First Ever Wild Grizzly/Polar Hybrid Shot

tavilach writes "Jim Martell has a license to hunt polar bears, but when his latest kill had "white fur [that] was spotted brown and it had the long claws and slightly humped back of a grizzly," officials seized the body in order to conduct DNA tests. These tests confirm that the dead bear had a polar bear mother and grizzly father, the first documented grizzly-polar hybrid in the wild. This was lucky for Jim, who was facing a fine and jail time for possibly killing a grizzly. Scientists who would have liked to study the bear are not so lucky."

Comments

Good job...

[facelessnumber]

Now we'll never know what kind of mystical skills and powers it had.

Re:Good job...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cold Damage Resist +30 and Grizzly Maul lvl 8.

Re:Good job...

[RsG]

True. Does a hybrid bear shit in the woods, or on the ice flows? Inquiring minds want to know!

Re:Good job...

[FleaPlus]

Now we'll never know what kind of mystical skills and powers it had.

Indeed. We can assume that it was bred for its skils in magic, but was the magic divine, arcane, or perhaps even psionic?

Re:Good job...

[reddalek]

Apparently being able to avoid or dodge bullets isn't one of the skills.

Re:Good job...

[Thalin]

Apparently it couldn't stop bullets.

Re:Good job...

[dgatwood]

Dunno, but as the old pun says... the easiest way to catch a polar bear is to cut a hole in the ice, then wait and hide. When the bear goes to the hole to catch some fish, sneak up from behind and kick him in the ice hole.

Re:Good job...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we'll never know what kind of mystical skills and powers it had.

Is it pretty much your favorite animal?

Re:Good job...

[st1d]

I'm still trying to figure out where they're gonna hide on the ice, how sneak up on the bear on that same crunchy ice, etc...

Re:Good job...

[st1d]

>>Now we'll never know what kind of mystical skills and powers it had.

We know one thing for sure, it can play dead like nobody's business.

Re:Good job...

[stebe]

> True. Does a hybrid bear shit in the woods, or on the ice flows? Inquiring minds want to know!

I do not know where it poops, but I imagine the hybrid bear would have lower emissions than conventional bears.

Ursus maritimus + ursus horriblis= ursus prius

Re:Good job...

[maxume]

A hybrid bear shit's wherever it damn well pleases.

Re:Good job...

[SEWilco]

Apparently it couldn't stop bullets.

It did stop bullets.

Re:Good job...

[Hungus]

All joking aside if Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos (not horriblis I don't know where you got that one from) can mate and be fertile - FTFA = Stirling said polar bears and grizzlies have been successfully paired in zoos and that their offspring are fertile = then they are the same species and need to be reclassified.

Re:Good job...

[dylan_-]

All joking aside if Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos (not horriblis I don't know where you got that one from)

Ursus arctos is the general "brown bear". Ursus arctos horriblis is the American Grizzly bear (like Ursus arctos middendorfi is the Kodiak bear).

Re:Good job...

[Hungus]

Ursus arctos horribilis(2 "L"s) but thanks for the info.

I have always wondered why kodiacs are considered a subspecies since over 10 years ago it was determined the differences were environmental. If you feed a grizzly a kodiac's diet in the same environment then he is a kodiac and not a grizzly. Looks like polar bears are just another extreme of the same species - a sub species.

Re:Good job...

[MighMoS]

Something tells me it definately wasn't psionic.

Re:Good job...

[Malakusen]

And how to get a polar bear out from the artic waters through a hole in the ice.

I'm unsure of the bouyancy of a polar bear, but I'm pretty sure either he'd swim out and beat your ass, or if unconscious somehow sink like a rock or at least be carried by the current far under the ice cover.

Either way, this is clearly how a total idiot would hunt a polar bear, and everyone else would use a nice big gun.

Re:Good job...

[Malakusen]

It just did a crappy job of starting itself again afterwards...

Re:Good job...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not an old pun. It's an old saw. Actually, it isn't even that.

Complaints?

[Gertlex]

So whose complaints do we listen to?

Polar Grizzly or scientists?

Was it a mule?

