Polar bears turn cannibalistic as climate change depletes arctic food supply


DaSleeper
#121
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I guess it's what you could call "book smart" and "experience challenged"!

Naah.....Nothing like a religious argument to make tempers flare up
Last edited by DaSleeper; Jan 14th, 2012 at 11:06 AM..
 
Tonington
#122
Quote: Originally Posted by KakatoView Post

I flew through there many times and no one fell through the ice and the ice freezes and melts same time give or take 2 weeks.

Quote: Originally Posted by InuvialiutView Post

Autumn freeze-up occurs up to a month later than usual and the spring thaw seems earlier every year. The multi-year sea-ice is smaller and now drifts far from the community in the summer, taking with it the seals upon which the community relies for food. In the winter the sea-ice is thin and broken, making travel dangerous for even the most experienced hunters. In the fall, storms have become frequent and severe, making boating difficult. Thunder and lightning have been seen for the first time.

Quote: Originally Posted by KakatoView Post

Look Tonnington,untill you actually visit the arctic your a numpty,you have no experience and most Innuit couldnt give 2 ****s about your graphs so get some experience in the arctic and maybe we'll talk,untill then your just a numpty with an internet connection and a search engine and not a clue period,you would get laughed out of any Innuit community with your graphs.

I'll take the observations of the hunters who have spent their whole lives there over you.

Quote:

Oh...Pine point,ya,where my stepdads mom and dad grew up and my stepdad grew up.My stepdad knows everyone in pine point

Nobody lives in Pine Point anymore...the town buildings were moved when the mine closed in 1988.

But yeah, I guess we should all trust you over the locals. Whatever.
 
JLM
+3
#123
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Yup, as with the rest of this thread, I guess running a camp means Kakato knows better than everyone else, including the Innuit who have made observations themselves and lived their whole lives there. What gall.

I'd rather be book smart and camp management challenged than a dumb ass.

In the few matters where our knowledge coincides I find Kakato to be quite credible. I can't speak for the rest. The main thing is he and I can chat, and probably come away at least a tiny bit the wiser with no hard feelings. That stuff is important too. There is no need to ALWAYS be right as long as when we are wrong we are learning.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#124
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

While some of the claims Ross makes have been peer reviewed in other publications and by other researchers, I don't think increasing prevalence of cannibalism is one of them. It's definitely a plausible relationship, but I'd like to see how she deals with an alleged increase in prevalence when there has likely been an increased observation effort at the same time. If there has been increased observations, then she would have to account for this possible confoundment.

Do we have any hard evidence to show an increase in Polar Bear actually eating their own? After going back through the article and this thread all I see is anecdotal suggestion.
 
Tonington
+2
#125
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

In the few matters where our knowledge coincides I find Kakato to be quite credible. I can't speak for the rest. The main thing is he and I can chat, and probably come away at least a tiny bit the wiser with no hard feelings.

Yes, well I'm not saying he is ignorant completely. It's a simple thing to ask for evidence. He refuses to admit even that there are Inuit hunters that don't see the world in same lens that he views it from, and he's telling me that I should just shut my trap and listen to what he says because he's worked up there. He's telling me that anything I say is worthless because he's been there longer and has managed camps. He's telling me that anything I say is rubbish because I got it from the net.

That's called poisoning the well where I come from.

Quote:

That stuff is important too. There is no need to ALWAYS be right as long as when we are wrong we are learning.

I'm not trying to be right, my very first post expressed incredulity at the claims of Ms. Ross, whereas others outright said the claims were crap. If someone has good evidence as to why something is crap, then I want to hear it...seriously go back and read through this thread. Kakato has been asked time and again for evidence that he is right.

And I'm sorry, but whatever certification someone has from an occupational health and safety stand point does not mean they by necessity know what they are talking about. That's plain rubbish, and dangerous frankly.
 
JLM
#126
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Yes, well I'm not saying he is ignorant completely. It's a simple thing to ask for evidence. He refuses to admit even that there are Inuit hunters that don't see the world in same lens that he views it from, and he's telling me that I should just shut my trap and listen to what he says because he's worked up there.

