1. False Hopes and Natural Disasters
By Andrew Baird
26 December 2006
SINCE the Indian Ocean tsunami two years ago today that killed more than 200,000 people, governments, donors and experts have embraced the idea that healthy mangrove forests and coral reefs could reduce the death toll from a giant wave. Former President Bill Clinton, in his role as the United Nations special envoy for tsunami recovery, recently endorsed a program that will allocate $62 million to preserve such natural barriers in 12 Asian and African countries.
But the $62 million question is, will these barriers work?
Research suggests that the level of protection offered by greenbelts has been exaggerated. And by diverting resources from more effective measures like education campaigns and evacuation plans to well-meaning but misguided reforestation, we may even contribute to a greater loss of life in future tsunamis.
Read the complete article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/opinion/26baird.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
2. Middle Stance Emerges in Debate Over Climate
By Andrew Revkin
1 January 2007
Amid the shouting lately about whether global warming is a human-caused catastrophe or a hoax, some usually staid climate scientists in the usually invisible middle are speaking up.
The discourse over the issue has been feverish since Hurricane Katrina. Seizing the moment, many environmental campaigners, former Vice President Al Gore and some scientists have portrayed the growing human influence on the climate as an unfolding disaster that is already measurably strengthening hurricanes, spreading diseases and amplifying recent droughts and deluges.
Conservative politicians and a few scientists, many with ties to energy companies, have variously countered that human-driven warming is inconsequential, unproved or a manufactured crisis.
A third stance is now emerging, espoused by many experts who challenge both poles of the debate.
Read the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/science/01climate.html?ex=1168318800&en=c2ac6f9ea7718095&ei=5070&emc=eta1
3. Eco hysteria over polar bears unjustified:
By Lorne Gunter
31 December 2006
“No evidence exists that suggests that both [polar] bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions. Polar bears have persisted through many similar climate cycles.”
There’s a lot in that two-sentence statement from Dr. Mitch Taylor, polar bear biologist for the government of Nunavut, and one of the leading experts in the world on Ursus maritimus.
First, it shows that polar bears are currently not threatened.
Not only that, there is every reason to believe they are going to stay that way.
Read the full article here: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=8ddd3c0c-32ec-4aa5-995c-ccd82d9c7d4c
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well let’s see if this bit of fact gets deleted.
In 2007 the IPCC, thousands of scientists who arrive at their conclusions by peer-reviewed research and consensus, as opposed to colleague-echoed inaccuracy and majority wins, will be releasing their revised climate forecasts for this century. We have been told already that the global average temperature will likely rise somewhere between 1.5 and 6 degrees celsius, with big rises at the poles, smaller rises near the equator. The forecast that a 2 degree rise would lead to disasters in the vicinity of manageable was a politically concluded, rather than scientific, prediction.
That’s the background. The revised assessment to be released in the first half of 2007, or second half FY06 if you’re funding lobbyists, will revise the upper limit of the forecast to 12 degrees celsius, and it is still being determined whether a footnote acknowledging that this upper limit may actually be open ended.
Reports fielded at the IUCN conference in Nairobi late last year clearly linked moderate sustained increases in bioregional temperature to sharp declines in biodiversity. The relationship and the implications are obvious. Furthermore, the self-reinforcing affects which increase the temperature rise and reduce CO2 absorption are under way and there is no certainty that they can be reversed. Aside from the well-known polar melt/loss of solar reflection exponentiating effect, there is also major melting of Siberian Tundra and the inverse relationship of ocean temperature to CO2 absorption.
As the tundra melts, it releases methane. Methane is a 21 times more potent global warming gas than CO2. As the tundra melts, gas is released and promotes further melting, setting up a cycle which already sees areas that could be driven on 12 months of the year now impassable for half that time. The increasing ocean temperature is gradually causing alarm as it becomes understood that warmer seas are more acidic seas, and more acidic seas hold less CO2 and other gases. Some predictions of moderate climate variation have been based on one or more of these factors remaining either stable, or uniform in their decline. Such estimates are now at the window.
” “No evidence exists that suggests that both [polar] bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions. Polar bears have persisted through many similar climate cycles.”
Those two major climate changes I am aware of , the one for about 130 000 years ago and the MWP, are quite different from todays situation.
For about 130 000 years ago the polar bear was actually a brown bear. The polar bear is a subspecies to the brown bear and has undergone a slow process to develop to the polar bear for about 100 000 years ago.
During the MPW there were probably populations of polar bears in the Northern region of Greenland, Canada , Norway and Russia.
I’m back again to the Norwegians. It seems like one of their biggest concerns about global warming and the decrease of ice cover is that it means fragmentation of polar bear populations. This means that polar bear populations are isolated from each other and this cause a loss of genetic diversity.
Regarding Inuit hunting policy, my opion is that the increased sightings are just an excuse for increased hunting permits, no scientific support for this claim.
Re Svalbard. Yes, the polar bears might swim more to the northern islands in the Arctic to find food. Only problem is that the islands are not inhabitated by many seals.
Props to Ann Novek for clearly making an important point, loosely definable as evolution. It’s a theory which still has some pieces missing but annually the picture comes together more clearly as new pieces of the puzzle are found and interpreted. Let’s hope this ‘theory’ isn’t another to be doubted or deleted on this site.
Another interesting point about Norwegians is that a large part of their population, according to Norwegian economist and cross-country skiing hobbyist Jorgen Randers, aren’t too concerned about climate change. They are happy not to spend winter shovelling snow form their driveways, and apparently enjoyed the fact that last summer was 12 degrees warmer than average.
Predictions about species response to rapid human-rooted environmental impacts cannot be made based on historical assessments of gradual evolution. An animal which has adapted over a multi-generational 130000 process will not adapt so well when the process is accelerated by a factor of 1300. Even a moderate adherent to the precautionary principle would be able to understand this.
To argue against the IUCN listing of Polar Bears you also need to argue against precaution and monitoring. Repeating Russells’ words:
-hence the very reasonable change in listing which is to “potentially vulnerable” and notice that word “potentially”. The listing is a first warning sign -incidentally if you will visit the IUCN site and look at the recent listing changes you might notice that the species immediately below the polar bear in the list has recently had it’s vulnerability downgraded as new information reveals it is not as vulnerable as first thought. Hardly a rabid bunch of greenies over there at the IUCN are they?
A grizzly bear treading higher into the Arctic than ever before has scientists wondering whether a changing landscape might lead to interbreeding with polar bears and other ecological effects.
Paw prints of a grizzly were found last year on Melville Island, about 620 miles (1,000 kilometers) north of the Arctic Circle. DNA evidence obtained from the beast’s hair confirms it was a grizzly, scientists said Tuesday.
…”Higher number of grizzlies cold interfere with polar bear reproduction,” Doupé speculated.
..Over the past 15 years or so, other grizzly sightings suggest a gradual expansion northward. Grizzlies have been spotted on Arctic sea ice, from the Beaufort Sea to Hudson Bay. Recently they’ve spent winters on Victoria Island, just south of Melville.
No grizzly has ever been seen so far north.
“The grizzly bear apparently is expanding its range into the northern reaches of the higher Arctic,” said Jonathan Doupé of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council in Canada.
QALUIT, Nunavut (AP) –
…a strange-looking bear shot last month by an American sports hunter might be half polar bear, half grizzly.
Territorial officials seized the creature after noticing its white fur was scattered with brown patches and that it had the long claws and humped back of a grizzly. Now a DNA test has confirmed that it is indeed a hybrid – possibly the first documented in the wild.
“We’ve known it’s possible, but actually most of us never thought it would happen,” said Ian Stirling, a polar bear biologist with the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton.
So what you are telling us is that Polar Bears and Grizzlys are essentially the same species, one with a better tan.
I hope someone informs the Illinois Nazis about this serious threat to the white bears gene pool. Must be time to form the international order of aryan bears? Is it true that white bears can’t jump?
Maybe the scandinavians are less concerned about the “biodiversity” of them white bears because they bonk their brains out in Greece and Spain every summer? Is it time to worry about the genetic integrity of homo scandinaviensus?
We know their population has increased over recent decades but, surely, there must be a threat just around the corner? Shall we just put them on the “Potentially Threatened” list (one up from the pigs might fly list) as a precautionary measure?
I blame it on the Grizzlys and their damned jazz music. And the less said about that “no account polar white trash” thats been putin out for coloured bears, the better.
And as Lou Reed might have said, “Hey polar, take a walk on the wild side, and all the coloured bears went doo to-doo, to-doo-do”.
Has anybody noticed that even with 3 ‘controversial’ articles on this post, there’s no argument going on between or supportive statements coming from Jen’s boy fans? I’m betting the firefighter contest starts the day she’s back from holidays.
And the one thing that’s always funnier than environmental crisis and species extinction is IQ87 racism, good work last poster.
The comments by Andrew Baird on well meaning but misguided mangrove reforestation show, as usual, how little effort your average journalist actually puts into researching a story before charging into print.
Mr Baird is partly right about the exaggerated value ascribed to mangroves and coastal forest as barriers to destructive waves, but could have explored the story in much greater detail to reveal that there will be no effective reforestation on Sumatra, or in most other areas despite every commitment to do so.
I will address the effectiveness of mangroves as coastal barriers first, and then discuss in another post when Jen returns, what is actually happening with the reforestation programme in Aceh.
I spent 6 months in 2006 working for FAO on mangrove and other coastal forest reforestation in Aceh Province.
Mangrove forests can provide some protection from random events such as storm surge and tsunami -but it is limited.
The trees typically grow in depositional environments where fine sediments are accumulating and are generally absent from high energy coastlines (where there are waves).
So, in the face of a high energy event, such as storm surge and tsunami they provide some protection because the roots and stems of the trees act to dampen wave velocity and height. But if the event has large wave heights, or persists for many hours, the trees will fail. Japanese scientists estimate that mangroves and other coastal forest trees can be effective against wave heights of up to about 2 metres, but only if the belt of trees is 100-200 metres wide.
The tsunami that hit the west coast of Aceh was 17 metres high -we know this because you can see the scar on the hillsides along the coast. In the first photo the hillsides are now recovering with a low green scrub, but you can see the scars which match the height of the scar on the little island offshore. Pictures taken in March 2006.
Here on the little hill behind the Warung you can see where the tsunami stripped away all the vegetation.
No amount of trees would prevent the death and destruction caused by a tsunami of this size. In fact, all they will do is contribute to the destruction further inland.
In and around Banda Aceh itself the tsunami was 4-5 metres in height and again no amount of trees would have prevented the loss of life and property.
Most of the claims that the presence of mangroves saved lives during the tsunami come from two observations.
The first is that on the island of Simeleue which lies off the west coast and was very close to the epicentre of the quake which generated the tsunami, there was very little damage and loss of life.
But the wave height was only about 2 metres high around most of the island (as noted by the USGS), and some of the coral reef on the western side was instantly lifted 2 metres higher by a schism along a fault line (forming an instant barrier), and people on the island had experienced a tsunami in living memory and so knew what to do when the sea receded. All of these elements contributed to the lower level of fatalities and damage.
Did mangroves play a role here? Possibly, but it seems unlikely as there are hardly any mangroves there (about 2000 Ha). And certainly not the width of a belt of large trees that careful studies by Japanese scientists have shown are necessary to derive any benefit from the physical barrier they might supply.
The other observation comes from a paper written by a team working on the reconstruction relief effort in Sri Lanka. But this post is long enough, so here is a quote from my forthcoming paper on integrated land management in coastal areas affected by the tsunami.
“Wolanski (2006) provides a useful summary of the roles of mangroves and other coastal forest habitat types in coastal protection and concludes that despite some controversy over whether the presence of mangroves saved lives in the Asian tsunami (Kathiresan and Rajendran 2005; Kerr et al 2006), there is no doubt that mangroves and other coastal forests provide tangible coastal protection services such that the establishment of coastal greenbelts that will act as buffers against storm and tsunami events is justified.”
Anne
” Re Svalbard. Yes, the polar bears might swim more to the northern islands in the Arctic to find food. Only problem is that the islands are not inhabitated by many seals.”
Around 3000 PB on and around Svalbard ( spitsbergen ) bearded seals, harp seals etc etc..
Lets look at this again – the ice melts, where do the seals pup? and anyway, primary production may very well be shot anyway in that scenario ..
Sure, Bjornoya and Hopen are simply too far to swim ( for PB´s ).. but large parts of the svalbard archipeligo will still be at a minimum partially iced in winter.. and what kind of temperature rise is the ” accepted ” figure?
3C? 5C ? 10C? … 20C and we won´t be worrying about PB´s as I mentioned before .. will we?
look at the map http://www.coastalvoyage.com/images/svalbard_map.gif
Low human population ( very low ) and large PB and animal population on and around svalbard
Another interesting link :
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/andrew_derocher/uploads/abstracts/Population%20ecology%20of%20polar%20bears%20at%20Svalbard.pdf
Population ecology of polar bears at Svalbard, Norway
Carbon Sync, where’s the controversy in the three posts.
1- Haven’t seen whether or not mangroves are effective in reducing the effects of an tsunami. My guess is they’d do no harm. Education and pre-warning are fickle things, how far/fast can you run? will the tree you climb still stand? How do you get a message to millions within an hour? The latter could do with some money.
2- Big surprise there. Middle ground! Who would believe such a thing.
3- seems reasonable, although the title is a bit loaded.
Apparently PB DNA is more closely related to some Grizzly bear subpopulations than these Grizzly subpopulations are to each other.
Andrew Dessler, climate scientist and excellent blogger, demonstrates why the ‘middle-ground’ article is problematic.
Reproduced in full:
“The darling of the the climate blogosphere for the last two days is an article by Andy Revkin on the silent middle ground in the climate debate. Since I am nothing if not a blogosheep, I felt compelled to follow the pack and weigh in.
The problem I have with the article is that it confuses two separate debates, one scientific (is climate change real?) and one value-based (what should we do about it?). By putting these two issues into the blender, the article confuses rather than clarifies.