[e1618978]

If the two types of bear can mate and produce fertile offspring, then
they are really the same species. Too bad they shot the bear instead
of getting it to hump another bear...

If the polar bear population folds into the brown bear gene pool during
periods of warming, that would explain how the polar bears survived the
previous warm periods (like the 8000 BC to 4000 BC "climate optimum").

Re:Was it a mule?

[RsG]

"If the two types of bear can mate and produce fertile offspring, then
they are really the same species."

Nah, different species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Look up "ring species" for examples where A can breed with B, and B can breed with C but C cannot breed with A.

Mostly this reflects the fact that the term "species" is a fairly arbitrary distinction that goes back before our understanding of evolution.

Re:Was it a mule?

[lubricated]

If the two types of bear can mate and produce fertile offspring, then
they are really the same species.
That's really an older view of things. There are many animals that are concidered different species even though a fertile rare hybrid appears. The most obvious is wolves, coyotes and dogs. But also different species of abalone, cicklids(sp?) are other examples. Biologists have a hard time defining on what exactly makes a species, because horizontal gene transfer among what are considered species happens surprisingly often.

Re:Was it a mule?

[e1618978]

But the two groups could *become* a single species, as the
earth warms the brown bears will migrate into polar bear
territory and start mating away.

Likewise, if things got cold again, the two groups could
re-differentiate.

Re:Was it a mule?

[chaoschimera]

If you actually read the article, it says that they've seen the hybrids in captivity, and that the hybrids are fertile.

Re:Was it a mule?

[PixelJonah]

Did you RTFA?

"Stirling said polar bears and grizzlies have been successfully paired in zoos and that their offspring are fertile..."

Re:Was it a mule?

[e1618978]

It sounds from the article that polar bears and brown bears
always have fertile offspring though. Of course, I doubt that
we have enough examples to know for sure.

Re:Was it a mule?

[lubricated]

Only if it happened in a short enough period such that the genetic diversity brought by the polar bears is not lost. There would be no selection to keep polar traits in the gene pool since they are disadvantageous. I would think biologists would describe that as just extinction of polar bears, and evolution of a new species.

Re:Was it a mule?

[lubricated]

Sure, but what are the chances of those fertile offspring breeding? It's ok to have a little gene flow, they can still be considered certain species, so long as there is little enough( has to be less than somwhere in the neighborhood of one individual per generation).

Re:Was it a mule?

[plunge]

We've mated camels with llamas. Are they now the same species?

Re:Was it a mule?

[qbwiz]

It's not just a matter of having fertile offspring when they do have have offspring, it's a matter of whether they have fertile offspring. If the two species don't interbreed very often at all (due to members of one species finding members of the other species unattractive, for instance), then they can still be considered seperate species, even if every child is fertile.

Re:Was it a mule?

[Lord Kano]

The argument can be made that wolves and dogs are the same species. I doubt though that most people would argue that coyotes are of the same species.

LK

Re:Was it a mule?

[Brandybuck]

that would explain how the polar bears survived the
previous warm periods (like the 8000 BC to 4000 BC "climate optimum").

Wow! Homo Sapiens was destroying the planet that far back?

Re:Was it a mule?

[Anonymous Coward]

(like the 8000 BC to 4000 BC "climate optimum").

Wow! Homo Sapiens was destroying the planet that far back?

Yup, one species at a time. That was probably when we were crossing mamoths of our hit list.

Re:Was it a mule?

[grammar fascist]

Sure, but what are the chances of those fertile offspring breeding?

Given that polar bear / grizzly hybrids are usually made fun of by their peers and ostracized to the point of reclusiveness, I'd say none at all.

Slashdot geeks are fertile, but do you see them breeding? Same deal. Someone ought to hook these poor hybrid cubs up with HL2 so they have something to do in their parents' basements.

Re:Was it a mule?

[bhiestand]

If the two species don't interbreed very often at all (due to members of one species finding members of the other species unattractive, for instance), then they can still be considered seperate species, even if every child is fertile.

So you're telling me Cameron Diaz and I really are seperate species?! I knew there was a reason she kept refusing to sleep with me...

Re:Was it a mule?