You have a point!
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#127
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I'm not trying to be right, my very first post expressed incredulity at the claims of Ms. Ross, whereas others outright said the claims were crap. If someone has good evidence as to why something is crap, then I want to hear it...seriously go back and read through this thread.

I did and I still ascertain that her claims are crap. Until she brings proof that both Global warming and Bears eating their young are directly linked that is what it amounts to. I don't have to prove her claim, she does. I could claim that there is a Planet X, you can say I'm full of it. The burden of proving my theory is mine alone, because I brought it up.
 
Tonington
+1
#128
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

Until she brings proof that both Global warming and Bears eating their young are directly linked that is what it amounts to.

1. It's not just bears eating their young. Cannibalism includes large bears eating smaller adults as well.
2. It won't be directly linked. I explained this to mentalfloss earlier. The causal diagram will include intervening variables. Climate change is reducing sea ice. Shorter hunting period on the ice leads to inadequate energy stores. Malnourishment leads to increased cannibalism. That's about how the causal diagram would work. It doesn't have to be direct.

Quote:

I don't have to prove her claim, she does.

But you made your own claim. you said it was bull crap, and the burden or proof applies to claims like that as well as it does to her own. Have you read her article, or just the link mentalfloss pasted? Nobody denies that polar bears are cannibalistic. Her claim is that the prevalence is increasing, and as I said to Kakato, if you claim that this is BS without evidence, well than that is equally as faulty as saying that cannibalism is increasing without having the evidence to back up the claim.

Quote:

I could claim that there is a Planet X, you can say I'm full of it.

All we would have to do is check the coordinates. She didn't make a vague claim at all. she claimed that a known behaviour is increasing in prevalwence. That can be falsified with data. If you say it's BS without evidence, well then you are shirking the responsibility to back up your own claim.

Quote:

The burden of proving my theory is mine alone, because I brought it up.

Yes, so why don't you give us evidence to indicate that polar bear cannibalism has not increased in prevalence.

Absent of any evidence, the correct response from you would not be to ask for evidence of the original claim, not to proclaim that it's BS without adequate evidence to the contrary. Understand?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#129
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

1. It's not just bears eating their young. Cannibalism includes large bears eating smaller adults as well.
2. It won't be directly linked. I explained this to mentalfloss earlier. The causal diagram will include intervening variables. Climate change is reducing sea ice. Shorter hunting period on the ice leads to inadequate energy stores. Malnourishment leads to increased cannibalism. That's about how the causal diagram would work. It doesn't have to be direct.

Fair enough. Show the figures that include data that links the two even by degrees of separation.

Quote:

But you made your own claim. you said it was bull crap, and the burden or proof applies to claims like that as well as it does to her own. Have you read her article, or just the link mentalfloss pasted? Nobody denies that polar bears are cannibalistic. Her claim is that the prevalence is increasing, and as I said to Kakato, if you claim that this is BS without evidence, well than that is equally as faulty as saying that cannibalism is increasing without having the evidence to back up the claim.

Come on Man you can do better than that. The burden to prove a theory such as this rests with the individual who makes it. Proof is not saying, "Well you must prove that she is full of crap for her theory to be wrong." You yourself indicated that you have problems with this lacking the necessary data to back it up. Does that make your opinion null and void because someone claims otherwise.

Quote:

All we would have to do is check the coordinates. She didn't make a vague claim at all. she claimed that a known behaviour is increasing in prevalwence. That can be falsified with data. If you say it's BS without evidence, well then you are shirking the responsibility to back up your own claim.

Again I am not. I don't see the evidence to back up this individuals claim. Animals eat their young. Until I see direct evidence that links the two I find the theory extremely objective and given the source prejudicial.

Quote:

Yes, so why don't you give us evidence to indicate that polar bear cannibalism has not increased in prevalence.

Ahh the old pointy headed argument. Something I would expect from a 9/11 conspirator, not you.

Quote:

Absent of any evidence, the correct response from you would not be to ask for evidence of the original claim, not to proclaim that it's BS without adequate evidence to the contrary. Understand?