Let’s consider the first question: is climate change real?
The scientific consensus on this question has been available for more than 15 years in the form of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its last report detailed what the scientific community has concluded about climate change:
1. The Earth has warmed about 0.6 deg C over the last 100 years.
2. Humans are likely responsible for most of the recent warming.
3. Warming over the next 100 years is likely to lie between 1.4 and 5.8 deg C.
4. Potentially serious impacts may result.
The vast majority of scientists support this viewpoint. Not only are there not three sides to this debate, there are not even two. There is only one: the IPCC’s. It presents the only valid picture of what the scientific community thinks about the science of climate change.
Let’s consider now the second question: what should we do about climate change?
Given a real risk of serious impacts, should we act immediately? Should we panic? Should we take a Lomborg-ian view and tackle other problems first? Etc., etc., etc.
Questions about action are fundamentally value-based, not scientific. You and I can agree completely on the science articulated by the IPCC but disagree vehemently on what to do about it. An evangelical Christian, for example, can say that we must maintain the Earth as it was given to us, and that means sharp, immediate action without regard to cost; a die-hard economist would say that cost-benefit calculations should determine our actions, and that approach counsels only small near-term actions.
Because questions about action almost always involve value judgments, there is little basis for thinking these questions have right or wrong answers. Attempts to settle these questions through the processes of science are doomed to fail. The only way to settle them is through public debate.
Much of the debate Revkin describes in his article is not over science but over action (though scientists are some of the most vocal participants). The statement by Hansen that we need to act now is a valid policy position, consistent with the IPCC. So is the statement by Wunsch that we should perhaps take less dramatic action, more akin to an insurance premium. The argument here is about values, not science: How risk averse should we be as a society? How do we balance the environment against other goals of our society? Etc., etc., etc.
In policy debates, it is the most extreme positions that get the most traction. These positions are usually the simplest to articulate and philosophically the easiest to defend. In the Iraq debate, for example, the initial positions were to stay the course or withdraw immediately.
The extreme positions tend to be unworkable, and more moderate but harder to defend positions are generally adopted in the end. That’s what we’re seeing in the Iraq debate.
I think that’s what’s also happening the climate debate. Policies of “stay the course” (do nothing about emissions) and “maximal response” (cut emissions deeply, immediately) are both untenable. In response, the debate has begun to focus on reasonable short-term actions. I’m glad to see this, because this is where progress will be made.
The Revkin article would have been a great contribution had it better separated the science from policy debates. There has not been any real debate over the science in several years, perhaps even the last decade. There has been and continues to be broad agreement among scientists about what we know and what we don’t know. The recent evolution is in the political debate. Unfortunately, by combining these questions, the Revkin article does little to clarify the nuances of the debate for the non-expert.”
(http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/3/14539/76760)
More from RealClimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/consensus-as-the-new-heresy/
La Pantera Rosa,
The information on grizzlies moving further north illustrates the dynamic nature of the natural world. It is all very well to suggest that should the ice continue to melt the polar bears will move north, but in the meantime other competing species further south are also moving further north.
George’s point about pagophilic pinnipeds needing somewhere to pup also again highlights that it is not a simple question of just one species needing to adapt or potentially losing out.
Ann Novek….your remark that isolated populations of bears will “suffer” from loss of genetic diversity is patently at odds with evolutionary theory. Isolation is the driver of genetic diversity, and, ultimately, the creator of new species. Far from being a threat, changing circumstances are the medium through which the river of life continually metamorphoses, never perfect, never in balance, and never finished.
To think humans are the slightest bit important in any of this is monumental hubris, masquerading as pantheistic moralism. Be a life.
I had always suspected that you were a boorish plodder, Carbon Sync, and your failure to detect a skerrick of irony in my above post (that you labelled as racist) has merely confirmed it.
And as for your quaint little theories about Jen’s “boy fans”, it must be time to change your bong water, mate, its starting to smell a bit stale.
Since I tend not to read provocative stuff Jen puts up as starters for obvious reasons I was going to ask what prompted Russell’s rather interesting lengthy contribution however the statement “..there is no doubt that mangroves and other coastal forests provide tangible coastal protection services such that the establishment of coastal greenbelts that will act as buffers against storm and tsunami events is justified” should stand by itself from simple reasoning. But perhaps I am learning in another world here.
“Eco hysteria over polar bears unjustified They are not in danger, insists Nunavut biologist who knows the animals”
??
According to the Canadian Newspaper Association, the Journal boasts a weekly circulation of 895,461 as of March 2006
hmmm
• In this week’s Boy v. Girl, Bobby and Amanda offer up their relationship resolutions for 2007, and hope to inspire you to make (and stick to!) your own. Bobby says: Bring sexy back!
• Amanda says: Don’t take it for granted
Get more Boy v. Girl
That’s their LIFE cut n paste
Virile crop of herbs this season eh Motty? You like to mouth off on this blog about false distinctions between species. Now “Polar Bears and Grizzlys are essentially the same species”. You should know as much about hybridisation as I do given that your mum’s a chimp, mine’s a bonobo. Are the pozzly offspring fertile? Lonely bears don’t dance.
I’ve read into the various sources and claims. We’re all happy that PB numbers in total have increased since hunting was drastically limited and we’re all happy that PBs are unlikely to go extinct before Jennifer gets back from her retreat. But why is the redlisting such a horror? What is the big deal about scientists deciding to put a ‘monitor this creature’ flag next to the PB? Most of the arguments against seem to boil down to AGW or rapid GW denial with a measure of NGO hatred.
The next person who dismisses the need to monitor more carefully the impact of the current climate changes and other pressures on the survivial of polar bears with a ‘it’ll be right, species have adapted though climate changes before” please offer up some valid and relevant facts:
– historical rates of climate change during the time of the modern polar bear compared to present rates
– pace & temperature measures for climate extremes, duration and ice patterns survived previously by the modern polar bear.
– human pressues and species competition faced by polar bears and their prey during climate pressures
– more details of your theory of adaptive response by polar bears to a warming climate, changing habitat, changing food sources, potentially increasing competition etc. Or is it a magical process that defies understanding? Like pornography, we won’t think about it now but we’ll recognise it when we see it.
“The warming phase at the end of the Younger Dryas, which took place about 11 ky BP and lasted about 1300 years, was very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7 ºC or more in a few decades.”
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch02_Final.pdf
replying to posters
Ian Mott: “always” – 3 days of posts = always? Sounds like you’re the one with a drastic short term memory issue and may want to do something about your own stale bong water. It’s not my flavour by the way – individual choice is individual choice. “boorish plodder”? Read the first post, actually contains fresh info re IPCC and as an armchair expert you’re going to have to try to misrepresent or deny it at some point.
Rojo: Ah, someone partially reading messages instead of going for the backfiring insult. Cool..
The controversy isn’t in the posts (maybe in the third but it’s subscriber only, so I can’t say but I would guess it’s an opinion cherrypicked for its unlikeliness). The articles, when you read them, aren’t actually controversial or saying anything new. But, in an effort to grab the reader’s eye, the titles given by the authors, or more likely their editors as the writers actually looked into their topics, are apparently controversial.
1. Money being wasted after a human tragedy.
2. Oh my goodness Climate Change exists, but we don’t need to act fast after all.
3. Concern re future species loss dismissed as hysteria and loss is in fact abundance.
The first article makes a huff about nothing. With $2 billion raised for tsunami recovery and it being spent slowly as only so much can be done each day (unless you employ Halliburton to spend it on gold toilet bowls) this is, at most, 3% of money raised. Nobody’s claiming anymore than the author acknowledges – that if the tidal surge is small, mangroves may help reduce impact. It’s a long term project which will likely employ locals and be another positive experience where there is so much to feel negative about.
The climate change article doesn’t refute that action is needed. CO2 emissions made today will stay in the atmosphere for at least 25 years. This is no reason to say “what’s the point?”, and the ‘middle ground’ scientists and researchers in the article even agree that action is needed. They’re just worried that panic will paralyse.
People who only take meaning or direction on how to read from the headline will come away a bit stupider or more misinformed. The articles aren’t controversial, but the titles and intros deliberately are.
PS actually, I think there was $15 billion pledged by the international community, which makes 62 million for coastal revegetation about 0.4%. Hardly worth writing, let alone posting, an article about, huh? Unless you’re implying that environmental projects are an evil waste of money, maybe.
can’t believe I’m bothering but
PPS yes, reviving and applying racist stereotypes like white girls shouldn’t date black boys, black people like jazz, thinking the word ‘coloured’ merits a laugh deserves the tag ‘racism’. And “potentially threatened” is one step away from “threatened”, not “pigs might fly”. But at least you’ve taught yourself to type. Maybe there’s hope, but probably not.
The ” middle of the road ” link looks interesting.
I read somewhaere that it’s the closest to the IPCC position ( which has plenty of caution and caveats ) but still manages to p-ss most skeptics off whilst disappointing the doom mongers.
I wonder how many climate scientists will self identify with the “nonskeptical heretic” label?
I must admit to a lot of doubt about the term concensus in respect of science.
I’ve always associated consensus (notwithstanding it’s official definition;
1. general agreement or concord.
2. majority of opinion.
Macquarie Dictionary )
with compromise which is really too political for science.
Where will the majority expert view sit?
Firstly, I will adress Phil S.
“your remark that isolated populations of bears will “suffer” from loss of genetic diversity is patently at odds with evolutionary theory. Isolation is the driver of genetic diversity…”
Aah yes, the brown bears have evolved to polar bears through isolation on ice… but this has been a very long procedudure and natural selection has been involved.
The scenario now seems to be completely different. According to your view a new subspecies of polar bears/ bears might evolve out of this situation with poor genetic diversity/ habitat loss????
This is refuted by Norwegian polar bear scientist, Jan Aars, polar bear researcher at Norwegian Polar Institute at Svalbard. He mentions that fragmentation/ habitat loss will lead to poor genetic diversity and it is one of five major threats to the polar bear population.
Norwegian link to George:
http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2003/oktober/1067514315.64
I have a very good example from Sweden re habitat loss/isolation/ poor genetic pool.
The Swedish and Norwegian wolves are isolated from the Russian population( mainly through hunting). No new blood has been added to the Swedish/ Norwegian population.
Scientists fear that the population will be extinct in 70 years time due to weaker individuals, sickness etc, thanks to the poor genetic pool.
We also know other problems with poor genetic pools, an issue that I will not cover here….
Hey Ian, not really going into your subject of Scandinavian tourists in European sea resorts.
Well, we all know that Scandinavian men can’t handle the big access to cheap booze in Spain and Greece and the Latinos are weak for Scandinavian women!
Yeah Carbon sync why do you bother? Potentially threatened means nothing. All life is potentially threatened – likelihood of that threat is what is needed to fill out the defintion. Without likelihood the threat remnains idle and intangible.
OK then – the threat based on the discussion and evidence is moderate to high. So it’s worth bothering.
(discounting out impossible, low, very high, extreme, and too late)
And given it’s a blog on “politics and the environment”, PB-AGW interaction has been recently raised in the media as a contemporary enviro-political issue so an informed debate and a blog opinion are warranted.
Carbon sync, I now do see what you mean “partially” perhaps you could use the more generally accepted inverted commas instead of apostrophes. It’s only a little extra effort.
Hi George,
Thanks for the informative link… gonna study it more closely…
Re my comment that the polar bears might swim more to the north to find some food, if the sea ice disappears in Svalbard during the summer, this was a comment from the Norwegian polar bear researcher Jan Aars. I have provided the link in my post to Phil S.
I think he means other island in the Polar Sea and not islands in the Svalbard archipelago.
Why worry about the polar bears ? Luke questioned the same thing about the Baijis. No one really had a very good reply…
And rising sea levels, accepted temperature increase?
In my very own opinion, I see a drastic change in weather, hardly no snow this year…. but that is good as well… no snow shovelling!
Arctic flora and fauna will be lost, that is for sure… but most species are unknown for the public , contrary to the polar bears, and no one would ever grieve or give a damn about it…
And some exotic species will invade the Polar Seas, as you may have read , for example sharks in the Oslofjord and some kind of monster jelly off shore Norway…
This is interesting, from Canada;
Nunavut mounting PR campaign to defend its polar bear policies
BOB WEBER
Canadian Press
Faced with another examination of its wildlife practices, the government of Nunavut is preparing to defend its polar bear policies where it believes they need to be defended — the court of southern public opinion.
“That’s where the problem is,” Patterk Netser, Nunavut’s Environment Minister, said yesterday from Coral Harbour. “The problem is down there. Not here.”
Nunavut is being caught between environmentalists using the powerful predators as a lever to move the U.S. government on the issue of climate change and politicians seeking an opportunity to look good, Mr. Netser says.
“They’re using polar bears as a smoking gun,” he said.
Late last year, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush said it would consider listing polar bears as “threatened” under its Endangered Species Act.
The government justified the review by suggesting climate change is slowly melting the Arctic sea ice, robbing the bears of their habitat. Some studies have suggested that summer sea ice could be gone by the middle of this century.
But while bears along the western coast of Hudson Bay appear to be declining, there’s little evidence that overall polar bear numbers are declining, Mr. Netser said.
Nunavut government biologists estimate that bear numbers in the territory have increased over the past decade to 15,000 from 12,000.
“We need to educate the people down south because they’re trying to run our polar bears and they’re thousands and thousands of miles away from us,” Mr. Netser said.
Pete Ewins of the Worldwide Fund for Wildlife called the minister’s bear population optimism “total rubbish.”
He points to international research suggesting that five Canadian bear populations are in decline.
Although as many as 25,000 bears inhabit the Arctic, the World Conservation Union predicts climate change will cause a global decline of almost one-third over the next 50 years.
This week, the Ontario government released information that bears along its northern shorelines seem to be exhibiting the same physical declines that have presaged population drops in other areas.
Nunavut communities would suffer financially from any action choking off the polar bear hunt. Sport hunters, mostly American, pay up to $20,000 for the experience.