[tverbeek]

But the two groups could *become* a single species, as the earth warms the brown bears will migrate into polar bear territory and start mating away.

Grizzlies already live in territory all the way to the Arctic Ocean. For them to migrate any further into polar bear territory, they'd have to venture out onto the Arctic ice. A) Why would they want to? and B) As the earth warms, they may not even be able to reach the ice.

Re:Was it a mule?

[Bing Tsher E]

Pipe down!

You'll make baby Gaia cry.

Re:Was it a mule?

[trewornan]

The fertility criterion can be for the definition of a species - and the ring species thing is a red herring, after all it's hard to imagine how a chihuahua could breed with a great dane but nobody (I hope) would claim they're different species. This is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable definition which was used successfully for centuries.

Unfortunately some modern zoologists decided that they didn't like this definition and more or less arbitrarily started defining species however they saw fit. The result is complete chaos and no workable defintion of "species" now exists.

I still go with the original definition - if polar bears and grizzly bears can reproduce (and produce fertile offspring) they are the same species as far as I'm concerned. Modern biologist who would argue with this are arrogant assholes, at it's simplest they're just plain wrong.

Re:Was it a mule?

[Jozer99]

The offspring of the mix are fertile, but how about the offspring of the offspring?

Re:Was it a mule?

[ceoyoyo]

I expect people just underestimate polar bears. The theory is that if they can't hunt out on the ice they'll starve. Polar bears are highly intelligent and one of the few animals that will enthusiastically hunt human. They're good at it too. Ask a zookeeper with polar bears in his charge.

Re:Was it a mule?

[DavidTC]

Wolves and dogs are the same species. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Feral dogs, and even some domesticated dogs, breed with wolves all the time. It's not some rare event that only happens in a blue moon or through delibrate meddling. Ergo, same species. It's only the fact that dogs live with humans and wolves don't that keeps them from merging back into one group.

What's really interesting is, because of that, wolf-dog hybrids are more likely to attack humans than wolves. Wolves, while sometimes willing to attack human-sized prey when pretty hungry, like deer and even cows, have had the fear of humans genetically instilled into them, and thus a human being is literally the last thing they will attack for food. All the ones that were willing to attack humans got killed ten thousand years ago.

Dogs, OTOH, are not generally willing to attack any prey larger than themselves. Note I said prey. Even vicious tamed dogs don't eat humans. Dogs, however, aren't afraid of humans at all, and hence feral ones will attack humans. So a wolf-dog hybrid is basically a dog that comes pre-feraled.

Coyotes are a different story, as are foxes. There are reports of interbreeding, and some species even seems be the result of interbreeding in the past. But they don't appear to breed with wolves/dogs normally or easily.

Re:Was it a mule?

[DavidTC]

How about the parents of the offspring? Are they fertile?

Re:Was it a mule?

[Babbster]

Have you ever considered that maybe it was the way you were asking? Some women find notes made of pasted letters from magazines off-putting...

Re:Was it a mule?

[Sensible Clod]

I still go with the original definition - if polar bears and grizzly bears can reproduce (and produce fertile offspring) they are the same species

Why not just use another term that has been in use for millenia: the same kind?

The definition of "species" changes every so many years; the meaning of "kind" has been the same for virtually all of human history, in every language.

No need to overcomplicate things.

Re:Was it a mule?

[MadMidnightBomber]

that would explain how the polar bears survived the previous warm periods (like the 8000 BC to 4000 BC "climate optimum").

Wow! Homo Sapiens was destroying the planet that far back?

Er, around then.

"On Great Britain shade tolerant species like oak and ash are replaced in the pollen record by hazels, brambles, grasses and nettles. Removal of the forests led to decreased transpiration resulting in the formation of upland peat bogs. Widespread decreased in elm pollen across Europe between 6400-6300 BP and 5200-5000 BP, starting in southern Europe and gradually moving north to Great Britain, may represent land clearing by fire at the onset of Neolithic agriculture."

Re:Was it a mule?

[RedWizzard]

The fertility criterion can be for the definition of a species - and the ring species thing is a red herring, after all it's hard to imagine how a chihuahua could breed with a great dane but nobody (I hope) would claim they're different species. This is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable definition which was used successfully for centuries.