I am not above reversing my position if evidence is introduced to back up the claim.

Are you?
 
JLM
#130
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Yes, well I'm not saying he is ignorant completely. It's a simple thing to ask for evidence. He refuses to admit even that there are Inuit hunters that don't see the world in same lens that he views it from, and he's telling me that I should just shut my trap and listen to what he says because he's worked up there. He's telling me that anything I say is worthless because he's been there longer and has managed camps. He's telling me that anything I say is rubbish because I got it from the net.

That's called poisoning the well where I come from.



I'm not trying to be right, my very first post expressed incredulity at the claims of Ms. Ross, whereas others outright said the claims were crap. If someone has good evidence as to why something is crap, then I want to hear it...seriously go back and read through this thread. Kakato has been asked time and again for evidence that he is right.

And I'm sorry, but whatever certification someone has from an occupational health and safety stand point does not mean they by necessity know what they are talking about. That's plain rubbish, and dangerous frankly.

Maybe when it comes to book knowledge vs. knowledge by experience, the book knowledge covers a wider spectrum while the experience is more in depth for a smaller area.
 
Tonington
+1
#131
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

Fair enough. Show the figures that include data that links the two even by degrees of separation.

Causal diagram? Which part? Would you like to see data that sea ice is declining? That bear body condition is becoming worse? That is already published data. The new part we're discussing here is cannibalism prevalence. There are a great deal many relationships in this world and beyond that are not directly related.

A good example is bovine somatotropin. The growth hormone that is illegal in Canada, but not in the US. Use of the hormone increases milk production. Increased milk production increases the risk of mastitis infections. Use of the bovine somatotropin hormone doesn't cause mastitis directly.
Quote:

Come on Man you can do better than that. The burden to prove a theory such as this rests with the individual who makes it.

The burden is on anyone making a claim to provide evidence. The claim that climate change is leading to higher prevalence of cannibalism could be true, or it could be false. When you say it's not true that cannibalism is increasing due to climate change, without evidence, that's the same thing as someone saying it is, and without evidence.

That's what the burden of proof means. If you claim something, you need evidence. It's not up to you to show that her claim is true, just as it's not up to anyone else to show that your counter-claim is true.

Quote:

I am not above reversing my position if evidence is introduced to back up the claim.

Are you?

My position is that I don't know is cannibalism is increasing or not, I would change my position is evidence was produced. Here's my first post in this thread, yet again:

Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

While some of the claims Ross makes have been peer reviewed in other publications and by other researchers, I don't think increasing prevalence of cannibalism is one of them. It's definitely a plausible relationship, but I'd like to see how she deals with an alleged increase in prevalence when there has likely been an increased observation effort at the same time. If there has been increased observations, then she would have to account for this possible confoundment.

My position is that I don't know, so if someone shows me good evidence either way, that will be the direction I tend towards...
 
JLM
#132
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The burden is on anyone making a claim to provide evidence. The claim that climate change is leading to higher prevalence of cannibalism could be true, or it could be false. When you say it's not true that cannibalism is increasing due to climate change, without evidence, that's the same thing as someone saying it is, and without evidence.

I suspect there may be more than one correct answer to this. How many factors are contributing here? The individual animals, the location, the abundance of their favoured prey, the abundance of alternative prey and the suitability, etc. etc.etc.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#133
 
Tonington
+1
#134
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I suspect there may be more than one correct answer to this.

There may be more than one what and how. But whether or not prevalence is increasing is a simple dichotomous outcome. It either is increasing, or it is not.

Quote:

How many factors are contributing here? The individual animals, the location, the abundance of their favoured prey, the abundance of alternative prey and the suitability, etc. etc.etc.

There could be many, but that doesn't mean that individual factors can't be isolated. Regression techniques are pretty sophisticated, combined with biological knowledge and adequate numbers of observations the answer is certainly possible to elicit.
 
Johnnny
+5
#135
Quote:

I also hold level 1 and 2 supervisor certificates for remote arctic camps and have managed a few camps.