Nunavut has suffered at the hands of other countries’ wildlife policies before. The territory’s seal hunt was destroyed by European bans on importing the skins.
As well, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department is reviewing a loophole in the Marine Mammals Protection Act that allows polar bear pelts to be taken into the United States from Canadian populations if they are managed with sustainability in mind.
Mr. Netser said his staff will soon be preparing a public relations campaign to get their story out. “This is not over by any stretch of the imagination.”
Mr. Ewins acknowledged the Inuit are caught between an ice floe and a cold place.
“It is yet another nasty thing foisted on the Inuit by the south.”
An example of the global reach of the PB fan club
“Tons of educational polar bear information and research, gorgeous polar bear photos, and a huge polar bear FAQ file from an organization dedicated to saving …” Gorgeous photos?
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/
“…Climate change is the main threat to polar bears today..”
just quickly – hi Neil, nice spider pic and a cool way to restate a policy. Betting we’ve got differences of opinion on enviro & politic issues but should we end up haggling, I hope there’s facts and flexibility from all involved. Not flaunting multi-post policy, just responding directly to addressed comments before splitting.
rojo: i don’t have html skills going on and usually ” for direct quotes and ‘ for ‘finger quotes’ but will try to message clearer in future.
abc: if you want to try sledging, at least engage with and undercut the facts or message first. Otherwise, *yawn*. See?
Luke: exactly – with the kind of negotiation, agreement, and implementation time it takes between realizing a species is threatened and recovery actually beginning we need to learn from past mistakes by getting concerned earlier and looking deeper. See Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ re DDT and foodchains for an idea of how much we’ve learnt in just 40 years. If there had been the level of awareness about the interconnectedness and complexity of life that we have now a couple of hundred years ago, many of these concerns wouldn’t exist. Although seeing how we are acting in spite of what we know now, perhaps that’s idealistic.
via Steve Munn,
“Half-million year fossil record exonerates climate change as cause of megafauna extinction
Dec 22, 2006
The mystery of what killed Australia’s giant animals – the so-called ‘megafauna’ – during the Last Ice Age is one of the longest-running and most emotive debates in palaeontology. Scientists have now published clear evidence from south-eastern Australia to show that climate change was not the driving force behind the extinctions, which took place between 50 and 40 thousand years ago.
This refocuses attention on humans as the main cause. The latest study, published in the January 2007 issue of the respected international journal Geology, is unique in providing – for the first time – a long-term perspective on the responses of the megafauna in the Naracoorte Caves region of south-eastern Australia to cyclical swings in Ice Age climates.
“Climate change was certainly not the main culprit in the extinctions. Our data show that the megafauna was resilient to climatic fluctuations over the past half-million years”, said team leader and palaeontologist Dr Gavin Prideaux from the Western Australian Museum and Flinders University.
Australia lost 90% of its large fauna, including rhino-sized marsupials, 3-metre tall kangaroos and giant goannas within 20 thousand years of human arrival. Opinions are divided between the relative importance of climatic changes and the activities of humans themselves via habitat disturbance or over-hunting. Unfortunately, the debate has been hamstrung by a lack of basic data on how communities responded to climate changes before humans arrived.
The new fossil evidence from Naracoorte reveals surprising stability in the mammal composition through successive wet and dry phases. “Although populations fluctuated locally in concert with cyclical climatic changes, with larger species favoured in wetter times, most if not all of them survived even the driest times – then humans arrived”, said Dr Prideaux.
The Naracoorte Caves World Heritage Area in south-eastern South Australia contains the richest assemblage of Pleistocene (1.8 million to 10 thousand years ago) animals anywhere in Australia. What makes the record more remarkable is that it can be directly compared to a 500 thousand-year record of local rainfall preserved in the stalagmites in these caves.
The fossils were dated by two independent methods (optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-series dating) at the Universities of Wollongong and Melbourne, by geochronologists Professor Richard ‘Bert’ Roberts, Dr Kira Westaway and Dr John Hellstrom. The multi-disciplinary team also included Dr Dirk Megirian from the Museum of Central Australia in Alice Springs, who studied the sediments for additional clues of the prevailing climate conditions.
“These analyses have allowed us to pinpoint the ages of the fossils and the major shifts in climate. Our evidence shows that the Naracoorte giants perished under climatic conditions similar to those under which they previously thrived, which strongly implicates humans in their extinction” said Professor Roberts.
The research project was supported by the South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage, GreenCorp, the Friends of the Naracoorte Caves, the Cave Exploration Group of South Australia, the Commonwealth Natural Heritage Trust Extension Bushcare Program, and the Australian Research Council”
http://media.uow.edu.au/releases/2006/1222a.html
Quoting PB politics, NGO claims and inaccurate media reports tells nothing of the science and facts. If you want by implication to smear the red listing then explain the motives, who manipulated the IUCN proceedings, is the IUCN stacked with untrained green loonies? Did they obtain their data from NGOs, lobbyist articles or primary research by qualified scientists?
What is the ‘climate change won’t disadavantage PBs’ line – that PBs will adapt, or don’t need to adapt, or doesn’t matter we’ll just wait and see if they deserve to survive outside zoos?
Single data items in isolation (eg climate) don’t guide us to how PBs will respond under a modern set of system conditions. Put together historical climate conditions, patterns and survival factors (eg habitat extent and suitability for living, hunting, breeding, and competition, food sources etc) + adaptive evidence + modern pressures + modern pace of change + recent indicators to come up with a COMPLETE suggestion of how the PBs will survive that’s convincing enough to abandon caution and do nothing to monitor the PBs. Without such a case it’s just superstition.
I shall try to make some comments on Rog’s two posts.
The first one re the Inuits and their hunt. To me it seems like strong US prohunting lobbyist are playing a key role in this issue, backing up the decision to allow increased hunting permits on the polar bears. The permits are mostly for the tourist hunt.
If the Inuits want to hunt a few polar bears for their own use or to sell some pelts or other parts of the polar bear as souvenirs to tourists, it seems quite OK for me.
But this bunch of mega rich US trophy hunters coming to Canada to kill polar bears seems outrageous IMO.
I am looking at Greenland as well. 2006 was the first year that a tourist hunt was allowed. 10 polars were issued to be killed in the hunt. The strange thing however was that the hunters were not allowed to kill the polars by themselves… an Inuit hunter killed the polar bear.
IMO, like selling tickets to the slaughterhouse to witness the slaughter as entertainment….bizarre!
Nunavut’s polar bear biologist Dr. Mitch Taylor, is as well taking advantage of past mistakes by NGOs re the traditional seal hunt to support increased hunting permits.
Rog has posted a link to a ” polar bear fan club”.
I really don’t like NGOs like the one Rog mentioned, or other NGOs such as Greenpeace, IFAW, WDCS, Sea Shepherd making bucks of selling merchandise.
If climate change and overconsumption is a threat to the environment, the NGOs should not sell useless junk to its supporters.
I am especially disappointed that Greenpeace makes money of selling t-shirts, banners, stickers, watches, coffe cups etc, meanwhile they state that overconsumption should be stopped.
And who needs polar bear socks???? I really hope the polar bears are not only nice posters, like ads for Coca-Cola.
Ann, funnily enough our Australian “Bundaberg Rum” has a polar bear as part of their logo and is featured in TV and print media ads. The bottle says “the Bear as a symbol of warding off the wickedest winter chill.”
It’s a fairly obscure notion in a country that couldn’t be much further from the actual polar bears and doesn’t exactly suffer too much in winter. Fun ads though.
That was funny, Rojo, LOL!
Guess as well that polar bears as icons is not a very new issue…. I have heard that Viking chiefs in Greenland or was it in Norway got ice bear cubs as gifts….1000 years ago…
Ooops….an ice bear is a polar bear. Scandinavians however call them ” ice bears” or “isbjornar”
Curious how ‘ice bears’ isbjornar got their name. A claim that excited us all was that PBs ice bears don’t depend on ice. No less than camels depend on cigarettes and no more than lobbyists depend on a gullible audience.
Here’s a nice warm anomaly to balance all those cold events.
“The balmy winter — which has sap running, tree buds sprouting and dogs shedding their winter coats — has been unlike any other in Goff’s memory, and she’s 83.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WEATHER/01/07/warm.northeast.ap/index.html
“I have heard that Viking chiefs in Greenland or was it in Norway got ice bear cubs as gifts….1000 years ago…”
What happened when they grew up?
And how did they cope with the warm weather? (MWP and all that).
No offence meant to scandinavians, Ann. In fact, as a footloose lad on a Greek island, in a galaxy far, far away, I was a proud victim of rampaging Swedish female hedonism. It seems the girls didn’t mind the cheap alcohol as well.
But seriously, all this “concern” about the impact on the gene pool of ice bear populations is just a bit ingenuous. It seems to stem from an assumption that there would be nothing that we humans could do to mitigate the problem if it were to get serious.
In fact, there is not a single population of Polar/Ice bears whose problems of genetic viability could not be solved by a couple of Grizzlys with a twinkle in their eye. Limited exposure would take only a few generations to revert back to close to the original PB genetics but with enough diversity to ensure long term viability.
And if Carbon Sync had even the retention skills of my 12 year old daughter he would have realised that the purpose of my racist analogies was to highlight my concern about the way parts of the green movement apply highly racist values to their notion of species protection.
And frankly, there is only one response to both kinds of racial/species purity arguments. If Grizzlies and Ice Bears want to rub tummys and exchange chemistry then what business is it of the Carbon Syncs of this world?
If we accept the need to preserve the genetic purity of regional ice bear populations then it won’t be long before the gene police are doing the same for regional human populations.
Hi Ann, surely you would not allow your personal feelings to stand in the way of the facts? – after all I do remember how you like to eat wild game not domesticated.
The Nunavut community are feeling the pressure of NGO activity however even the WWF acknowledge the real benefits of individuals paying big dollars for trophy hunts. In Africa trophy hunting has been credited with saving species, increasing conservation and providing income for indigenes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2530438,00.html
What a pathetic comment, Luke. It doesn’t add any value to the discussion, and it’s offensive.
Some more evidence that PBs have faced similar climatic conditions in the recent past.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml
“Abstract
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.
Received 10 April 2006; accepted 9 May 2006; published 13 June 2006.”
Motty despite being told, you still don’t get it. The funny flaw in your idiotic plan, had you any social awareness, would humiliate you out of ever voicing your ignorant bias against biodiversity again. Reread my previous reply to you… think about it .. ..
Besides which, on what basis are you making this issue out to be one of preserving the gene pool of the bears rather than the PBs themselves? You don’t get that either. You’re comparing human races to the PB species. That’s also just dumb. Stick to NSW forests or do some reading into the PB issue before you dash out another ignorant reply.
Hey Ian, I bet your daughter also knows the difference between racism and speciesism.
Pretty piss weak blog editing – it’s OK for Mott to go on about his past sex life (gee please tell us some more as we’re all fascinated) but taking offense at why people put rounds through animals for sport is not !
Someone mentioned the mating between a Grizzly and a Polar Bear. The fact that this was a successful breeding makes it clear that they are the one species. And that gives local populations of the one species the same status as various visually distinct local populations of humans, ie of races.
And as the very proud father of three splendid Eurasian children I am very uncomfortable with any line of argument that suggests that localised gene pools of a single species need to be maintained in a mutually exclusive condition.
The facts are that on the edges of their respective ranges, Polars and Grizzlys have been mating for millenia. It is not a function of Global Warming or any other claimed anthropogenic influence.
The logical consequence of a policy of maintaining localised genetic attributes, especially in a small population, is the eventual degradation of that pool to the point of diminished viability. They have always been part of the same problem.
But it seems that Pinxie is too thick to understand that a principle that is inappropriate for the management of a species of ape is also likely to be inappropriate for the management of a species of Bear.
And the notion that listing a species merely flags it as a species needing further monitoring is specious argument. We all know damned well that the listing of any species is the trigger for a whole range of purely political bull$hit.
We all know, Luke, that unsubstantiated personal jibes about other commenters’ genitalia is beneath you. I merely erased an unfortunate and completely out-of-character anomaly.
You misread it Neil – I was not commenting on Rog or Ian (I try not to think about such things) – but on trophy hunters needs in general. Yes I was deliberately provocative but paid the price. Umpire’s verdict noted however and no harm done.
However it is a relevant issue – Rog’s article which got my goat (and no reflection on Rog here incidentally) was that even black rhinos are up for shooting )if you have the money.
So as I said before – you don’t need to shoot the animal for food, feral management, range condition cull etc.
You simply want to shoot it as (a) it’s exciting (b) it’s big and dangerous (c) you want it’s head on your wall. (d) you want to impress your mates
Bang it’s dead – killed outright (hopefully) with a high powered rifle. You’re not. All this effort and money to put a round through its brain.
It may be profitable – but how smart, ethical or intelligent is it?
How embarrassing Motty! You ignored the good advice above. ” .. the mating between a Grizzly and a Polar Bear. The fact that this was a successful breeding makes it clear that they are the one species.”
By which species definition? You’re missing the most obvious of layman’s tests. One answer was given to you earlier, you just chose to rant without reading. Misunderstanding fundamental aspects of a species leads you to repeat irrelevant racial remarks. You didn’t listen yet again. We know how ignorant you are the next time you slag off biodiversity.
>And as the very proud father of three splendid Eurasian children
What an unnecessary comment. In fact I have found a number of your recent comments here and elsewhere Ian to be quite distasteful. Please stick with facts, not colourful, coloured or white past sexual encounters!
Hi Paul,
You asked me what happened to the polar bear cubs that the Viking chiefs got as gifts, when they grew up…
I have no information on this, but one possibility was that a big, deep hole in the ground was dug for the polars. This was the way how many brown bears were kept in captivity…
Some curiosa…
Viking hunters captured polar bears after killing their mother. After skinning the female, the hunters would spread her pelt on the snow , then easily capture the cubs when they came to lie on it.
The Viking chief Harold the Fair of Norway was the first European king to keep polar bears. A got a cub and a mother in 880A.D.
