Polar Bears, Polar Bears Everywhere


Locutus
+2
#1
via sda: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/arch....html#comments


Conservation officers find more polar bear dens near Manitoba-Ontario boundary


WINNIPEG - Manitoba conservation officials have stumbled across a pleasant surprise — a large number of polar bear dens along the Hudson Bay coast near the Ontario boundary.

The dens lie in an area southeast of Wapusk National Park and east of the Nelson River. It's a region along the southern end of the polar bear's range and not as well-known as Wapusk, Churchill and other areas to the north.

"We've always known that there are dens in there ... but not to this extent," said Daryll Hedman, the regional wildlife manager for northeast Manitoba.

"We have a fairly large number of denning females in there, equal to or even maybe surpassing Wapusk National Park, so it's fairly exciting news."

Female polar bears dig the dens in the ground to give birth. The discovery could be a sign that the polar bear population in the area is in good shape, at least for now. The province is beginning a three-year study to get more detail.

"'For now' might be a fair statement, but that ice-free period is getting longer each year."

The area's polar bears are threatened by a shrinking feeding season. The amount of time every year that ice covers that stretch of Hudson Bay, allowing the bears to hunt seals, has been reduced by three weeks. That makes it harder for female bears to gain enough weight to give birth.

Climate change is also affecting the permafrost the bears use for their dens. Dens do not collapse under permanently frozen ground, but scientists are worried warming temperatures will cause the permafrost to recede northward.

Not everyone agrees that polar bears are in trouble. The Nunavut government released a survey earlier this year that said Canada's polar bear population hasn't significantly declined in the last seven years as predicted.

The aerial survey estimated the western Hudson Bay bear population at around 1,000.

That's about the same number of bears found in a more detailed study done in 2004. That study, which physically tagged the bears, predicted the number would decline to about 650 by 2011.


Conservation officers find more polar bear dens near Manitoba-Ontario boundary - Brandon Sun


Polar Bear stuff:


polarbearscience | Polar bear science – past and present
 
SLM
+5
#2


It's not that their numbers are increasing, it's just that fewer of them are heading to Florida these days.
 
Kakato
+1
#3
I thought they all drowned.
Why cant people accept change? Animals go where the food is and they will migrate to survive.Just because they do something out of the ordinary does not mean the species is near extinction.
This is one reason they survive,it's called adapting to your environment and bears are very good at it,Grizzlies used to be a prairie bear.
 
shadowshiv
#4
Interesting name for a link. smalldeadanimals.com.
 
Cabbagesandking
+2 / -1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

I thought they all drowned.
Why cant people accept change? Animals go where the food is and they will migrate to survive.Just because they do something out of the ordinary does not mean the species is near extinction.
This is one reason they survive,it's called adapting to your environment and bears are very good at it,Grizzlies used to be a prairie bear.

Still have not absorbed the fact that it takes thousands of years for the adaptation for most creatures. Even genetic mutations, often. The more advanced, the longer. The change for the bears is happening in a few decades.

They will not adapt.
 
petros
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Cabbagesandking View Post

Still have not absorbed the fact that it takes thousands of years for the adaptation for most creatures. Even genetic mutations, often. The more advanced, the longer. The change for the bears is happening in a few decades.

They will not adapt.

Many green types haven't adapted to the fact polar bears are omivores and will survive just fine without eating poor innocent seals.

PS the thumb was purly accidental so don't let it go to your brain cell.

Quote:

The area's polar bears are threatened by a shrinking feeding season. The amount of time every year that ice covers that stretch of Hudson Bay, allowing the bears to hunt seals, has been reduced by three weeks. That makes it harder for female bears to gain enough weight to give birth.

100% pure bull****, straight out the bull's hoop.
 
beaker
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

I thought they all drowned.
Why cant people accept change? Animals go where the food is and they will migrate to survive.Just because they do something out of the ordinary does not mean the species is near extinction.
This is one reason they survive,it's called adapting to your environment and bears are very good at it,Grizzlies used to be a prairie bear.