Actually that definition was coined by Earnst Mayr less than a hundred years ago. For most of history species have been definied by morphology. Mayr's definition is useful, but it's not completely objective - how do you assign species to organisims that don't reproduce sexually? How do you deal with partial fertility? Some big cat crossbreeds are sometimes fertile - are you arguing that lions and tigers are really the same species? If not, then how do you reconcile that with the fact that humans sometimes have infertile offspring?

I still go with the original definition - if polar bears and grizzly bears can reproduce (and produce fertile offspring) they are the same species as far as I'm concerned. Modern biologist who would argue with this are arrogant assholes, at it's simplest they're just plain wrong.

You're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an arrogant asshole. From the tone of your post that sounds like a bit of the old pot and kettle. There is plenty of scope to argue with the use of fertility to define species, and there is plenty of debate in biology about the definition of species.

Re:Was it a mule?

[jusdisgi]

Wolves and dogs are the same species. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Feral dogs, and even some domesticated dogs, breed with wolves all the time. It's not some rare event that only happens in a blue moon or through delibrate meddling. Ergo, same species.

Ok, the debate here is whether a species is defined as a group that can breed, or whether it needs to be defined as something else. As evidence in that debate, the GP noted that dogs and wolves can breed, but are seperate species.

So you chime in with this!? Saying, "No, wolves and dogs obviously are the same species! After all, they can breed!"

If you haven't gotten it yet, you can't use the conclusion of your side of a debate to invalidate evidence for the conclusion on the other side.

Please note, I'm only calling attention to your ridiculously flawed logic; I'm not contending that wolves and dogs are seperate species. Had you simply said something like, "Actually, wolves and dogs are the same species--canis lupus. Good point about canis latrans (coyotes) though." then I wouldn't be complaining.

Re:Was it a mule?

[mcvos]

Nah, different species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Look up "ring species" for examples where A can breed with B, and B can breed with C but C cannot breed with A.

"Being able to produce fertile ofspring" is the definition of "being the same species". Ring species just prove that "being the same species" is not a transitive relationship.

Re:Was it a mule?

[uniqueUser]

You are disgusting. Perv.

Re:Was it a mule?

[porcupine8]

Domestic dogs have been reclassified as a supspecies of wolves - Canis lupus familiaris . Mainly *because* they can reproduce. Of course, coyotes can also reproduce with dogs and still are a separate species, so the whole thing still isn't clear. But dogs and wolves are now the same species.

Re:Was it a mule?

[cutedinochick]

I doubt it was "modern zoologists" on their own who found issue with the biological species concept. This has always been a problem for paleontologists, as how do you determine things like this with fossils? All we have to go on is morphology, and the skeletal structure of a polar bear and a grizzly bear are very different, especially in the face. Morphologically, they are separate species, and are typically reproductively isolated by latitude/environment. A few hundred/thousand more years and they may have diverged enough to not be able to reproduce at all.

When species diverge, how do you determine when they become separate enough to be determined separate species? Significant morphological changes AND reproductive isolation don't happen at exactly the same time, and that gradation appears to be what we have here.

People who swear by the biological species concept are always going to have difficulty defining species. As easy as it seems, quite often, the distinctions make no sense at all. The truth is, the term "species" is losing favor, and diversity counts, etc. are now most reliably done at the level of genera in the field of paleontology. It is seeming more and more arbitrary to differentiate species, and one definition isn't going to work for everything.

Re:Was it a mule?

[Malakusen]

Oh snap! Mr "Oh no the liberals wrongly blame man for everything" got pwned!

Re:Was it a mule?

[dajak]

"Being able to produce fertile ofspring" is the definition of "being the same species". Ring species just prove that "being the same species" is not a transitive relationship.

This is not entirely satisfactory. With this definition you can (in principle) establish for any pair of creatures whether they do or do not belong to the same species, but you cannot make a partitioning classification of species that assigns only one species to any creature. Besides that, it is an extremely impractical method for establishing the species a creature belongs to.