Re trophy hunting, Luke asks “how smart, ethical or intelligent is it?”
The article that rog linked to states
“The study, published in the journal Biological Conservation, concludes that where game areas are well managed, the death toll from hunters is outweighed by increases in animal populations made possible by conservation initiatives.
Hunting money was directly responsible for the recovery of at least three rare species in South Africa — the bontebok, Damaliscus dorcas, black wildebeest, Connochaetes gnu, and Cape mountain zebra, Equus zebra — and assisted the recovery of southern white rhino numbers.”
What’s not smart, ethical and intelligent about that?
Ideally hunting will result in a quick kill, and a rifle can achieve that more readily than a sharpened stick. And with greater safety to the hunter, although Luke maybe views that as a negative if the hunters are wealthy Americans.
The alternative for these animals is loss of habitat and/or uncontrolled hunting, which could result in extinction of some species.
As to the fate of the individual animals, if not shot, they would be killed by other predators or die from injury, disease or starvation. There’s no aged care out in the wild.
And to ward off any personal insults, I can state that I have never been trophy hunting and have no desire to shoot these magnificent animals. But I approve of hunting, provided it is carried out ethically. Humans are a hunting species, it’s an important part of who we are.
Back again to Paul , and what happened to the polar bears ( seems like they were status symbols) during the MWP.
Aaah, this could be a very long discussion and post but I will just air my personal opinion on one subpopulation, the Greenland polars.
OK, I know Lukey doesn’t like the old Viking sagas and folklores, but I have read a book and seen maps of possible ice cover on Greenland during the MWP by THE Greenland and Viking expert , Helge Ingstad.
It seems like only southern and southern coastal strips were populated by the Vikings.Northern coastal areas were still covered by ice. Same goes for northern Canada.
So no problems for the polar bears to survive…
Ann, do you think Polar Bears will have no problems under current climate conditions? How does the ice today compare with the maps you have of the MWP?
Not to mention the Holocene Climate Optimum, when Greenland temperatures were up to 7C warmer than today.
Paul I never assumed you had been trophy hunting. I understand it’s profitable – but maybe producing cocaine is also profitable for your Colombian farmer too? I understand the lesser evil argument. I understand that when wild animals kill it ain’t that pleasant.
I could understand if you wanted to eat the said beast, control feral animals, rogue animals, or need to cull animals to protect rangelands from overgrazing.
I’m simply lamenting that people want to sneak up on a rhino and shoot it dead? And presumably then have one’s picture taken with the deceased beast. What’s fun about that really?
Why not take it’s photograph and leave it be?
Probably a stress reaction from me having spent too much time in the NT with gun mad nuts who liked to shoot things in pretty ordinary circumstances.
Ann – I have no problems with MWP in northern Europe and Viking stories.
The rationale for sustainable trophy hunting, in this context, is that people will pay large amounts of money to do it, which helps preserve the species.
Will people pay as much to photograph them? I’m sure wildlife “safaris” are also an important source of income. Nevertheless, populations have to be managed, culling has to be carried out, so why not make money that can be used to help the whole environment? That seems very ethical and intelligent. Participation is voluntary, the squeamish can enjoy the warm glow of knowing that wildlife is being preserved, without having to engage in the slaughter themselves.
Glad you escaped physically unscathed from the clutches of the gun nuts.Obviously you didn’t qualify as a trophy!
Hi again Paul,
Just a short comment here as I have no in -depth knowledge about all those issues you mentioned…
Basically, I see the situation today as quite different from the northern Europe MWP ( I’m focused on Greenland).
In the MWP in Greenland we know the Inuits had settlements along coastal areas in the Northern parts. And where the Inuits lived , there must have been hunting grounds for seals and polar bears.
A near future scenario indicates that the northern coastal areas will be at least ice free in summer time…no good scenario at all for the polar bears…the scenario might be even worse, with all the Arctic ice free etc.
The Holocene warming period. The polar bears were still a mix between brown bears and polar bears and besides ( this is my own theory), a radical warming period might have been needed in the Arctic and Scandinavia, as 10 000 years ago the whole area was still under an ice sheet( the Ice Age).
Luke…I was just joking!
Motty…I see that you have not met the Icelanders, and no, I dare not tell the stories! But they have been in the Oprah show…and high Icelandic authorities had to refute the rumours…
“Humans are a hunting species, it’s an important part of who we are.”
Hi Paul,
But is it an important part of who we are to want to kill animals purely because (as Luke wrote)
“(a) it’s exciting (b) it’s big and dangerous (c) you want it’s head on your wall. (d) you want to impress your mates”?
Is the reason these wealthy people with guns want to kill these animals really to help the environment and its inhabitants? Or is it that these people don’t really give a toss about all that, they just want one or more of the reasons above?
I have no desire to hunt or fish. If hunting includes taking photographs from behind a hide, or tracking an animal and observing it from a distance, then sure, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to suggest hunting to kill is hardwired into to each of us.
I have hunted and fished and neither activities do much for me but I dont mind eating the product, I am a consumer.
Hi Rog,
Well your comment is surely interesting…
But we must not generalize this…
I totally agree that some hunting in Africa can serve some conservation efforts, even IUCN admits this. There are some game parks that are OK.( They are OKed by the IUCN).
However, the polar bear trophy hunting has no conservation merits,this is only for a rich bunch of eccentrics from the US. Why kill animals that are on the IUCN Red list? I guess it is only to impress other people!!!
If they are so keen on hunting big game, they can come to Sweden and hunt moose.
My advice to the trophy hunters. If you really can handle a rifle, you can prove your skills in another way…try clay-pigeon shooting…
And the Inuits…nowadays ,it seems very politically incorrect to criticize them , look at aboriginal whaling quotas for example…
Well. IMO,eccentric US mega rich hunters have nothing to do with true traditional Inuit way of living…
Travis, who knows why people want to hunt trophies? Personally I don’t. Probably the conservation benefit is a part of it, but not the whole reason. Does it matter, if the end result is the black wildebeest and the Cape mountain zebra are saved from extinction.
Humans have been a hunting species for most of our history. I don’t think it’s far fetched to acknowledge that.
Ann, clay pigeon shooting with a rifle, that’s impressive! Here in Australia we find a shotgun to be enough challenge. And didn’t we have a whole thread about whether the PB should be listed as endangered? If they’re not threatened by controlled hunting, why would you prefer them to be stabbed to death by people with whalebone spears rather than shot with a high powered rifle?
The holocene is the current climate era Ann. Somewhere between 9,500 and ~5,000 years ago, Greenland was up to 7C warmer than today. (And I can’t relocate the reference, sorry.) Polar Bears are about 200,000 years old, I believe, so they should have been in their present form 10,000 years ago.
There’s lots of references to indicate the tree-line was further North, permafrost melted more deeply, sea currents and fresh water flows were different to today, and temperatures were warmer.
That should read, TUNDRA melted more deeply, permafrost, by definition, never melts. Doh!
ahhh right, its the US again…
Paul,
Told you guys that I’m not going into any climate talks….don’t wanna be mince meat!
OK, Paul, what about tree-lines in Greenland?Guess there are no native trees there!!!
And the polar bear evolved into something like our current polar bear for 100 000 years ago , according to my sources…
But thanks for informing me about the holocene…
BTW, the shotgun story was good as well! LOL!
Maybe the polar bear trophy guys should try to climb the Everest to get their kicks and ultimate highs???
People often seem to class hunting and fishing as the same kind of activities.
If you hunt and fish for subsistence then it is generally accepted that this is in some way acceptable, although in my experience it depends on how heavily the resource is exploited.
I also admit to a problem with the idea that indigenous people are allowed to continue hunting or fishing for species that are restricted access for the rest of us, purely because they can demonstrate a cultural tie to the practice.
I would have a different opinion on issue of indigenous hunting and fishing rights if the method of hunting or fishing had to be the traditional one -e.g. spearing your dugong with a hand held spear from a bark canoe after carefully sneaking up on it for several hours. Or creeping close enough to your polar bear to kill it with a well aimed throw from your bone-tipped harpoon. I wonder how popular this would be with the indigenes? I’m pretty sure not many sports hunters would turn up to try it -although I did know a group of guys a few years back in the NT who hunted feral pigs with bows and arrows which meant they had to get pretty close -but a polar bear?
High powered rifles from 300+ metres -whose tradition and culture is that really, and how “sporting” is it? It seems pretty one-sided to me?
If it is done for sport/recreation rather than subsistence then hunting and fishing are only equivalent if you kill the quarry.
In hunting it is successful only if you kill the beast as it’s difficult to do otherwise – perhaps just shoot it in a leg/wing and then send it off to the vet for surgery after a photo with your trophy?
On the other hand I am a keen sport/recreational fisherman who practices catch and release. Occasionally taking one or two to eat. I only ever use lures, and barbless hooks, observe bag limits, and admit I find it to be a lot of fun finding the fish, working out what to present, and successfully presenting it. I find it exciting, but do not consider it to be harmful for the fish.
Paul,
One more comment on polar bear and brown bear evolution…
According to my sources as late as 10 000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown bear type molars.
‘People often seem to class hunting and fishing as the same kind of activities.’
Hi Russell,
Sorry, but I was thinking more along the lines of people who do not fish simply and humanely for food. Big game fishing that is not tag and release springs to mind.
Regarding not harming the fish, a colleague of mine wrote an article entitled “If fish could scream”, sourcing information from fisherfolk, ethologists and physiologists. It certainly made one think.
Hi Travis,
The idea that fish can get stressed and feel pain has been around a while – and I think there has been some evidence put forward to suggest that fish are quite sensitive and for that reason should not be fished as sport.
All I can go on in this regard is my own experience, and to the idea that hooking a fish in the mouth is barbaric, I would say that most predatory fish face far worse from the spines of their prey every day. Take a look at the spiny armour of most small fish and crustacea.
I also remember a time when I got to see a Barramundi survey operation in action when the fish were being caught with lures trolled behind a boat.
A very big female was hooked, and hauled flapping and jumping onto the dinghy, laid out and measured every which way, then weighed, tagged, some blood was extracted, some scales removed, a device inserted to make it disgorge whatever was in the stomach, the lure pulled out with pliers, and the fish bundled back into the water after a few minutes on a very hot day.
The next cast with the lure caught the same fish again.
Why is it that the same humans who like to delcare how superior in intelligence and consciousness we are than others animals (so much so that recognising intelligence or a sense of humour in animals is just projection) also like to defend hunting (or fishing) on the basis that other animals do stuff like that to them in the wild anyway so it’s ok that we can too? We’re no more evolved than they are? It’s usually for sport not food.
I’m NOT having a go at you Russell but have a crack at it if you want. I ponder these things in quiet moments. The when is hunting evil question is a good distraction from the PBs eh? Personally, I levitate rather than walk so that I don’t squash bugs.
Related, selfish excuses:
“If we don’t do it, somebody else will.”
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/selfish_excuses_for_doing_nothing/
Nice try with the mock outrage Winston. Lets spell it out for Pinxie and other plodders. Donkeys are not classed as the same species as horses for the very good reason that the animal produced when they mate (the mule) is unable to reproduce itself.
This is called a species barrier. But in more recent times the green movement has made considerable effort at further fragmenting the species classifications for purely political purposes.
So we now have localised populations with only minor decorative distinctions being classed as seperate species even when significant portions of those populations are the product of past cross mating.
Indeed, there is one “species” of Tern that is on the threatened list for no other reason but the fact that it continually mates with another “species” with more dominant characteristics.
The primary purpose for this fragmentation has been to reduce the size of the reported populations so each of the parts appear more vulnerable and more limited in range.
In many cases the degree of genetic variation between these fragmented species is much less than the variation between human populations. Yet, the response would be palpable if anyone were to suggest that humans of distinct physical attributes were actually distinct species.
So Pinxie, it is not that I am unaware of the state of current practice in relation to listing of species, as you moronically imply. Rather, I do not accept it as being based on proper scientific grounds.
As the climate changes, the Bear population will change it’s hair colour and eating habits in much the same way that the average Australian is evolving to be more suited to a hot climate. Individuals like me are stuck with our red hair and freckles but my kids can actually get a safe tan.
But on your logic, we should have a “species recovery plan” for red heads. So spare us all the beat up on the threatened Polar Bears. It cuts no mustard here.
Moronic? Careful Ian, someone might read your earlier comments.
The penny has finally dropped Motty but pathetic attempt to hide your oversight. You claimed above that injecting grizzly genes would improve the PB gene pool. Why would you claim that if you knew the hybrid offspring cant contribute their genes? Talk of moronic implications! JD remembered too.
Comparing sub-species or trying to make a weak point about evolution does not defend your species claim either. Consider several common species definitions: PBs & Grizzly’s have clear morphological and behavioural differences, rarely reproduce in natural conditions and when they do, produce infertile hybrids.
As for your claim that the average Australian is evolving better skin for a hot climate … your kids are Eurasian you said, different gene expression, not evolution .. OH NOT GOING THERE, just deleted the rest. Moronic Motty, moronic. You slag off biodiversity all the time but you are seriously ignorant about species and evolutionary influences.
So what’s this grizzly-polar bear hybrid called??
Pizzly, grolar bear or polizzly?
It’s an all terrain, all climate SUB (sports utility bear). Comes in your favourite shade of pozzly. The factory is having some production issue though, so get your order in fast.
Thanks for the laughs La Pantera re exchange with Ian in 11:39 post. Nicely done.
Pinxi, you said that Grizzlies and Polar Bears rarely reproduce in nature, and “when they do, produce infertile hybrids.”
That last bit seems to be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursid_hybrid
“Since 1874, at Halle, a series of successful matings of polar bears and brown bears were made. Some of the hybrid offspring were exhibited by the London Zoological Society. The Halle hybrid bears proved to be fertile, both with one of the parent species and with one another. Polar bear/Brown bear hybrids are white at birth but later turn blue-brown or yellow-white.”
and
“The Grizzly bear is now regarded by most taxonomists as a variety of brown bear, Ursus arctos horribilis.”
and
“DNA studies indicate that some brown bears are more closely related to polar bears than they are to other brown bears, raising the question whether they are truly separate species. All the Ursinae species (i.e., all bears except the giant panda and the spectacled bear) appear able to crossbreed.”