People accept a pile of change I don't suppose I have to tell you that grizzleys and polar bears are mating now. At least partly because their environments are changing with global warming. Now there is a change people up there likely aren't happy about as the worlds meanest carnivore has babies with the largest carnivore. Sorry,omnivore....
 
petros
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by beaker View Post

Now there is a change people up there likely aren't happy about as the worlds meanest carnivore has babies with the largest carnivore. Sorry,omnivore....

The most dangerous animal in North America isn't the bear. It's the moose. FACT!
 
Praxius
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Many green types haven't adapted to the fact polar bears are omivores and will survive just fine without eating poor innocent seals.

PS the thumb was purly accidental so don't let it go to your brain cell.

There I balanced things out for you.....

Polar Bears have been adapting to their ever changing environment for around 150,000 years... or 603,000 years ago.... or even somewhere around 4-5 million years ago depending on what information you go by.

They don't need to rely completely on Seals or sea ice to get their food and survive... if it can be eaten, they will eat it. If they can't get to the Arctic Sea, they will head south and look for food.

And the crying about lack of ice for polar bears to hunt seals on.... it's crap when you think logically about it:

If there's no sea ice for polar bears, then there's no sea ice for Seals, thus they're all forced to shorelines, and thus, much easier for Polar Bears to hunt seals because they're all concentrated along shorelines.

Now either the seals will stay where there's a surface or swim to their death... same as the polar bears.... and as much as some may think animals are dumb as dirt, they're not that dumb.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

The most dangerous animal in North America isn't the bear. It's the moose. FACT!

Fact based on statistical information relating to humans driving into them with their cars. (Not the moose's fault)

Quote: Originally Posted by beaker View Post

People accept a pile of change I don't suppose I have to tell you that grizzleys and polar bears are mating now. At least partly because their environments are changing with global warming. Now there is a change people up there likely aren't happy about as the worlds meanest carnivore has babies with the largest carnivore. Sorry,omnivore....

Oh they're just starting to do this now??

Funny.... everything I've come across says they've been doing this on and off for thousands of years... but you know, I suppose I shouldn't have to tell you this.
 
L Gilbert
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

I thought they all drowned.
Why cant people accept change? Animals go where the food is and they will migrate to survive.Just because they do something out of the ordinary does not mean the species is near extinction.
This is one reason they survive,it's called adapting to your environment and bears are very good at it,Grizzlies used to be a prairie bear.

lmaoGrizzlies descended from a brown bear that crossed the Bering Strait from eastern Russia a hundred thousand years ago or so. Eastern Rusiia is not prairie land. Russia's prairie land is in the central region.
They are and always have been typically a high country bear. I have no idea where you got the idea that they were a prairie bear but it's frackin funny.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Aug 22nd, 2012 at 02:06 AM..
 
Kakato
#11
The ice in Hudsons bay has not melted any faster in the last 7 years,the arctics pretty simple,hudsons freezes late september if the tundra is red and if it isn't red then early september.
The red tundra thing is something I learned from very seasoned arctic exploration people with many decades up there.
It has a lot to do with the winter darkness and lack of sunshine.
Something a lot of people neglect to remember about arctic melting and freezing.
The bears follow the melting ice and feed on washed up dead belugas or what ever is handy.

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

lmaoGrizzlies descended from a brown bear that crossed the Bering Strait from eastern Russia a hundred thousand years ago or so. Eastern Rusiia is not prairie land. Russia's prairie land is in the central region.
They are and always have been typically a high country bear. I have no idea where you got the idea that they were a prairie bear but it's frackin funny.

In North America they were perfectly happy on the prarie untill forced into the mountains by people.
I wasn't talking about Russia but the fact that they migrated here shows how good they are at adapting.
 
beaker
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

...Now either the seals will stay where there's a surface or swim to their death... same as the polar bears.... and as much as some may think animals are dumb as dirt, they're not that dumb.

Fact based on statistical information relating to humans driving into them with their cars. (Not the moose's fault)

Oh they're just starting to do this now??

Funny.... everything I've come across says they've been doing this on and off for thousands of years... but you know, I suppose I shouldn't have to tell you this.