Besides this so-called "biological" species concept, there is also the ecological, cladistic, phenetic, and recognition species concept. Traditionally mankind mostly uses the ecological concept (e.g. fowl = bird used as food, chicken hawk = several species of small birds of prey known to prey on fowl), and location (Guineafowl) and phenetic traits (e.g. Red-tailed Hawk) for finer distinctions. This makes much for sense for anyone but breeders.

Re:Was it a mule?

[mcvos]

Being able to produce fertile ofspring" is the definition of "being the same species". Ring species just prove that "being the same species" is not a transitive relationship.

This is not entirely satisfactory.

Oh, it definitely isn't, but it is, as far as I know, still the only official definition of species.

With this definition you can (in principle) establish for any pair of creatures whether they do or do not belong to the same species, but you cannot make a partitioning classification of species that assigns only one species to any creature. Besides that, it is an extremely impractical method for establishing the species a creature belongs to.

Exactly. There is, however, no other, more exact classification system of species. Thing is, species are kind of hazy. They're just a group of individuals that are somewhat related and share certain traits. But we're also related to chimps and share certain traits with them. Where do you draw the line? Any classification system is going to arbitrary in some way. The ability to produce fertile offspring seemed to be the least arbitrary.

Besides this so-called "biological" species concept, there is also the ecological, cladistic, phenetic, and recognition species concept. Traditionally mankind mostly uses the ecological concept (e.g. fowl = bird used as food, chicken hawk = several species of small birds of prey known to prey on fowl), and location (Guineafowl) and phenetic traits (e.g. Red-tailed Hawk) for finer distinctions. This makes much for sense for anyone but breeders.

But what if a red-tailed hawk, due to a mutation, doesn't have a red tail? Is it suddenly a different species? Or what, for that matter, if due to that mutation it suddenly is unable to breed with most other red-tailed hawks?

Which ever way you turn it, and whichever definition you prefer, there's always going to be some arbitrary aspects to it, and it will work most of the time, but never always.

Re:Was it a mule?

[dajak]

But what if a red-tailed hawk, due to a mutation, doesn't have a red tail? Is it suddenly a different species? Or what, for that matter, if due to that mutation it suddenly is unable to breed with most other red-tailed hawks?

If, due to some event, two of them get separated from the rest and start their own population and there is no or limited interbreeding? As long as the mutation occasionally occurs inside a red-tailed hawk population they will merely be counterexamples to the idea that nature lets us perfectly partition it into distinct species with both phenetic and biological identity criteria.

Compare brown eyes-blue eyes versus black skin-white skin. Only the second distinction led to racism because it is reinforced by the superficial ecological difference of occurring on different continents with different climate conditions. In this case there is of course no expectation of finding biological taxa, because we expect the vast majority of human beings are able to interbreed.

We are only interested in non-interbreeding pairs of creatures if there are also ecological and phenetic identity criteria to separate them. If there are no such criteria, the existence of the non-interbreeding pairs cannot be generalized to the existence of separate species.

Re:Was it a mule?

[Foolicious]

If the polar bear population folds into the brown bear gene pool during periods of warming, that would explain how the polar bears survived the previous warm periods

I'm not a scientist, so my question is how do they unfold once the warm period is over?

It's Coming Right For Us!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stephen Colbert should be pleased.

Lovely for science...

[pdes]

But how does it taste?

Re:Lovely for science...

[grammar fascist]

But how does it taste?

Somewhere between a grizzly and a polar bear, I imagine.

The bear of DOOM

[Julian Morrison]

So what we're talking here is a species that hunts humans, mated with a species that's known for being grumpy, vicious and well nigh indestructible.

Thank god this guy killed it! Jail time heck, give the man a medal.

Re:The bear of DOOM

[e1618978]

Since both species hunt humans, and are grumpy vicious, and well nigh indestructible anyway, I don't see how a hybrid would be worse. Polar bears and brown bears both kill people all the time. A Kodiak bear crossed with a Poodle, that would be a vicious mofo.

Re:The bear of DOOM

[Silentnite]

That poor poor poodle. Unless the poodle's a guy. In which case, that lucky lucky dog.