If groups of PBs and GBs are able to breed with each other and produce fertile offspring, among the offspring and with both parent groups, then they are probably one species. Maybe that’s were the PBs went during the Holocene Climate Optimum.
Aah, Very good Paul that you pointed out this…was going to do it myself…
But remember, no natural polar bear and grizzly or brown bear hybrids have ever(?) been documented…
No, the grizzly’s and brown bears belong in the boreal forests and the polars belong in the icy plains.
Interesting!! Admittedly I didn’t check wikipedia.
You forgot this bit Paul “This severe reduction in gene flow is sufficient to treat them as two different species under the normal use of the biological species concept”
It’s significant that species rarely mate in the wild, especially when there are morphological, behavioural and habitat separations which under normal classification are sufficient to declare them separate species. There are cases where species occasionally hybridise on the fringes but the core species remain intact. Such a relatively static situation can change with pressures such as climate change though.
This was the 1st documented wild case Ann. Grizzlies are moving into PB territory, some even hunting seals in spring.
I read somewhere that the hybrids were infertile. Some may be. With so few hybrids encountered, I wonder how often they’re fertile. Could it depend on which species is father or mother, or whether the particular individuals are more closely related. It’s interesting stuff, the origins of species. One Zoologist said PB-GB offspring are unlikely to be viable. For hybrids to establish in the wild they’d need to time feeding, mating & reproduction with either the grizzlies or the PBs, and their coat colour and other physical characteristics would need to enable them to hunt effectively & survive.
Here’s a good link: http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-bears.htm
“Where bear populations have been reduced or where human encroachment on habitat forces the two species into closer proximity, such hybrids appear to be becoming more common. Grizzly bears have been sighted in polar bear territory in the Western Arctic near the Beaufort Sea, Banks Island, Victoria Island and Melville Island.”
“it is sad that $50,000 allows a hunter to kill one of these beasts.”
What chance have the polar bears of evolving in response to AGW if their virile hybrids get shot?
We’d better get the Pizzlies and Grolars on that redlist quicksmart before they go extinct!
Yes Pixie, very interesting issue , which hybrids are fertile or not…
Dog and wolf hybrid…fertile! Aaah, but they are quite dangerous and can’t be trusted…
Well they have now Ann.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12738644
Shot by a wealthy American too! Typical! (As Basil Fawlty would say.)
But it’s not all beer and skittles for wealthy Americans who go north to slaughter the wildlife.
“The DNA results were good news for Martell, who had paid $50,000 for guides and a permit to hunt polar bear. Before the tests came back, the 65-year-old hunter was facing the possibility of a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail for shooting a bear for which he had no permit — as well as the disappointment of an expensive hunting trip with no trophy.”
I wonder who paid for the DNA test?
Pinxi, no I didn’t forget that bit about lack of gene exchange making them separate species. I just think it’s a wrong definition of species.
Without wishing to enter a politically correct minefield, that argument makes as much sense as saying Zulu and Inuit are separate species.
Pixie and Paul,
Thanks for the links…
But Paul I’m not against rich Americans…. I just don’t want people to be encouraged by trade in certain animal trophies and pelts.
“I just think it’s a wrong definition of species.”
Oh gawd, you been drinking of the Motty home-brew of species? We don’t apply the same logic because humans are superior and different to animals, recall? I do appreciate that genetic point though and the biologists themselves will argue over it until the pizzlies come home. And then yuo get into all sorts of fine genetic distinctions as well as arguments over the extent of human interference determining gene flow where other factors may prevent it in the wild. And a few more beers later we’ll all conclude that all species distinctions are all a function of time anyway besides which fruitflies are our close cousins. But variety is the spice of life. As said above, in this bearish case there are other clear species distinctions.
Let’s not forget some horse-donkey hybrids can be fertile too but their offspring often not. Are the offspring of fertile PB-GB hybrids also fertile? Seems a number from the captive experiment didnt survive for whatever reason. You’d need to establish standard ease of reproduction (regardless of which species parent is male or female) and viable, fertile generations of hybrid offspring before you could say it’s comparable to races of humans.
Oh, and Google humanzee.
Pinxi/Pantera, I am a person who has done biological training, and I really don’t think biologists are arguing over the scientific definition of “species”.
If the hybrids can produce fertile offspring, the parent groups are the same species, regardless of morphological or behavioural differences.
Otherwise what’s your reasoning for classifying 7 foot tall, black-skinned ectomorphic Masai who live off milk and cows blood, as being the same species as 4 foot 8 inch, brown-skinned, endomorphic Inuit who live off seal blubber, as the same species, given also the lack of gene exchange between the groups.
I didn’t follow most of your last post, but gather that home brew is heavily involved?
Just read your follow up post.
I don’t really know if PB-GB hybrids are fertile, although from the Wikpedia link they could well be. If they’re not, then PBs and GBs are different species.
Now I’m going to open a brew myself. (James Squire Porter.)
James is an acquaintance of mine too.
Oh gawd yeah biologists do argue over distinctions between species and approaches to classifying species, sub-species etc. There’s even more to debate these days with genetic and molecular techniques. (One little eg close to home, are we more closely related to the chimp or the bonobo? Opinions differ). It’s nice to refer to simple tests of species. The biological (fertile offspring) test is the commonly known and convenient test but not the decisive test for all purposes.
The hybrids and their subsequent offspring should also be fertile as you need a viable population to say it’s reproductively the same species.
I think it’s quite possible, based on my extensive research (half an hours googling), that GBs and PBs could be subsets of the same species.
-They are both BIG
-Their habitats are next to each other
-They both exhibit behavioural plasticity with respect to novel prey items. (PBs eat reindeer, GBs eat seals, sometimes)
-At least one wild hybrid has been documented
-Some Grizzly cubs are a bit white
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grizzly-cub.jpg
-It just seems right, somehow
QED, I think.
Excerpt from Planet Ark:
“…if global climate change is coming, and it is coming, we have this huge unplanned experiment in evolutionary biology facing us…. species with long life-span will not have the capacity to adopt so quickly…”
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39722/story.htm
Just a quick comment, and I in no way condone killing animals for sport (ferals excepted) but by having a value of $50 000 or whatever, it is a great incentive to make sure none are just popped off. With such value poachers would be at great risk from Inuit protecting their “assets”.
Rojo, not mention the year in jail if you shoot a bear you don’t have a permit for.
I must say I don’t understand this squeamishness about trophy hunting. Death for the animal is generally swifter and less painful than would be the case if nature took its course. Ever seen footage of a cheetah taking a live antelope back to its cubs so they can learn about hunting? Or a lion with an infected mouth from a bone puncturing the gum?
The goal for an ethical hunter is for the animal to die before it hears the sound of the shot. Even if this is not achieved, the animal is normally going about its business in good health, and a few seconds later it is dead. Not too bad.
Paul, the actual act of humanely killing an animal doesn’t bother me in the least, and dispatching a feral pig with a nice clean shot is most satisfying. It’s not the death part, it’s the why.
Speed of death faster than the speed of sound as long as Cheney isn’t pulling the trigger.
“GBs and PBs could be subsets of the same species”
arguing sub-species is a bit different to arguing same species. Just wanted to declare that, not get further into it as we can’t prove anything more here (not that we’ve actually proven anything other than our capacity for disagreement). Perhaps we’d all be more peaceful if we were more promiscuous. It’s been very interesting (sincerely!) Thanks.
Not all trophy hunters are good shots and kill the animal outright.That is a naive view. If hunters have money they don’t necessarily have to have the skills. Simply comparing a carefully planned exercise of game hunting to animals killing for sheer survival is a cop out.
Pinxi,
“Perhaps we’d all be more peaceful if we were more promiscuous”
Nope, been there, done that – does´nt work either ;op
Paul suggests that GBs and PBs could be two subspecies of the same species and notes.
-They are both BIG
so are elephants and rhinos – so what does that imply?
-Their habitats are next to each other –
which is precisely why they do not seem to be subspecies, as with that level of interaction possible, two subspecies would most likely quickly re-establish homogeneity. Most subspecies arise through the erection of geographical barriers that isolate two or more gene pools. Once isolated each gene pool can drift apart in character to an extent where differences in species physionomy arise due to either natural selection, and/or drift acting on their respective gene pools.
If, after a period of time in isolation, the two or more subspecies are reunited with a common border, or overlapping distributions, then if sufficient pre-mating (behavioural) or post-mating (infertility) mechanisms have arisen they are in effect, two separate species. If not, there will be no effective pre- or post- mating barrier and coalscence of the two gene pools will quickly occur.
The fact that the two bears have overlapping and/or contiguous distributions, and yet have maintained their genetic distinctiveness -expressed as completely different physionomy (most of us could tell the difference between them at a glance) means the isolating mechanism is effective. It also appears to be a pre-mating (behavioural) mechanism as there are very few hybrids around (most bears can apparently tell the difference at a glance too).
-They both exhibit behavioural plasticity with respect to novel prey items. (PBs eat reindeer, GBs eat seals, sometimes)
-so do a variety of predators, such as tiger sharks and white sharks (both of which will occasionally try a human snack), but that is no basis for deciding they are a single species.
-At least one wild hybrid has been documented
Which proves only that there must be some not so smart PBs and GBs out there which occasionally get it mixed up. Or perhaps they were bored and wanted to try something different on the other side of town?
-Some Grizzly cubs are a bit white
And some polar bear cubs are a bit grey -so what does this demonstrate?
Oh and Pinx,
Well spotted -I was bored with the PB discussion and was hoping several times in this thread to bump it off on another tangent -but I am suitably chastised and will now concentrate on the issue at hand.
You guys heard the story about the Spanish King Carlos hunting bears last year in Russia???
Well, the King is a keen hunter, but rumours tell us that the trackers had given a captive , almost tame bear alcohol, and then guided the King to the bear…do we call this sports??
And stories like this about trophy hunting is not the first one I have heard….
Quick diversion back to the melting Arctic – bears better get floaties. Some scorching cynicism from George Monbiot. Prepare to adapt !
What Al Gore Hasn’t Told You About Global Warming
By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted January 9, 2007.
George Monbiot’s new book Heat picks up where Al Gore left off on global warming, offering real solutions without sugar-coating the large personal sacrifices they will require.
Al Gore is our generation’s Paul Revere. Riding hard through the country, he warns us of the impending arrival of climatic disaster. He’s proven an astonishingly effective messenger. An Inconvenient Truth may receive an Oscar for Best Documentary. Overflow crowds greet his presentations with standing ovations.
Which, come to think of it, is odd. When has someone ever delivered such an ominous message to such tumultuous applause? (Aside from those who insist we are in the end times and the rapture is near.)
In a recent speech to a standing-room-only audience at the New York University School of Law, Gore declared, “We are moving closer to several ‘tipping points’ that could — within as little as 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.” The audience cheered wildly. Presumably audiences are not cheered by the prospect of imminent catastrophe. So what is going on here?
British journalist George Monbiot, author of Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning (Doubleday, 2006) has a theory.
“We wish our governments to pretend to act,” he writes. “We get the moral satisfaction of saying what we know to be right, without the discomfort of doing it. My fear is that the political parties in most rich nations have already recognized this. They know that we want tough targets, but that we also want those targets to be missed. They know that we will grumble about their failure to curb climate change, but that we will not take to the streets. They know that nobody ever rioted for austerity.”
GOES ON MUCH MORE HERE AT …………………………….. http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/46318/
So where is the apology for your verbal abuse, Pinxie? Is there not the slightest hope that you might exhibit the smallest bit of self respect and admit that you were dead wrong on the issue of fertile cross bred Bears?
Obviously not. So it is probably just as well that you not only operate under a pseudonym but also continually use new ones to avoid the stench of your past record. It is the classic modus operandi of a shonk. [key words, Moronic, skank]
So for the record folks,
Polar, Brown, Black and Grizzly Bears are essentially the one species and climate change will have minimal impact on that species. Indeed, given the adaptability of this species and its omniverous nature, the species as a whole may even expand as vegetation moves north.
The fair haired portion of this species may give way to more arboreal types over time.
Oh, and show us the evidence that horse and donkey have produced viable mules.
Aaah, as usual Motty has a very vivid imagination!
Contrary to experts , who indicate that the polars might migrate to more northern parts, but won’t survive due to scarcity of seals( Norway) , I see many, many problems with polar bears migrating to southern parts.
If we take Norway and Russia , there will be deadly encounters with the reindeer herders, note they usually don’t tolerate any big predators on their reindeer herding grounds….
And following on from Monbiot
Carry on flying, says Blair – science will save the planet
· Personal sacrifices to cut emissions ‘impractical’
· Green groups accuse PM of failing to set example
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1985981,00.html
Yes fertile PB-GB offspring have been made, but immature value judgements aside, Motty to state the GBs will improve the wild PBs gene pool you need to show they will and can produce reproductively viable offspring with survival advantages. It is just another case of related species flirting on the fringes? Hybrid offspring were produced in captive conditions but is the fertility representative, could they breed outside their immediate family and why didn’t their offspring survive?
Motty you still haven’t done any reading or learning since your racial analogies and inappropriate mention of juvenile experiences. It hadn’t occurred to you and you had no clue if PB-GB offspring were fertile. As the rest of us have nicely chatted about it, the fertility & survival aspects are not completely known (do hybrids produce viable populations?) so we can’t be sure and we’re less likely to be sure if hunters keep shooting the only known wild hybrids. Still, according to common species definitions the PBs & GBs would still be, and are, considered separate species. The best you could hope to argue given the available evidence discussed above, is for sub-species but you need to show understanding of the several most common methods of classifying species. You’d know all that if you’d read the posts above, so before dredging up the same-same again please reread posts above or provide fresh evidence (something you never do).