Funny. Everything I come across says that this may have happened in the past but there is no proof. On the other hand it seems that in the last ten years as polar bears are pushed south by loss of ice it is happening now.
 
petros
#13
Quote:

Everything I come across says that this may have happened in the past but there is no proof.


On the other hand it seems that in the last ten years as polar bears are pushed south by loss of ice it is happening now.

Just like all your future scenarios of death a gloom. Where is the proof? Why would they go south where there is less ice?
 
beaker
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Just like all your future scenarios of death a gloom. Where is the proof? Why would they go south where there is less ice?

Kind of hard to go north where there is less ice.
 
petros
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by beaker View Post

Kind of hard to go north where there is less ice.

Less ice in the north than in the south? Where do you come up with this crap?
 
Locutus
#16
Sounds like the bears as behaving as if it's global cooling time.
 
petros
#17
Isn't it obvious Loc? Without seal fat they have to head south to a warmer environment.
 
Cabbagesandking
#18
Polar bears cannot adapt to this change any more than you could adapt to a diet of poison ivy. Those adaptations take hundreds, probably thousands. of years. What is happening is happening in a few decades. Cloth ears and blinkered eyes are all that can account for this denial of their predicament. It has been conclusively shown that they are in trouble in every one of the twenty something populations. They are declining in numbers in some; on health in others. In the few that are still stable, the ice conditions are coming a little more slowly but will affect then within a few years.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

The ice in Hudsons bay has not melted any faster in the last 7 years,the arctics pretty simple,hudsons freezes late september if the tundra is red and if it isn't red then early september.
The red tundra thing is something I learned from very seasoned arctic exploration people with many decades up there.
It has a lot to do with the winter darkness and lack of sunshine.
Something a lot of people neglect to remember about arctic melting and freezing.
The bears follow the melting ice and feed on washed up dead belugas or what ever is handy.


In North America they were perfectly happy on the prarie untill forced into the mountains by people.
I wasn't talking about Russia but the fact that they migrated here shows how good they are at adapting.

Why do you persist with this, kakato? The melt started three weeks earlier this year than is the long term norm. It will continue until later. Ice throughout the Arctic is now at the lowest extent in the record and probably at any time since the Ice Age. Even that is deceptive because the old, thicker ice is disappearing altogether and the new ice is too fragile for the bears.
 
petros
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Cabbagesandking View Post

Polar bears cannot adapt to this change any more than you could adapt to a diet of poison ivy. Those adaptations take hundreds, probably thousands. of years. What is happening is happening in a few decades. Cloth ears and blinkered eyes are all that can account for this denial of their predicament. It has been conclusively shown that they are in trouble in every one of the twenty something populations. They are declining in numbers in some; on health in others. In the few that are still stable, the ice conditions are coming a little more slowly but will affect then within a few years.

They've done it before. Several times in the past 70,000 years. But that is fact and you and facts are like oil and water..
 
Cabbagesandking
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

They've done it before. Several times in the past 70,000 years. But that is fact and you and facts are like oil and water..

They have not!
 
petros
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Cabbagesandking View Post

They have not!

Ursus maritimus tyrannus, It's current look is only 10,000 y.o. meaning it was the end of the Pleistocene and global warming that gave them todays' look.

Quote:

Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first "polar bear", Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth. http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html

Ain't clarity grand?
 
Cabbagesandking
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Ursus maritimus tyrannus, It's current look is only 10,000 y.o. meaning it was the end of the Pleistocene and global warming that gave them todays' look.



Ain't clarity grand?

Clarity might be grand. Next you will tell us what you are trying to clarify and what it has to do with sick and dying Polar Bears: with the steep decline in Polar Bear populations.
 
Walter
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by beaker View Post

Funny. Everything I come across says that this may have happened in the past but there is no proof. On the other hand it seems that in the last ten years as polar bears are pushed south by loss of ice it is happening now.

The world began when you were born.
 
taxslave
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

lmaoGrizzlies descended from a brown bear that crossed the Bering Strait from eastern Russia a hundred thousand years ago or so. Eastern Rusiia is not prairie land. Russia's prairie land is in the central region.
They are and always have been typically a high country bear. I have no idea where you got the idea that they were a prairie bear but it's frackin funny.