I respect those qualifications and i understand the nature of field camps and the managment skills needed to run them much better than most people on this board... I Know an ignorant comment.... For my age i have extensive experience seeing stuff first hand.. But that does make me a expert, it only makes me an observer like yourself... There are experts specializing in scientific fields for a reason and its why we listen to them... Ive seen many articles published by scientists and sometimes i may question what they write as compared to what ive seen, but in the end most of the time they can back up their facts better than myself for example.....
 
L Gilbert
+1
#136
Quote: Originally Posted by KakatoView Post

Ahhhh,the graphs have arrived! You folks have fun while I'm on my way to my next adventure.I am happy as I set up a well known bud in the Arctic to take over logistics tonight at the gig I had south of Cambridge bay last year.
He is one happy camper and is very experienced in the ways of the north and like me laughs at the numptys that post graphs to make up for their complete lack of knowledge of the Arctic,graphs allways make you look lame but I'm used to seeing this as are most that have been there.
I'm off to Saskatchewan in a few days to go exploit their oil,I figure 2 years and i'll be in retirement mode and maybe I'll buy a house there as I'm going to follow the money for a bit before the envirowankers try to shut it down to with more graphs and non educational B.S. that makes no sense.
I really dont care about what others say about the Arctic or their lack of experience in the north,they are only doing what I predicted and thats fearmongering over something they have no clue about,Tonnington has never been to the Arctic....but he has graphs.
This attitude will hurt the arctic for many years and the people that live there and that makes me sad,numptys that wouldnt last a day in the north preaching about whats best for the people in the north that live there and they are telling them whats best for them?
Well folks,you can keep this up and hurt the people you think your saveing(Tonnington) or you can go up north and then educate...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Moron. No-one's been to the sun either but we can sure tell it's hot, we can tell what it is made of, etc.

Quote:

I know that when it comes time for an exploration company to get someone to make things happen in the north I will be called,not someone with some non sensical graphs that dont really mean nothing unless your sucking for a govt. grant.

ooooooooooo we should all bow down to the great kakato, god of the Canadian north. roflmao



Quote:

You havent proven me wrong,you just showed your a numpty that has internet experience,sorry but thats not good enough to sway me.

You've proven exactly nothing except you're a big bag of wind here just to blow your own horn, too. For all we know, you're just some gofer for some Arctic tour outfit.
Quote:

Blows me away how many people are experts on the north yet they have never been there,too funny.

You've likely been in an outhouse at some point. That makes you the expert of experts on outhouses. It shows, too. Well, guess what, Peewee, I've been north of the 60th. You're just ASSuming you know stuff about me.
Quote:

I know the ice,I know the seasons and the weather anomalies that take place,something you wont see in any graph.My life and that of my mates depended on it and it's called experience,I dont think theres a single person that has worked in the north that would take tonnington seriously.
He has never been there,he's a numpty as we like to call them and I have zero respect for numptys as do every single Innuit I have worked and lived with.
The kabluna has to earn respect in the arctic,it took me a few years of listening to the hunters and elders before I earned mine.Most of you have no idea what it's like on the other side.

lol Such a hero! We oughtta erect a statue of you at the parliament buildings in Ottawa! Gawd knows you'd fit right in there with all the other blowhards.

Quote: Originally Posted by KakatoView Post

Look Tonnington,untill you actually visit the arctic your a numpty,you have no experience and most Innuit couldnt give 2 ****s about your graphs so get some experience in the arctic and maybe we'll talk,untill then your just a numpty with an internet connection and a search engine and not a clue period,you would get laughed out of any Innuit community with your graphs.

Oh...Pine point,ya,where my stepdads mom and dad grew up and my stepdad grew up.My stepdad knows everyone in pine point,tread very carefull here bud,Small world,I know lots of peeps from there.

Did they laugh you out of the community or what?
You deleted your post that im responding to,thats sad.

Have fun folks,off to saskabush in a few days.Lot's of oil to get out of the ground and a six figure salary to boot!

Try coming back with some evidence instead of just hot air.

Jeeezez. Can't come up with any support for his rhetoric so he scoots. For all we know he's sitting in his Mommy's basement 24/7 plucking photos off the net to post in here.