Giggity

Re:The bear of DOOM

[st1d]

Yes, but it may appear to be deceivingly harmless at first. I mean, picture a bear with the squeaky yip of a poodle. You might even be tempted to laugh at it...until it breaks every bone in your torso with a swipe of it's paw.

Re:The bear of DOOM

[ceoyoyo]

Grizzlies are just grumpy. If you don't bother them, they won't bother you. Polar bears LIKE hunting human. I agree it could make an interesting cross.

new name

[mayns]

The burning question: was it a Pizzly Bear or a Grolar Bear?

Re:new name

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually called a grizzlar

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/wildlife/
David Paetkau would like to call the odd-looking bear discovered in the N.W.T. in the spring of 2006 a "pizzly," but the geneticist who confirmed the creature was a hybrid grizzly/polar bear, lost out in the office pool to "grizzlar."

---
This anonymous post was brought to you by the image-protected password: "brashly"

Re:new name

[CptNerd]

It's called "you stand there naming it, I'm running thataway..."

Re:new name

[CODiNE]

It's actually called a grizzlar

Yeah but the POINT is... like ligers, do grizzlars have magical powers?

Re:new name

[DavidTC]

Remember, it's not the bear you have to run faster than...

oblig

[lubricated]

It's pretty much my favorite animal.

Re:oblig

[Ohreally_factor]

I'm wondering: do we call it a Prizzly? or a Grolar Bear?

Re:oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a Polizzly Bizzle fo' shizzle, my nizzle.

Re:oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

Please never post on /. ever again.

Re:oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay that shit was funny!

Re:oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

"Polizzly Bizzle" -HAHAHAHA

Re:Bit Old?

[AndrewStephens]

True, but has it been on digg.com? Thats all we seem to care about 'round here.

possibly killing

[Anonymous Coward]

This was lucky for Jim, who was facing a fine and jail time for possibly killing a grizzly.

Or was Jim possibly facing a fine and jail time for killing a grizzly?

Re:possibly killing

[Entropius]

I think he was facing jail time and a fine for killing a possible grizzly, but see my comment below.

So typical!

[CODiNE]

genetic tests showed the bear had a polar bear for a mother and a grizzly bear for a father.

Those grizzlys... always going after the blondes.

Re:So typical!

[Supurcell]

Yeah. As soon as they become the least bit successful, they turn their backs on their own kind and go find themselves a white bear.

Re:So typical!

[noemore]

I don't have mod poit's and you are already at 5, but that is the funniest thing I have ever read on slashdot. Bravo sir, bravo.

Re:So typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, It's my understanding that Polar Bears have black skin under their white fur. The purpose is to absorb as much of the sun's radiation as possible to stay warm, but still blend in with their surroundings.

Re:So typical!

[gstoddart]

Yeah. As soon as they become the least bit successful, they turn their backs on their own kind and go find themselves a white bear.

Bah! Who's to say it's not the white bears that are going after the black bears?

I mean, once you go black you never go back, and there's that whole mystique about the black bears. 'Forest fever' in this case?

=)

Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Entropius]

So it's apparently legal to shoot polar bears in Canada, despite the fact that they're considered one of the animals facing increasing threats in the future from withdrawing sea ice?

And it's also legal to shoot a half-grizzly, even though shooting grizzlies is illegal?

What a waste of a magnificent (and apparently rare) animal. I'm probably one of the more pro-hunting folk around here; I grew up eating deer and gamebirds shot by my father, and have a bunch of respect for people who know how to turn a shotgun shell or rifle bullet into dinner. But these wealthy big-game trophy hunters, who look for rare and wondrous animals only to shoot them and turn them into rugs or wall ornaments, make me sick.

Imagine if some guy wandering around the Antarctic finds a meteorite with evidence of Martian life in it, and whacks it with a sledgehammer...

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I read somewhere else that the hunter is now looking to get a license to kill a grizzly. What they should do is place these hunters on an island each with a single bullet and let them hunt each other. Then when the pay $50k for a hunting trophy they will look as insane as they are cruel.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Hannah E. Davis]

As I understand it, polar bears are huntable in the arctic at least in part because they eat people. They're extremely dangerous animals -- apparently, they're known for showing no fear around humans and having no qualms about eating human flesh, so there are parts of Canada where you actually do have to go around armed in case one comes by looking for dinner.

