the sea-ice and marine environment resulting from record amounts and duration of open water in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, possibly influenced by climate warming. Because the underlying causes of observed changes in polar bear body condition and foraging behaviour are unknown, further study is warranted.

So basically what you've got there is a guy telling you about stuff he says he's either seen or heard about, none of which he can draw any clear conclusions on as to their causes.

It all concerns a period of 3 years during which the one thing we're pretty sure he's suggesting is the bears were stressed.

Another interesting paragraph from the Stirling paper

$1:

Polar bears throughout the Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf were severely overharvested before the establishment of quotas in Canada in 1968 and the cessation of all but subsistence polar bear hunting in Alaska in 1972. Since then, both populations have recovered, and the population estimates currently used for management purposes are 1200 and 1800 for the Northern and Southern Beaufort populations, respectively. However, these population estimates are now dated and should be redone. Most female polar bears in the Beaufort Sea breed for the first time at 5 years of age, compared to 4 years of age in most other populations, and cubs normally remain with their mothers for 2.5 years prior to weaning. Heavy ice conditions in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s caused significant declines in productivity of ringed seals, each of which lasted about 3 years and caused similar declines in the natality of polar bears and survival of subadults, after which reproductive success and survival of both species increased again.

Stirling's Paper

OK, so periods of stress happen for the polar bear during both cold periods and warm. (actually I have another quote by Stirling somewhere where he's talking about small polar bear cub survival rates back in the early 80s). The bear has survived for at least 110,000 years though, and during both periods colder and warmer than today (and no whoever said it, not during periods of volcanic rock). Over the last 50 years the bears' population has been increasing, most likely due to hunting restrictions, but nevertheless in spite of climate change.

There was another thing I didn't know in the Stirling article. Polar bears den and cub on land. I made another dumb assumption on that subject once. I assumed this idiot. tree hugger journalist I read online one time knew what he was talking about when he declared bears needed the ice because they had their cubs there. I never double-checked his info. But no, according to Stirling bears have their cubs on land. The dens can be as much as 200 years old. They burrow right into the perma-frost. Another interesting fact because it suggests bears are used to digging in ice. So for example if they wanted to enlarge a seal hole in the ice to get better access to it, it wouldn't be unexpected for them to do that.

Honestly guys. Wait for the science to come out on this stuff. There's nothing here but pumped up, hinted, assumptions concerning a small segment of the polar bear population.

[ziggy]

Xort Xort:

Lets say that some human effort was causing the polar bears to starve to death.

If we cared about that so much that we wanted to do something about it, why not just feed the bears? Chopper in a some meat and let them eat. It would be much cheaper than trying to change the average arctic temp or the thickness / thiness / seal cover prodivedness of ice.

Maybe I'm just a dumb army grunt but for the amount of effort needed and the cost of other actions that looks like the cheapest, best and most likely to work solution.

Dont worry bud,their not starving.
Maybe we should chopper in food and fuel for the Innuit who have had a shortage for the last 3 years due to the ice freezing sooner.Funny you dont hear about that here in the south yet it's in all the northern newspapers in the Kivallik.Yet you hear about starving polar bears stranded on drifting ice floes that only a handfull of photographers have gotten shots of and exploited to the maximum thickness of their wallets.
Anyone whos flown over the arctic knows you can fly for 8 hours without seeing anything but white,no towns or people,just thousands of miles of ice.
When you see this with your own eyes it kinda makes you a bit skeptical about what the alarmists are saying.

One thing you have to understand,hungry people dont matter,hungry bears do.

Bears are nomadic,their territory can stretch thousands of miles.
When their hungry they will eat anything including other bears.That will never change.

There must be 50 topics here on this forum about stranded starving polar bears(i checked)yet when i posted stories alongside them about the food and fuel shortages,poverty,crime and other horrible things happening alongside the polar bears in our arctic they were ignored.Makes you wonder,are animals more important or does everyone just want to jump on the GW bandwagon?

[lostalex]

please stop starving the polar bears Canada. send them to germany. germany seems to be obsessed with their polar bears, they'll take good care of them.