Similarly you still have no basis for your claim that Australian’s are ‘evolving’ better skin for the sun – where is the selective pressure that skews the gene pool? Comparing your european red hair & freckly skin with that of your Eurasian kids is just silly. Tell the Aborigines that browner skin gives them survival benefits in Australia.
As for “show us the evidence that horse and donkey have produced viable mules” I didn’t exactly say that did I? This again shows how you still haven’t read or understood the various exchanges above on parentage and factors that can influence fertility in hybrids. Go away and think about it some more. Better still get off your lazy pink bum, google it yourself and give us the evidence.
Good try to get the thread onto a climate debate for a change Luke. I’m sure Motty will be happy to share his opinions with you on that topic again.
Luke, Monbiot says that no one ever rioted for austerity, but isn’t that what the anti-globalisation rioters (in Melbourne recently) were doing? Although possibly they didn’t think of it like that.
Also, I’ve been trying to find a reference for the extent of Arctic sea-ice during the Holocene Climate Optimum. Does anyone have a reference/information on that topic? It seems relevant to the PB discussion.
It seems that there will never be an end tot he constant titanc struggles betwix “splitters” and “lumpers”. Folks it doesn’t matter where we look we will find evidence to support our own world view, kindly provided by the taxonomical equivalent to the Hatfields and the McCoys.
Does it really matter whether polar bears and brown bears may or may not be the one species? Surely the fact that they are able to demontrate an aptitude to adapt to changing circumstances is what is important. If they go the way of the dodo and are replaced by something else or not, what does it matter? Did we cry out with such anguish when the dinousours dissapeared ( did our cavman forefathers experience the same sort of moralistic angst in their time) of is this just a recent phenomonen attributable to our separation from nature in the day to day of our lives?
Sorry folks, but why do we persist in morals and ethics at twenty paces in such a combatative manner?
Because there are too many chimps Peter, and no-one has proposed a satisfactory answer to the why does it matter question.
Species, genetic diversity, so what? Would you like to lead such an exploration here? Consider some of the angles: values, belief, culture, preference, identification, agriculture & medicine, ecological services, tipping points. Peter you ask why persist with morals and ethics in such a manner while you lob in your own set with a so-what comparison to dinosaurs and dodos (human factors there) and a separation from nature claim that by itself stirs up controversy on this blog. Is the current situation comparable to dinosaurs or are circumstances materially different? Do we know enough about the dinosaurs to state confidently that this is how it’s supposed to go?
It’s not just an aptitude to adapt to changing circumstances that’s important. Historically when climate changed before, did it change at the same pace, in a similar pattern, and where there human impacts on ability to adapt eg pollutants, shipping, oil-drilling, impact on food source, habitat encroachment (including migration corridors), human pressures on other species which in response may adapt in ways that increase competion with PBs or affect their food source etc, and hunting on the very same borders where adaptive pressures are greatest and more likely to appear?
“Did we cry out with such anguish when the dinousours dissapeared ( did our cavman forefathers experience the same sort of moralistic angst in their time) of is this just a recent phenomonen attributable to our separation from nature in the day to day of our lives?”
Were there cavemen around when dinosaurs existed???
La P,
Tongue in cheek, my point indeed! Will we ever resolve such issues when the mere mention of them enrages so many. Is my beliefe system superior to yours, is your to mine? Does it really matter inthe broader scheme of things? I really don’t know! I’d like to find out but the anger that emerges when these isues are raised seems to completely cloud peoples judgement. Passion for a cause is noble but is it sensible?
And you are correct when you state that no one has proposed a satisfactory answer to the why does it matter question. I guess that is why we carry on as we do.
Libby,
Buggered if I know, I was attempting to make a comparison with how we as a modern society view the world as compared with previous societies that lived amongst it.
But Peter, go on, lead such a discusson. It’s needed.
Pinxie/rosa claimed cross bred bears were infertile, they are not.
She claims the offspring did not survive, where is the vidence?
She did claim that some offspring of horses and Donkeys were fertile, but has not provided any evidence.
And then goes on to use the perverted state of current species classification as some sort of evidence of intellectual failure on my part. What a piece of work you are.
And my reference to Australians evolving was in a social and intergenerational sense as cross cultural marriages produce fewer children with recessive traits like red hair.
The facts are that the application of some of the species classification standards promoted by the greens would, if applied to the human species, be far worse than racism. As has already been pointed out to you, Massai and Inuit are not distinct species. Polar Bears and Brown/Grizzly bears are not distinct species, they are visually distinct populations of the one species.
And your repeating of silly questions in an attempt to imply that the issue was still in doubt is far too transparent to succeed.
Bears are far more adaptable than you give credit, both being very adept at raiding dumpsters and garbage bins on urban margins.
And Ann, the Polars will not move south as you imply that I had said. The Browns and Grizzlys will move north with the expanding vegetation.
It is totally inappropriate to be listing a population on a threatened species list when the number of the species as a whole is unlikely to change. That is the crux of the matter.
Some extracts from the preamble of the CBD:
Conscious of the intrinsic value of biological diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components,
Conscious also of the importance of biological diversity for evolution and for maintaining life sustaining systems of the biosphere,
Affirming that the conservation of biological diversity is a common concern of humankind,
…
Noting that it is vital to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity at source,
…
Noting further that the fundamental requirement for the conservation of biological diversity is the in-situ conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats and the maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings,
….
Recognizing that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries,
Aware that conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity is of critical importance for meeting the food, health and other needs of the growing world population, for which purpose access to and sharing of both genetic resources and technologies are essential,
Noting that, ultimately, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity will strengthen friendly relations among States and contribute to peace for humankind,
Peter,
I’m completely sure the cavemen felt grief when they had hunted the mammuths to extinction…. that was their livelyhood… guess one of the reasons to switch over to agriculture was over-hunting by some species.
And why we are upset or concerned about the polar bears… myself is thinking about the GW, is it really neccessary that 40% of all wildlife will go extinct in the near future, ” Only” thanks to that we are driving our SUVs to the shopping mall, just 2 km away from our homes???
Yea, a simplification, but something to think about…
La P,
Yes but whose intrinsic values are they? It all sounds very nice indeed but when getting down to details who is the arbiter and what is it that qualifies them?
Why is conservation of biological diversity the common concern of humankind? If we accept that species have come and gone in the past and will come and go again in the future (humans included) then viewing the world from such a human centric stance is really quite selfish isn’t it. Is this a case of because we can we must or is it that we must because we can?
If you read this response Peter then I expect you write one back of your own, addressing the same questions.
Why is that human stance question important given that you could never answer it? You can’t remove human perspective from our outlook and we’ll continue with a range of human activites that impact upon each other and the planet regardless. Is it an excuse for complacency or apathy?
I nearly added a comment that the common concern line would be up for debate. They do say that poor people’s needs come 1st (something like that). But if you’d like me to answer: we are dependent on SOME not all biological products and ecological services for our survival so from that basis its accurate to say it’s a common concern without it being a value statement. But even just considering survival alone, we can’t readily draw the line between essential and non-essential factors let alone delineate indirect relationships in ecological systems that may ultimately impact upon human survival in unpredictable or long-term ways. Then chuck in aspects of culture, values, future, agriculture, medicine etc and .. warning warning system overload… duhh… what was the question and its relevance again? You have a crack at answering it Peter.
In terms of what the common person commonly believes most of the time, I reckon most people generally want species to be kept alive especially where we clearly influence that and it doesn’t detract from self-interests that they rate more highly. There are psychological studies into the importance of natural elements for our health but again, you can argue waht that means at the boundaries. Some (1st world) economic attempts to use proxy methods to get ordinary people to put a value on natural assets have gone off the rails when the participants were reluctant to do so as it seemed wrong to them.
I don’t see how our present (limited) understanding of the pace, magnitude, extent and circumstances of historic events gives us any excuse for complacency, particulary in cases where there is evidence of a causal relationship between human activities and the demise of a species. Again you could debate some of those connections, esp where models and complex science is involved, and doubly so where the cause seems to be our collective actions as a species as we’re not up to thinking and acting at that level yet. Your turn Peter, get up your elbows in it or be a chimp.
Seems the discussion has reached this point elsewhere on these blog pages.
So far the discussion has proceed thus from the so-called skeptics, although I am beginning to feel “flat-earthers” might be a better tag:
1. PBs are increasing in number.
then after evidence they are declining, moving the position to,
2. They are not dependent on ice sheets so it will not matter
then after evidence the current population numbers are dependent on ice, moving the position
to
3. they are the same species as brown/grizzly bears
then after evidence they are not the same species, moving the position to:
4. who cares anyway?
And now I feel we have truly arrived at the “flat-earthers” position on this and many other issues, which is at it’s core, a selfish one.
S why should we care?
As I have said elsewhere, I care because I consider that if you accept that all species on this planet are descended from a common origin, as evidenced by a common genetic code, then we are all in a sense related.
I also care because I often wonder what being sentient is actually for. Call it intellectual snobbery, but I hope it has to be for more than wondering what next item of essential “consumer junk” should be purchased?
Applying our species intellectual power means having the sense to flag something that you feel demands attention -hence the IUCN listing as potentially threatened (again, for the umpteenth time, note the word “potentially”).
It may be wrong, time will tell, but in the meantime I would rather we as species spent some of our resources on investigsating the issue. If it proves to be an unfounded fear, and/or suitable management strategies are devised, then the listing can be changed -and the listing are changed regularly, both up and down the ratings scale as more information becomes available.
To me this is an eminently sensible approach.
Russell, I must have missed that evidence that PB numbers are declining, and the evidence that they are separate species. I have seen a lot of speculation on both topics.
I’ve gone back over the thread, but couldn’t see what you are referring to. Could you point it out, or post links?
And any references on Arctic sea ice during the Holocene Climate Optimum, if anyone has them, would be appreciated. Thanks.
Paul,
Trying to help you, but so far I have only found information about Sweden… hey, where I live , the ice was 3 km deep for 10 000 years ago…
Paul,
this serves as your entry point, and will lead to the proceedings of the 14th PBSG meeting. You may care to read the proceedings like I did.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/22823/summ
But perhaps like many others here you may wish simply to attack the motives and credentials of the only group that is probably in a position to know anything solid about the species? Personally, I see nothing wrong with the fact that the group of polar bear specialists, not a bunch of “armchair experts” , have met, argued in an informed, and I suspect, more polite, manner over the data, and concluded caution is warranted and it is upon their recommendation the listing has been changed to “potentially vulnerable”.
You might note that in 1996, a similar group had downgraded the rating of the species on the list -they at least have shown a capacity to move both ways in repsonse to the data.
But of course, our resident “armchair experts” after a couple of googles are in a much better position to make a pronouncement than any expert group of biologists and wildlife managers who have been studying the species for most of their professional lives.
I think it’s more than little arrogant.
Interestingly some of those “armchair experts” are adopting the exact opposite position in the case of the information provided by the expert appearing in the Tasmanian Forestry Department in another thread on this site.
There the data provided by the expert appears to support their position on logging, and so this expert is lauded.
Consistency of approach, and a skeptical approach?
Neither in my view, but rather the same old egocentric politics, masquarading as righteous indignation.
Thanks for the link, Russell, I have already read it.
In your post above (3.29pm), you were referring to the discussion we are having here, and you wrote
“1. PBs are increasing in number.
then after evidence they are declining, moving the position to,
2. They are not dependent on ice sheets so it will not matter
then after evidence the current population numbers are dependent on ice, moving the position
to
3. they are the same species as brown/grizzly bears
then after evidence they are not the same species, moving the position to:”
I could not remember any evidence for points 1 and 3 being given, nor could I find it when I reread the thread. You have responded by giving a link to the IUCN Red List. Of course you don’t have to respond in any way, but my request was for the evidence you say has been presented here.
The criteria for putting PBs on the Red List relates to a PROJECTED population decline, not to any actual decline. Neither does the Red List mention anything about Grizzly Bears, which was the second part of my question.
I am puzzled as to why you mention politeness when replying to me. I had thought I was discussing the matter politely.
Russell,
You mentioned intellectual snobbery in a previous post. The fact that we are able to apply our intellect to these questions does not one make a snob. Nor does an opposing viewpoint.
The fact that there is a difference of opinion may be either due to the emotions one brings to these forums or due to differences in ones life experiences. It doesn’t really matter which, the difference is there.
Is an IUCN listing critical? Is the IUCN, given its make up, impartial enough to make such decisions without accusations such as bias?
My question, why should we care?, is not a flat earth response. Given the very real and disperate views on this blog and others I think that it is a fair question. If we are being cajolled into accepting a particular viewpoint then that viewpoint needs to expplained in an intellectual manner, rather than the type of peer pressure to coform that is usually the case. Your response, (Applying our species intellectual power means having the sense to flag something that you feel demands attention -hence the IUCN listing as potentially threatened (again, for the umpteenth time, note the word “potentially”).
It may be wrong, time will tell, but in the meantime I would rather we as species spent some of our resources on investigsating the issue. If it proves to be an unfounded fear, and/or suitable management strategies are devised, then the listing can be changed -and the listing are changed regularly, both up and down the ratings scale as more information becomes available.)whilst one that I disagree with, is very welcome.
Many of us who are cotributing to this blog are not armchair experts but rather people who have found that often there are many alternative hypothesis for much of what has been observed and presented as fact by others.
Remember much of what passes as fact in ecology today is just an hypothesis and very often requires a tweakk in management rather than the wholsale changes to management that are frequently demanded. Thius true regardless of the issue.
Your comments please?
Peter “Yes but whose intrinsic values are they? It all sounds very nice indeed but when getting down to details who is the arbiter and what is it that qualifies them”
Who ever it is they must be completely independent hey.
LPR, Russel, PL & others: On what matters as we go, I say it’s all about saving a few options for the next generation.
I can’t spell it out in PB terms but I found this, a guy’s life involving having a good look at what he had. Note the low impact (hot stew?) considering what some of us require today.