I'm still not a big fan of shooting them, but I can see why it might be allowed, especially near human settlements.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[MagikSlinger]

So it's apparently legal to shoot polar bears in Canada, despite the fact that they're considered one of the animals facing increasing threats in the future from withdrawing sea ice?

Polar Bears around that area are so numerous they're getting to be a big problem and they have to be culled. Mostly because Polars like to supplement their diet of seals, fish and walrus with fresh dump pickings. I've heard stories of smoldering polar bears wandering through the dump at Churchil Manitoba.

And it's also legal to shoot a half-grizzly, even though shooting grizzlies is illegal?

Apparently. But I guess the F&W folks felt it was sufficiently polar bear to count as a polar bear.

What a waste of a magnificent (and apparently rare) animal.

Understandable, but from TFA, they've created the exact same hybrid in captivity and even gotten them to breed. Which, to me, completely goes against the definition of species I learned in school. Go figure.

But these wealthy big-game trophy hunters, who look for rare and wondrous animals only to shoot them and turn them into rugs or wall ornaments, make me sick.

Yeah, but since Jimmy the Toucan went out of business, what else are you going to do with them? :-)

Imagine if some guy wandering around the Antarctic finds a meteorite with evidence of Martian life in it, and whacks it with a sledgehammer...

As I understand it, that's what scientist do until they find out AFTER they whacked it open. :-)

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Dachannien]

But they're adorable and they like Coca-Cola. How could they possibly be vicious?

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Anonymous Coward]

And when it was a book it was called The Most Dangerous Game by Richard Connell. Well, it was just one hunter and a guy as his prey. But same idea. It's a good story.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Anonymous Coward]

But they're adorable and they like Coca-Cola. How could they possibly be vicious?

Let me introduce you to my ex-girlfriend...

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[stanleyfog]

Oh get over your "environmentalist" views. If you're so proud of yourself for not killing animals do the rest of the world a favor... recycle your computer and don't buy another. Oh, and please don't breathe anymore; you're killing all sorts of innocent creatures man! This guys was in the legal clear despite the views YOU want to FORCE on others... if it'd been a pure Grizzly then sure, lock him up. "But these wealthy big-game trophy hunters, who look for rare and wondrous animals only to shoot them and turn them into rugs or wall ornaments, make me sick." Wealth envy. Give me a break :-/

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[dryeo]

And it's also legal to shoot a half-grizzly, even though shooting grizzlies is illegal?

Shooting grizzlies is legal if you have a tag, just not many tags sold a year.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Brandybuck]

It sounds like you're not so much pissed that a trophy hunter shot it, but that a wealthy trophy hunter shot it. This is class envy masquerading as ignorant environmentalistm.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I say kill 'em all, let's keep our place at the top of the food chain

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[st1d]

Ah, but what would happen if you put all those hunters on an island, and offered anti-hunting(?) folks licenses to hunt the hunters? Would they? If so, would you then get to hunt the anti-hunters? And on and on... :)

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[weicco]

OMG it's coming right fore us!

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[cgenman]

So it's apparently legal to shoot polar bears in Canada, despite the fact that they're considered one of the animals facing increasing threats in the future from withdrawing sea ice?

It's only illegal to kill something pointlessly if you're not rich enough to waste 45,000 dollars to do it.

That's your lesson for the day boys and girls. Everything is moral if you have enough money.

I'm not entirely opposed to hunting, but he'd better eat that fucking bear.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[maxume]

Perhaps the humans involved should show more qualms about living near polar bears?

As far as the polar bear understands it, humans are huntable in the artic because they are soft and tasty.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Bing Tsher E]

Indeed. And polar bears are huntable because they're in rifle range.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Bing Tsher E]

Naw, he's just trying to hit a few extra buttons by bringing class warfare into it. That's how political agitators 'build coalitions around issues.' It's how Marxists in the 21st century manage to draw people to rallies. (i.e. International A.N.S.W.E.R.)