[mixedfarmer]

I emailed Dr stirling maybe he can add some insight to this discussion

[ziggy]

lostalex lostalex:

please stop starving the polar bears Canada. send them to germany. germany seems to be obsessed with their polar bears, they'll take good care of them.

People in the south worry about hungry bears,people in the north worry about the gun ban in parks because of polar bears.

$1:

Home
Bears, Parks and Arms
Tue, 04/01/2008 - 21:52 — Jessa

By Nathan VanderKlippe -- In Arctic national parks, polar bears can enter – but firearms can’t. Conservation must or safety hazard?





“There’s a one-in-a-million chance we’ll get a polar bear up here,” Tim Wheeler told his eight hikers over dinner on a tundra bluff in Canada’s northernmost national park. Wheeler was working as a guide for international wilderness-adventure company Black Feather, leading his group through Quttinirpaaq Park, a 38,000-square-kilometre expanse of blindingly white ice caps, sharp peaks and iceberg-flecked fiords. Straddling the 80th parallel at the top of Ellesmere Island, the park is so high on the map even the North’s most iconic beast doesn’t tread its slopes. At least that’s what Wheeler told his clients that brilliant July night in 2006.

In a few short hours, they would discover just how wrong Wheeler had been. But at the time, his words were comforting to the group -– which, like any visiting Canada’s national parks, was travelling unarmed. Unlike in territorial or provincial parks, visitors to national parks are barred from carrying firearms. The longstanding Parks Canada policy holds true whether you’re in Point Pelee, Ontario, where the worst menaces are ticks and poison ivy, or in an Arctic park thronging with polar bears.

Originally enacted to prevent poaching in parks, the no-gun policy has attracted growing criticism over the years as more Arctic parks are established – three in the last decade. The policy has provoked enough anger among Northern outfitters that some have taken to bending – perhaps breaking – the rules. One has even quit offering trips in polar parks altogether, out of fear for his clients’ lives.

Though no fatal maulings have yet been reported in these High Arctic parks, critics of the present park policy say it all comes down to this: If visitors aren’t allowed to defend themselves against one of nature’s fiercest predators, it’s only a matter of time ‘til someone dies.

***
Canadians camp in bear country all the time. In lower latitudes, forests are thick with black bears, while grizzlies also wander through much of the country’s backwoods. When hungry or desperate enough, both species have been known to attack humans. But the dark bruins generally stick to their preferred diet of fish and berries. Polar bears, on the other hand, dine on flesh. “If a hungry polar bear starts being interested in a person, there’s a very high chance that one of them is going to end up dead,” says Ian Stirling, Canada’s best-known polar bear biologist. Polar bears are so dangerous that Stirling tells fellow researchers if he ever catches them without a gun – even if they’re only out on a short walk – he will send them home.

Arctic adventurers feel just as strongly. Jerry Kobalenko, one of Canada’s most accomplished explorers, has touched most corners of the North and has spent more time trekking Ellesmere Island than anyone else alive. He knows what it’s like to travel near polar bears. Living in Canmore, Alberta, he also knows what it’s like to be around grizzlies, and he says the two species are nothing alike. Go unarmed near grizzlies and you’ll likely be fine. Doing the same in polar bear country he likens to Russian roulette. Maybe you won’t be harmed. But if luck fails, the consequence is usually deadly. “Polar bears are predatory,” says Kobalenko. “A polar bear will never simply rough you up. If it’s interested in you, it’s interested in you as food.”

It was that realization that prompted Kolbalenko last summer to pen a Canadian Geographic editorial shining a national spotlight on the guns-in-parks question. “No one – hunters, non-hunters, scientists, Inuit, adventurers, guides – travels in polar bear country without a firearm,” he wrote. “The Arctic is the only place I know where if the local Mounties ask whether you have a gun, and you say yes, they visibly relax.” On a visit to Torngat Mountains Park in Arctic Labrador, Kobalenko and his partner had toted a shotgun, since Parks legislation allows the “transport” of a gun through parks to campsites outside official boundaries. But, he wrote in his column, “If an emergency forced us to use the gun in the park, well, better to deal with that infraction later than to have the polar bear kill us.” Kobalenko’s view on the law are clear: Being forbidden to carry guns in polar-bear country, he says, “is absolutely insane.”