That’s my country too.
http://users.bigpond.net.au/dveltkamp/KeithLancaster/index.htm#1991-97
Paul,
the link to the red list will bring up a page that links to other pages on their site that includes data on decline, and also discusses the taxonomic position in relation to the grizzly -look at the headings at the top of the page, they also give references to the published literature on both taxonomic status and population data.
For more discussion of the status of the population, and in particular the subpopulations, that can be found in a table on pages 41 and 42 of the proceedings.
The Proceedings incidentally is a good summary of the status of information and I listed the status of each subpopulation from this table in the other polar bear thread on this blog -look there if you can trust me to have transliterated correctly. My interpretation of what that means is also there, but it’s only my opinion of course.
The Proceedings is also a good, warts and all record of the debate that took place over the listing issue. and it was a real debate with different points of view.
These are not rabid greenies as some here are claiming, but professional biologists and wildlife managers from different countries doing what they are paid to do. And in my opinion doing a pretty reasonable job of it. They have a very good record of managing the species recovery from over hunting, and on that basis I accept they are genuine in identifying what they see as a potential problem -again note the word “potential”.
There is no “hidden agenda” as far as I can see.
Most, if not all of these people have a lot of experience really working with these bears, out there in the Arctic -who else knows the species better?
Do I respect their professional assessment -yes, I do. The more so, because a reading of the history of the status of this species on the list shows that the rating has been changed up and down, as the information has changed. Who went out and collected that information and then met, and changed the status of the species to lower risk back in 1996, when the data suggested the species had recovered from hunting? These guys did. What more could we expect of them?
I am not familiar with what happened at time, but suspect they copped a lot of flak from the green side of politics at that time.
The politeness comment was not directed at you.
Gavin, thanks for the link. I’ll delve into it over time, I reckon that with so much there it is better absorbed slowly, if at all possible. What fabulous walks especially in the early days when roads were far less frequent than today and population centres seemed further away (poorer roads, poorer telecommunications, if at all, SLOWER cars,and best of all the pace of society was slower).
In terms of saving a few options for the next generation, in a place like Tassie with 45% of the land base conserved they have achieved what few jurisdictions in the world have been capable of doing. The forested areas under multiple use management are regenerated after harvest providing more for our future generations.
In terms of an arbiter I doubt that a completely independant one could be found for most ecological issues.
Now for the controversy….. My own observation is that as a branch of science much of what passes for Ecology is more akin to economics in both its rigour and reliance on dodgy models. Once there was a time that research was conducted where observations were made and measurements taken and conclusions were based upon the field work, Today a model is run, the underlying assumptions are ignored and an opinion is given that is passed off as science….they call it ecology (my apologies to those involved in serious work in this field).
A short comment on the IUCN and bias.
There exist accusations against the IUCN. For example, the Norwegians are not satisfied with the IUCN listing of the Northeast Atlantic Minke whale population.
But the Norwegian Polar Institute’s employees, for example Professor Jon Aars , are carrying out field work for the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group.
And the Polar Institute is subordinated the Norwegian Ministry of Environment…
Peter,
As a practicising marine ecologist for more than 25 years in 12 different countries I am very aware of the shortcomings and strengths of ecology.
The Red List acts to provide a guide on the status of species. Each proposed change is subject to peer review and assessment, and this occurs whether the change is up or down in terms of rating status.
So what would you change in this process?
What does it matter? Not much some will say, but the fact that the listing has been changed means it’s is much more likely the species will be scrutinised more closely.
If you look at the table I mentioned in my previous post it is clear that at least some of the subpopulations have not been properly surveyed for quite some time. Now perhaps the funding will be made available for this. If that work demonstrates the “potential” risk has ben ovestated, then the next time the PBSG meets they may well downgrade the rating -they have already in the past.
If the people of the relevant countries tell their elected representatives they do not want to spend any more money figuring out if PBs are “potentially vulnerable” then so be it, but is it not right that the people who are in the best position to know the current status of the PB draw their concerns to the attention of the general public?
While it’s clear that the media has spectacularly mis-interpreted what the IUCN and PBSG are actually saying (a typical outcome), that is not the fault of the experts.
Russell, of the 19 populations in the PBSG proceedings, 5 are observed or PROJECTED to decline, 5 are stable, 2 observed/projected to increase and 7 are “data deficient”. The only population that I can see with a documented decline in numbers is the West Hudson Bay population. Of course, that may change when the latest figures become available.
On the other hand, there seems to be some agreement that numbers were very low in the 60s and 70s,
http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/mammals/Ursus_maritimus/more_info.html
so it can be said that they have increased since then, but I can’t see the data that says they are currently decreasing.
Still, I haven’t read the whole 198 pages of the PBSG Proceedings, which is why I asked for a pointer from you. So I would question your statement regarding evidence of population decline in your previous comment.
Could you also expand on the evidence you referred to regarding PBs and GBs being different species?
And as an addition to Peter’s comment, it appears that a lot of the projections of PB numbers declining or increasing is based on modelling (not that there’s anything wrong with that!).
Off topic anain but Peter: One thing is not there as it was; see if you can find it, but take as much time as you need. I was one of the very privileged just before the end. Oddly enough I found the link searching for Darwin, Jukes, and Huxley etc while seeking info on their individual status way back particularly in regard to a recent thread – The Discipline of Science:
My clue was seeing the respective height of the peaks in that West Coast mountain chain. This region features in Blainey’s classic “Peaks of Lyell” (recommended reading on historic mining, railways & engineering) but is now part of a large hydro electric scheme, something else we had to have in the name of progress and jobs.
See Down the Pillinger Track –
http://users.bigpond.net.au/dveltkamp/KeithLancaster/074PillingerTrack.htm
Was there a decline, or similar signs of a decline in SBS &somewhere else too? It’s reasonable for the experienced scientists to project a decline similar to WHB in areas where they are observing similar changes and influences to those they observed leading up to the population decline in WHB. I don’t think they pulled the findings out of their bums. But these details have been gone over repeatedly. Ditto for the species distinctions & the decline.
References, aspects, areas have been put up before (see earlier thread) but ignored on the same issues that are again getting gone over. The time taken putting up all these questions and chasing people to prove things could be better spent reading the proceedings in more detail Paul (I realise you have read a fair bit).
Pinxi, projections of a population decline are different to a documented decline. Russell mentioned evidence on two points I have shown interest in, I don’t think it’s chasing him to “prove things” to ask for that evidence. I actually am interested in the evidence, not trying to support a pre-determined position.
If he doesn’t actually have it, he only had to say so and I would have moved on. What he has offered so far is interesting, but not evidence of a current population decrease, as far as I can see.
And I realise we have covered these ideas and links before, but I still can’t see where PB numbers have been shown to be decreasing.
I guess I can forget the “evidence” that proves Grizzlies and Polar Bears are different species too. Just a bit of hyperbole thrown in for dramatic effect.
My own fault for being too literal minded.
Paul,
I am not sure why you cannot find the information yourself? Anyhow, despite thinking this is a wind-up on your part to get me busy on your behalf here is some information.
You have mis-interpreted the table data.
Here is a long quote from the Proceedings which explains what the categories in the
Table mean.
” Much of the discussion focussed on how to portray the status of each subpopulation. In the last three proceedings, the Group indicated status as being one of decreasing, stationary, increasing, or unknown. A. Derocher was concerned that this system did not necessarily reflect what we know about the subpopulation. For example, a subpopulation that was depleted and had been through a harvest moratorium would potentially be shown as increasing even though the current numbers are well below historical levels. Thus,
while accurate, the status table would give a misleading impression for some subpopulations. Furthermore, that approach is based on the past and does not necessarily reflect what lies ahead.
It was noted that the above status categories did not really reflect status but rather a trend so that in some cases Not Evaluated or Data Deficient were probably better than Unknown.
M. Taylor suggested the value of incorporating
population viability analysis (PVA) into the table because categories are subjective unless they can be based on something objective. PVA removes the subjectivity and provides an objective means of assessing subpopulation
status. S. Amstrup and A. Derocher commented that
RISKMAN does not allow for stochastic variation in the environment. M. Taylor responded that the RISKMAN PVA model did include environmental variation as a component of the variance of the demographic parameters. However, M. Taylor acknowledged that the duration of many subpopulation inventory studies was
too short to capture the full range of environmental variability; and that RISKMAN could not currently model a systematic decline in vital rates such as could occur as a result of climate change. J. Aars, A. Rosing-Asvid and E. Born commented that models are only useful if there is sufficient and appropriate data to run them; otherwise one is simply guessing. N. Ovysanikov
noted that when running models, we might not know all the factors influencing a subpopulation. S. Amstrup commented that there was certainly value in M. Taylor’s approach but one of the primary issues was the Group’s comfort level.
A. Derocher suggested that, instead of a single
column Status, we should consider three columns Trend, Status and Risk. Trend would give an indication of the direction of the current estimate of subpopulation size (e.g., decrease, stable, increase); Status would compare the
current estimate of subpopulation size with historical size (e.g., depleted, not reduced); and Risk would be a projection of the risk of a future decline that would use qualifiers based on PVA (e.g., low, intermediate, high).
There seemed to be a general agreement with this
approach. S. Schliebe asked M. Taylor and A. Derocher to develop this further and to bring it back to the Group.”
Note that the three columns of Trend, Status and Risk in the table are therefore effectively independent. The Trend is not based on the model data, but on the current assessment of the state of the stock -or rather as it was in 2005. The experts decided that at the meeting of experts that produced the Proceedings.
The Status assessment was not based on the PVA (the model) assessment but on comparing the current population density with historical data.
The only assessment based on the modelling you speak of is therefore the perceived level of risk…the last column. Note in the above quote how the scientists themselves discussed the value of this approach.
So now read the trend column of that table again and note how many of the subpopulations for which data exist are considered ,currently, to be declining. Note also that for the two populations which are increasing, how small they are, and that the Status column reports each was coming off a historically low base due to overhunting.
As for the species issue. The current name of the species, accepted among taxonomists and adopted by the IUCN and its PBSG is Ursus maritimus -no mention of subspecies status there. The name of the brown bear is Ursus arctos. If the two were considered by taxnomists to be subspecies of the same species, then as the polar bear is derived from the brown bear the two species would be referred to as Ursus arctos arctos (brown bear) and Ursus arctos maritimus (polar bear). I can find no reference to this nomenclature anywhere, so, with your permission I will treat the PB for the time being as a separate species.
Here is the data from the PBSG website which explains the genetic data. The data which was incidentally collected from wild bears after the reported successful hybridisation between brown and polar bears in a zoo.
” The polar bear appears to share a common ancestor with the presentday brown bear. It apparently branched off the brown bear lineage during the late Pleistocene. Kurt´en (1964) suggested that ancestors of the modern polar bear were “gigantic.” Although still the largest of the extant bears, the polar bear, like many other mammals, has decreased in size since the Pleistocene. Also, significant morphological changes have continued within the last 20,000 to 40,000 years, perhaps through the present (Kurt´en 1964). Stanley (1979) described the many recently derived traits of polar bears as an example of “quantum speciation.”
Evidence of polar bear evolution contained in the sparse samples of fossils has been strengthened recently by molecular genetics. Whereas traits of fossil teeth and bones from polar bears clearly indicate their brown bear origins, fossil remains include only a handful of specimens (Kurt´en 1964). Genetic data from extant bears can provide phylogenetic information unavailable in the fossil record. Shields and Kocher (1991) first analyzed mtDNA sequences and showed a close relationship between brown bears and polar bears. Cronin et al. (1991) then discovered that mtDNA of brown bears is paraphyletic with respect to polar bears. That is, the mtDNA of brown bears of the Alexander Archipelago in southeastern Alaska is more closely related to the mtDNA of polar bears than it is to the mtDNA of other brown bears. Cronin et al. (1991) reported that mtDNA sequence divergence between Alexander Archipelago brown bears and polar bears is only about 1%, whereas a divergence of about 2.6% separates polar bears from brown bears occurring elsewhere. Cronin et al. (1991) and Cronin (1993) emphasized that mtDNA sequence divergence trees are not species trees and that mtDNA is not, by itself, a good measure of overall genetic differentiation. Nonetheless, these relationships provide a compelling argument regarding the origin and evolution of polar bears.
Following the discovery of Cronin et al. (1991), others corroborated the finding of paraphyletic mtDNA in brown bears and polar bears. Talbot and Shields (1996a, 1996b) suggested that the Alexander Archipelago brown bears represent descendents of ancestral stock that gave rise to polar bears. This stock may have survived Pleistocene glaciers in an ice-free refugium in southeastern Alaska, isolated from brown bears in other Pleistocene refugia (Heaton et al. 1996). This island-dwelling ancestral stock apparently has remained isolated from the more recent mainland bears by broad ocean passages.
Talbot and Shields (1996b) found mtDNA sequence divergence rates similar to those reported by Cronin et al. (1991), and proposed that ancestors of the Alexander Archipelago brown bears diverged from the other mtDNA lineages of brown bears 550,000 to 700,000 years ago. The mtDNA sequence divergences also suggested that polar bears branched from the Alexander Archepelago ancestral stock of brown bears about 200,000 to 250,000 years ago, a date closely corresponding with that suggested in the fossil record (Thenius 1953; Kurt´en 1964). Shields and Kocher (1991) and Cronin et al. (1991) reported that the mtDNA nucleotide sequence divergence between brown and polar bears (grouped together) and black bears was 79%. Applying the substitution rate (6%/million years) for mtDNA genes reported by Talbot and Shields (1996a) to the sequence divergence reported by Cronin et al. (1991) suggests that brown bear ancestral stock diverged from that of black bears approximately 1.2 to 1.5 million years ago. This “molecular clock” estimate may be low. The fossil record suggests black bears diverged from the brown bear lineage 1.5 to 2.5 million years ago.