Grizzlies live right on the ocean from about Toba inlet north. Could be even farther south but that is as far down the coast I have ever seen one on the shoreline.
 
petros
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Cabbagesandking View Post

Polar bears cannot adapt to this change any more than you could adapt to a diet of poison ivy. Those adaptations take hundreds, probably thousands. of years.

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

They've done it before. Several times in the past 70,000 years. But that is fact and you and facts are like oil and water..

Quote: Originally Posted by Cabbagesandking View Post

They have not!

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Ursus maritimus tyrannus, It's current look is only 10,000 y.o. meaning it was the end of the Pleistocene and global warming that gave them todays' look. Ain't clarity grand?

Quote:

Hecht (in Chaline, 1983) describes polar bear evolution: the first "polar bear", Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and brown bear teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed polar-bear-type teeth. http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html

Why are the geologists at U of Maryland lieing?
 
taxslave
+3
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post



Why are the geologists at U of Maryland lieing?

Cause they forgot to ask the head cabbage what the real facts are.
Actually we could save a fortune by shutting down all public funded research and just ask the head troll what the facts are.
 
CDNBear
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Why are the geologists at U of Maryland lieing?

They aren't.

Cabbage is.

Seems to be a problem for him to tell the truth.
 
petros
+2
#28
Apparently. No clarity at all. Just B U L L S H I T
 
L Gilbert
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

In North America they were perfectly happy on the prarie untill forced into the mountains by people.

There were once a small portion of grizzlies that inhabited a part of the western US prairies, but the vast majority of them have and do inhabit forested, mountainous, and higher altitude terrain.
You are taking an exception and speaking of it as if it were the rule.
Quote:

I wasn't talking about Russia but the fact that they migrated here shows how good they are at adapting.

Whooooooooooooosh! That's the sound of the point flying well above your head. Sure they are adaptable, to a degree. The point was that grizzlies started out as high-altitude, rough terrain animals. And then they migrated, and a few adapted to prairie life. The were not originally prairie animals, as you said. lol

Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

The ice in Hudsons bay has not melted any faster in the last 7 years,the arctics pretty simple,hudsons freezes late september if the tundra is red and if it isn't red then early september.



From here: http://www.socc.ca/cms/en/seaIce/pastSeaIce.aspx

I know you don't like graphs, charts, and stuff because you haven't a clue how to read them (and they usually prove you wrong), but give it a try.


Quote:

The red tundra thing is something I learned from very seasoned arctic exploration people with many decades up there.
It has a lot to do with the winter darkness and lack of sunshine.

So explain further this "red tundra" thing.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Grizzlies live right on the ocean from about Toba inlet north. Could be even farther south but that is as far down the coast I have ever seen one on the shoreline.

Look at the terrain from Toba Inlet north. Those shores are on the edges of mountainous and/or heavily forested regions with very few people inhabiting them.
You are doing the same as Krapatoe and taking an exception and treating it as if it were the rule. Most grizzlies inhabit mountainous, forested areas. They always have.

Anyway, I can't see the population of polar bears dwindling. But I can see them evolving into being smaller bears because they have to adapt to a different lifestyle.
 
petros
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

You are doing the same as Krapatoe and taking an exception and treating it as if it were the rule. Most grizzlies inhabit mountainous, forested areas. They always have.

They sure as **** are now mountainous creatures because ranching isn't so great in those regions.
I'd head for the hills too if ranchers and farmers were shooting at me with a fancy schmancy Winchester lever action.

http://publications.gc.ca/collection...4-28-2007E.pdf
 

Similar Threads

7
Polar Bears: What should Canada do?
by CBC News | May 17th, 2008
2
Good News for the Polar Bears... maybe?
by dancing-loon | Apr 29th, 2008
9
Polar Bears up for grabs!
by dancing-loon | Mar 4th, 2008
0
Polar bears: Endangered species?
by CBC News | Jan 10th, 2008
2
Polar Bears Are Drowning
by #juan | May 4th, 2006