Run, Forrest, run!
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#137
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Causal diagram? Which part? Would you like to see data that sea ice is declining? That bear body condition is becoming worse? That is already published data. The new part we're discussing here is cannibalism prevalence. There are a great deal many relationships in this world and beyond that are not directly related

I believe we are talking about the polar bear claim. Got some graphs?
 
L Gilbert
+1
#138
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

Do we have any hard evidence to show an increase in Polar Bear actually eating their own? After going back through the article and this thread all I see is anecdotal suggestion.

That's about the gist of it. Where the big fooferaw came from were some of the claims Kakato was making.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I did and I still ascertain that her claims are crap. Until she brings proof that both Global warming and Bears eating their young are directly linked that is what it amounts to. I don't have to prove her claim, she does. I could claim that there is a Planet X, you can say I'm full of it. The burden of proving my theory is mine alone, because I brought it up.

Well, you can claim anything you want. My position about the OP is that I need corroborating evidence one way or the other before I leap to ANY definitive claims. And Kak didn't show ANY evidence for ANYTHING he claimed.
 
gerryh
#139
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

And Kak didn't show ANY evidence for ANYTHING he claimed.


He never does.
 
L Gilbert
#140
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

Come on Man you can do better than that. The burden to prove a theory such as this rests with the individual who makes it.

Right. So here we have two claims. hers is that climate change is causing an increase in filial cannibalism. Kakato and apparently your claim is that she's full of crap. Neither she nor Kak and you have provided any evidence for either claim. For all you know she may just have evidence to back up her claims. If she does, your claim that she's full of crap is proven wrong. If she doesn't have anything to back up her claim, then your claim may be right. It has nothing to do with proving a negative.
Quote:

Proof is not saying, "Well you must prove that she is full of crap for her theory to be wrong."

Right again.
Quote:

You yourself indicated that you have problems with this lacking the necessary data to back it up. Does that make your opinion null and void because someone claims otherwise.

Nope but, her having a lack of evidence doesn't prove that Kak and you are right either.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I believe we are talking about the polar bear claim. Got some graphs?

lol.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#141
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Right. So here we have two claims. hers is that climate change is causing an increase in filial cannibalism. Kakato and apparently your claim is that she's full of crap. Neither she nor Kak and you have provided any evidence for either claim. For all you know she may just have evidence to back up her claims. If she does, your claim that she's full of crap is proven wrong. If she doesn't have anything to back up her claim, then your claim may be right. It has nothing to do with proving a negative. Right again. Nope but, her having a lack of evidence doesn't prove that Kak and you are right either.

lol.

If someone tells me a Yeti ate their cat and I say that they are full of crap or that its a load of bull the burden of proof is not mine to prove.

From everything I have read this woman is offering anecdotal information to hedge theory on global warming. Notice I didn't say I think global warming is a bunch of crap. What happened here is that Kakato considers the whole GW debate nothing but bunk and from there it degenerated into "I am smarter than you - No you aren't!" pissing contest. Which really has piss all to do with polar bears at that point.

The argument being made in your last sentence above regarding the bears and the lack of scientific data sounds more like something a conspiracy theorist argument. Want to change my mind? Want me to retract the load of bull statement?

Show me some data that is neither subjective or anecdotal.

About the bears.
Last edited by Retired_Can_Soldier; Jan 14th, 2012 at 09:47 PM..
 
L Gilbert
#142
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

If someone tells me a Yeti ate their cat and I say that they are full of crap or that its a load of bull the burden of proof is not mine to prove.

Well. If I say a Yeti ate one of our cats I would have to come up with evidence to show it's true. Yes. But if you claim I am full of crap without having any evidence to show I am wrong, you are in the same boat as me. Like I said, this isn't about proving a negative. I make a claim. You make a claim. I show or don't show anything to prove mine. You show or don't show anything to prove yours. It's as simple as that. 2 claims need two proofs. If, on the other hand, you simply said you don't believe me. That's fine. You have nothing to prove. Also, if you had said you THINK I am full of crap, there also, you don't have anything to prove.