Cronin (1993) cautioned that mutation rates vary among genes as well as among taxa, and that conclusions based on “molecular clocks” must be viewed with caution and in the context of other evidence. For example, DNA sequences for two functional nuclear genes, κ-casein and the DQβ gene of the major histocompatability complex, show polyphyletic relationships among the three species of bears (M. Cronin and S. Amstrup, unpublished data). That is, the DNA sequences do not resolve the relationships among the species. These functional genes are presumably under strong selection and do not diverge as rapidly as mtDNA. Nonetheless, the mtDNA analyses indicate that Alexander Archipelogo brown bears derive from more ancient stocks and are more closely related to polar bears than are other members of the brown bear clan. These conclusions also corroborate the recent appearance of the polar bear in the fossil record and the more ancient roots of the black bear (Thenius 1953; Kurt´en 1964). All DNA evidence, regardless of some areas of uncertainty, corroborate conclusions from the fossil record that the polar bear is a recently derived species and is undergoing rapid evolution. The extreme arctic marine environment is undoubtedly exerting strong selection pressures for rapid adaptation.”
So it’s a recently derived species and obviously has a pre-mating (behavioural) mechanism that prevents breeding with the closely related brown bear. The fact that this pre-mating isolating mechanism occasionally breaks down (in the artificial environment of a zoo?) and the offspring were able to breed themselves does not mean much. Periodically bears of both species are in close proximity and in all the time they have been observed there has been one or two records of hybridisation. The pre-mating isolating mechanism obviously mostly works -hence the experts conclusion they are separate species.
Now, for my benefit, please supply some expert opinions and/or data that shows polar bear numbers are increasing, and that they are not separate species from grizzly bears.
You are far too gracious, Paul. What you have observed is a classic example of obfuscation by a person called to account. Russell was attempting to portray himself as an honest broker providing a summary while seriously misrepresenting the key issues.
The PBSG has extrapolated from one declining tribal grouping of bears onto 19 other, larger groupings. And as this one grouping is clearly smaller than the rest it amounts to an extrapolation from significantly less than 5% of the cohort.
And if there was a local bear tribal grouping that was particularly prone to intermixing with other coloured bears of its species it would be the western Hudson Bay group. Just look at the map.
There would not be too many white bears on the southern shore of the bay as that latitude is clearly Grizzly country. The mouth of James Bay is more than 160km wide and the southern shore is at Latitude 51 degrees N or the same as London.
It was always an outlier grouping surrounded by the coloured members of their species. The probability of cross breeding is quite high and there would be considerable uncertainty as to whether the dapple coated progeny would be included in any census anyway.
And this, again, raises an interesting parallel with humans. We know that Tasmanian Aborigines are far from extinct even though the last pure bred one died long ago. We now know that it was totally inappropriate to exclude part-europeans from the measure of that population. But is the BPSG making the same mistake, especially of the western Hudson Bay population count?
Either way, it is totally inappropriate to extrapolate from this grouping who may simply bonk themselves out of existence as a visually distinct tribal grouping of bears.
Ho hum,
Now its obfuscation? A poster asks me for the information I base my conclusions/statements on, and I provide it.
Then the next poster accuses me of obfuscation and chastises the last poster for being too gracious toward me???
If this is what passes for informed debate in Australia no wonder the outlook looks so bleak for the “lucky country”.
Ian believes there is no justification for changing the listing of this species.
There is limited information available, and the scientists who have made the decision are the same guys that collected most of the recent data, and some stuff which is as yet unpublished.
But they have clearly got it wrong according to Ian as they should not have been so irresponsible with extrapolation from the data they have.
Never mind the fact that they have irresponsibly been using the same kind of data for years now to set hunting quotas and on the basis of the data before them in 1996, they downgraded the status of the species on the list. and it seems to have worked, as numbers did increase under their management strategy, but hang on…they are also the guys who collected the data showing that polar bear numbers have increased since the 1960s and 1970s -but that’s ok, because they were not telling Ian there was a management problem then, so that data must be ok. It must be, that’s right isn’t it Ian?
But not now, now they have got it all wrong and are just of bunch of greenies with a hidden agenda.
Why? Because this time they have used the same tools they have been using for the last decade and come up with a different outcome, one Ian does not agree with, so clearly the experts have stuffed up big this time, haven’t they Ian?
You really are a very arrogant person – yet there appears to very little substance to back up your feeling of self-worth.
Overcompensating perhaps?
Perhaps if you have a spare minute in the next hour or so, you may care to publish a paper on the taxonomic status of the two so-called “species” and set the rest of the scientific community straight about the true status of the PB.
Can I suggest you try Nature?
Normally they would not touch something as run of the mill as straight out taxonomy, but surely they will be interested in your novel approach to the subjects of speciation and evolution.
It should give them a good laugh if nothing else.
Isn’t time for Louis Hissink to turn up and tell us that without mining there wouldn’t be any polar bears?
Know that at least one person read your post in detail Russell. I’m sure Paul will read it too. But who is open to that evidence? Some of it has been put up before. I learnt a bit but after all this shuffling, the PB arguments here still come down to each person’s view of AGW (I’m not getting into that topic here, it’s Luke’s ice berg). So we’ve got nowhere. Surprise. Even polite attempts get us nowhere, we may as well revert to trading insults.
Louis would be sponsored by http://www.polarbeardiamond.com/
Motty is used to bellowing across thick woods. He never puts up one scrap of evidence or a link, he likes to give his uninformed personal opinion on stuff, not learn (not even from his own genetic experiments).
SALE. Baskets for sale. NOW 30% OFF!
GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING
Russell, thank you for that information, I was aware of the distinctions between Trend, Status and Risk.
Of the 5 populations with a declining population trend, (totalling 4853 PBs), I can only see where one, the WHB population has actual data showing a decline. The others, as far as I can see, have PREDICTED declines. But as I said before, I haven’t read the whole thing yet, as you have. But I’m getting there.
I can assure you it was not a wind-up, but a request for information you said had been presented here, but that I could not find in the thread.
The species information was not something I had noticed in previous discussion, so I thank you for reposting it.
My position on PB numbers is that I don’t know whether they are currently stable, increasing , or declining, but the claim that they are currently in decline due to climate change seems tenuous.
As far as PB/GB species differences, I think the possibility there could be wild fertile hybrids is interesting, but I’m not making the claim that they are one species just yet. (My previous lame attempt at humour was not meant to be taken seriously).
Also, as the Polar Bear Specialist Group has classified PBs as Vulnerable due to projected loss of habitat, it would have been nice to see some discussion of previous PB adaptation to climate change.
The facts are the PBSG has extrapolated from a single population that occupies an isolated coastline at the same latitude as Scotland. And there are no Polar Bears in Scotland.
And yes, thanks for the official rationale for the PBSG’s position. But it is not a proof, merely an explanation of their position.
More importantly, if the primary genetic differences are only from 20,000 to 200,000 years in origin, then why is the same standard not being applied to humans?
This is, after all, essentially the same time frame during which the differences between East Asian, African and European hominids developed.
Or are you suggesting that it should be left to the various vested interests to work out whatever suits their fancy? And if so, which fancy?
Motty have you not followed Lukey’s and others climate debates? Still you are making up the most strange stories about latitudes.
My English is so poor so I’m not certain if you are joking or not…comparing Scotland with coastal Atlantic Canada. Remember this is serious stuff, OK?
Well, maybe your Canadian wife can tell you about the Labrador current?
Good question Motty, why don’t YOU tell US? Take each of the standards mentioned above for determining the species distinctions between PBs & GBs, apply EACH of them to humans and then let us know what the difference is. Obviously you’d welcome this opportunity to figure it out given what an important issue it is to you. We’re waiting…
Paul,
I have more Viking stories about tree-lines during the MWP in Baffin Bay , Canada… NO TREES IN BAFFIN BAY DURING MWP in Baffin Bay Polar Bear country, according to the Viking sagas… that was the reason why they sailed further down to New Foundland, trees were needed to build settlements and Viking ships….
The scarcity of trees or wood in Greenland was the main reason why the Vikings set sail to Canada…
Ann, I meant that Northern tree lines were further north during the Holocene Climate Optimum than today, not that there were trees in Greenland.
I note the sophistry in Russell’s last para;
“So it’s a recently derived species and obviously has a pre-mating (behavioural) mechanism that prevents breeding with the closely related brown bear.”
Oh, do you mean one is at the beach while the other is up the creek eating berries?
“The fact that this pre-mating isolating mechanism occasionally breaks down (in the artificial environment of a zoo?) and the offspring were able to breed themselves does not mean much. Periodically bears of both species are in close proximity and in all the time they have been observed there has been one or two records of hybridisation”.
But wait a minute, this is a population where they are only certain of decline in one population comprising 4% of the estimated total. They haven’t a clue what is happening with the rest so how credible is this “in all the time they have been observed” line?
But the last is a doozy.
“The pre-mating isolating mechanism obviously mostly works -hence the experts conclusion they are separate species”.
Now this is exactly the same sort of logic as claiming some sort of pre-mating isolating mechanism between muslim women and hard drinking rugby players and using that as proof that they are seperate species. Jokes about front rowers aside, it is pure gonzo logic of the first order.
There is, however, no doubt that certain groups of self appointed “experts” and their camp followers have chosen to draw this conclusion. But the entire human community does not, and will not, apply that logic and that conclusion to themselves.
So is all of humanity out of step with the “experts”, or are the experts out of step with all of humanity?
You’re good at empty headed PoMo deconstructionism & criticism Motty & small-world thinking but like all such victims of that mentality, fail to offer up any solid alternatives. Please detail your reasoning…
We’re all still waiting on you to follow through your critical attacks with your species explanation on EACH of the standards mentioned above for determining species distinctions. Or can’t you read? If you wish to discredit and disregard the accepted methods of deciding species then you should at least show that you understand them.
We’re still waiting on some substance, any substance, from you Motty. Don’t forget to factor in sexual selection as a selective pressure, eh?? Please tell us the differences/similarites between races of humans compared to those between PBs & GBs, applying EACH of the commonly accepted methods for classifying species raised above. Each of the factors Motty, put some flesh on your arguments, go on , you can do it. Or can you only engage in short-fuse ranting?
There is only one “standard” of relevance here Pinkpants, and that is the standard we, as a species apply to ourselves.
Whatever system is devised to classify species, it must include humans as well. For all the green movement’s species self loathing, we are part of the environment as well.
And it is not anthropomorphism for us to ask the question, “is this set of principles and criteria appropriate to apply to our own species”?
If the view of the human community is a resounding NO, then that set of principles and criteria is not appropriate to apply to other species.
As Andrew Bolt has pointed out on numerous occassions, the green movement is seriously out of step with some of the most fundamental and universal of community values. And no amount of invective and defamation on your part, behind a gutless shield of a pseudonym, will change that fact.
Here’s an interesting snippet on the species debate, captive Orang-Utans, that are capable of producing fertile offspring, are being kept separate because they are considered different “species”.
“Another case in point are Sumatran and Bornean orang-utans that, after their mitochondrial sequences and minisatellite allele frequencies were found to be substantially different, were proposed to be two species (15, 16), although they produce fertile offspring. As a result, “hybrids” are now not allowed to reproduce in captivity and long-time relationships between captive animals have been broken up. The wisdom of this policy is called into question not only by the fact that Sumatra and Borneo were connected by land until 10,000-20,000 years ago but also by the recent finding that nuclear sequences from the two groups of orang-utans do not form monophyletic clades (Kaessmann and Wiebe, personal communication).”
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/4/1320
What if this type of species identification were carried out in humans? Would we be classified as several different species?
Mott if you want to put some pants on your argument then you need to make your case not just jump straight to the summation. I’ve invited you to compare each of the common methods of classifying species between animal species and humans to illustrate your argument but you can’t. Biologists do have categories for animal sub-species & breeds so if there were appropriate, they would use them. You just keep repeating your opinion but do nothing to put pants on it. Really it shouldn’t be wandering the streets like that.
I missed this post somehow. I’ll start with the FAQ page from the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the proposed listing.
http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2006/PolarbearFAQ.pdf
Mitchell Taylor has a constituency to support in Nunavut: a lucrative sport hunting business, and thus is biased, crying hysteria. I don’t notice our scientists yelling “liar liar pants on fire?” It’s unprofessional.
The scientific facts are another matter.
“Is it true that Native groups in some of these areas claim that traditional knowledge indicates that local polar bear populations are actually increasing?
The Service respects and makes use of traditional knowledge in all of its decision-making processes, and will evaluate information from Arctic Native communities in Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, Western Hudson Bay, and other areas of Canada, which have recently reported increasing numbers of bears present on land. These traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased population, though others note that this could just be the result of a change in polar bear distribution. In the declining polar bear population of Canada’s Western Hudson Bay, extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat.”
All of this speciation fallacious discussion is the last refuge of denialists. Polar bears are specially adapted to life on the ice. [see above link]They have a harder time operating on land by evolution and thus compete badly with the much smaller and more combative grizzlies. Whether freak matings have occurred is irrelevant unless one has no counter argument to begin with, which is the case here. All winger sceptics speak from the same page. They have to since all facts go against them.
And now even Exxon has abandoned them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/
The jig is up.
Oh why not just deliver the death blow directly?
“Why couldn’t polar bears adapt to these changes in their habitat?
Genetic research indicates the polar bears evolved from an isolated population of the grizzly or brown bears 250,000 years ago. They are usually considered marine mammals since they are highly adapted to life on sea ice. Their fur, short snout, and small ears are adaptations to the cold; their teeth are specialized for a completely carnivorous diet (primarily of arctic seals); their feet have tiny papilae and “suction cups” for increased traction on ice; and their claws are shorter and more curved than grizzly bears. Their body structure and locomotion is adapted to walking on ice and swimming between ice flows, and they are not as efficient in walking or running on land as grizzly bears. If polar bears had to adapt to spending more of their lives on land, they would have to compete with grizzlies and other predators for prey items for which they are not as well adapted. Some polar bears spend portions of their on land waiting for the ice to return – for example, the Western Hudson Bay population – but during these periods when they do not have access to their regular food supply, they typically do not eat and instead live off their stored fat reserves. All of these factors would mean that it could be difficult for polar bears to adapt to living without ice.”