Quote:

From everything I have read this woman is offering anecdotal information to hedge theory on global warming. Notice I didn't say I think global warming is a bunch of crap. What happened here is that Kakato considers the whole GW debate nothing but bunk

That's my impression, too.
Quote:

and from there it degenerated into "I am smarter than you - No you aren't!" pissing contest.

That's not my impression at all. Mine is that kak declared the woman is full of crap and then declared climate change a bunch of crap. Ton and I loaded the woodwork with data proving him wrong about the latter declaration and he provided nothing to support himself. It had nothing to do with an intelligence pissing match, IMO.
Quote:

Which really has piss all to do with polar bears at that point.

It really doesn't matter if it had anything to do with polar bears, aardvarks, or gnats. The fact remains that Kak makes claims without anything to support them and refuses to acknowledge ANY evidence proving him wrong. THAT makes him seem to prefer to remain ignorant. And THAT last sentence makes it appear that he's not terribly bright, as well.

Quote:

The argument being made in your last sentence above regarding the bears and the lack of scientific data sounds more like something a conspiracy theorist argument.

All I said in the last sentence of my previous post was that a lack of evidence doesn't prove anything one way or the other except that there's a lack of evidence.
Quote:

Want to change my mind?

Only if there's evidence.
Quote:

Want me to retract the load of bull statement?

Nope. Just add that you THINK she's full of crap. There's a huge difference between stating an opinion and stating a claim.

Quote:

Show me some data that is neither subjective or anecdotal.

If I find evidence, I'll post it, believe me.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#143
I give up Polar bears are eating their young because of shrinking Ice.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#144
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I give up Polar bears are eating their young because of shrinking Ice.

lmao I question that, but whatever floats yer boat. (pun intended)
 
DaSleeper
#145
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I give up Polar bears are eating their young because of shrinking Ice.

Now you got it .............everything that happens from now on will be because of the new religion...graphs notwithstanding
 
Niflmir
+1
#146
Discussions with Kakato end up reminding me of Feynman's description of the cargo cult. They just couldn't see past the form of things.
 
Tonington
#147
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

If someone tells me a Yeti ate their cat and I say that they are full of crap or that its a load of bull the burden of proof is not mine to prove.

Yes well a Yeti isn't a real animal, there's no evidence the Yeti even exists until someone actually produces evidence. Cannibalism does exist. Increased prevalence is a real possibility.

Apples and oranges.

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Now you got it .............everything that happens from now on will be because of the new religion...graphs notwithstanding

That is a pile of crap. New religion...show me any religion that requires proof of claims DaS instead of relying on faith. It's faith without evidence to say that prevalence is increasing. It's faith without evidence to say that prevalence is not increasing.
 
Niflmir
#148
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

That is a pile of crap. New religion...show me any religion that requires proof of claims DaS instead of relying on faith. It's faith without evidence to say that prevalence is increasing. It's faith without evidence to say that prevalence is not increasing.

In astronomy the type of statistical error you are talking about is known as observation bias. With astronomy, it is very difficult to pin down. Are we not seeing any gamma-ray bursts in the distant past because they did not exist, or because it is very difficult to observe gamma rays from that distance?
 
Tonington
#149
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

In astronomy the type of statistical error you are talking about is known as observation bias. With astronomy, it is very difficult to pin down. Are we not seeing any gamma-ray bursts in the distant past because they did not exist, or because it is very difficult to observe gamma rays from that distance?

Yes exactly.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#150
"Mark Twain" (external - login to view)
Last edited by DaSleeper; Jan 15th, 2012 at 09:39 AM..
 

Similar Threads

7
Polar Bears: What should Canada do?
by CBC News | May 17th, 2008
9
Polar Bears up for grabs!
by dancing-loon | Mar 4th, 2008
0
Polar bears: Endangered species?
by CBC News | Jan 10th, 2008
3
Pet food probe turns to human food supply
by CBC News | May 6th, 2007
2
Polar Bears Are Drowning
by #juan | May 4th, 2006
no new posts