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Mad_Rain]

According to the article, the hunter, Jim Martell, paid his Inuit guide about $45,450 for the privilege of hunting polar bears. I don't know about you, I think that a live, in-the-wild, polar-grizzly hybrid is worth more than $45,450. Forget that the hunter is wealthy, he robbed everyone from biology researchers to National Geographic documentarians to the general public.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Mad_Rain]

"Wealth envy" my ass. If I bought the Consitution and a Monet painting for $20 a piece, and then decided to use them as kindling for my next barbeque, people wouldn't be deriding me for "wealth envy." While there would be a number of people defnding my right to soak the things in lighter fluid and light 'em up, saying something like "he bought them, it's his property, and his right to do whatever he wants with his property," there would also be a number of pretty pissed off people as well. I would wager that more people would be upset because the world would have something stolen from them that has value, historical significance, and importance beyond the $20 I paid. Similarly, the hybrid bear had value over $45,000 that the hunter paid for the right to kill it. I'm not saying that he can't legally kill it, it was certainly within his right to do so, but it is unfortunate that this was the decision he made.

If you're so proud of yourself for not killing animals

Clearly you didn't stop to read very far into the previous post. He said "I'm probably one of the more pro-hunting folk around here; I grew up eating deer and gamebirds shot by my father, and have a bunch of respect for people who know how to turn a shotgun shell or rifle bullet into dinner." The original poster is not upset because someone shot an animal, but because one person took away something that was more valuable to many other people.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Citizen of Earth]

and have a bunch of respect for people who know how to turn a shotgun shell or rifle bullet into dinner.

Kinda sounds like a point-and-click interface to me.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[osgeek]

Then again, perhaps the bear would have lived its life unnoticed by biology researchers and the National Geographic documentarians. Who would ever gotten up close enough to it to really notice the differences? Look at the picture in the article... looks like a polar bear.

Seems like it wouldn't have been discovered if that bonehead hadn't shot it.

If scientists need to study the hybrid bears, they can always examine the specimens in zoos.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[ceoyoyo]

If he doesn't eat it I'm SURE somebody will. If the Inuit don't eat it personally polar bear meat has got to be worth a fortune.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Chris Burke]

Wealth only came into it because 1) this guy was wealthy, as he would have to be to buy the tag to shoot the bear and 2) only wealthy people have the time to waste to travel to far away locations just to shoot things to bring back as souvenirs.

You apparently didn't "hear" the real distinction, which was people who shoot things to make dinner versus people who shoot things to make decorations for their den.

I have family who hunts for sport -- as in they don't need to hunt in order to eat -- and likes a good trophy, but they also get a year's supply of venison out of the deal. That, to me, makes all the difference between connecting with our hunter past and killing things to feel like a big shot.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[penguin-collective]

Your use of the term "class envy" implies that you think that people disapprove of this kind of behavior because they want to do it themselves but can't. Sorry, but that's wrong.

The fact that a "wealthy trophy hunter" shot it carries a lot of information about the motivations of the person behind the gun. Talking about a him this way is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate way to summarize this.

More generally, disapproval of such frivolous behavior often has nothing to do with envy. Many people could afford to do this kind of hunting and still disapprove. Many other people have chosen not to be wealthy because they simply lack the desire for the activities that wealth enables.

Difficult as that may be for your shallow, ideologically driven mind to grasp, the world is not divided into the rich and those that envy them; in fact, in my opinion, most people who have a compulsion to earn money and display it are trying to compensate for something; they are to be pitied, not envied.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[mnmn]

Theres a difference. A hybrid is a pollutant. It may be fertile and mate with either type. That pollutes the gene pool of one of these species. We dont want that.

So next time you find a hybrid, or differing pairs copulating, make sure you shoot.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off you racist twat. It's "pure" inbred retards that should be shot.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Sparr0]

That the two can interbreed simply means that someone misclassified polar bears a few hundred years ago. They should have been classified as Ursus Arctos Maritimus, making them subspecies cousins of the Brown Bear (Ursus Arctos), Grizzly Bear (Ursus Arctos Horribilis), Kodiak Bear, Mexican Brown Bear, etc.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Tablizer]

And it's also legal to shoot a half-grizzly, even though shooting grizzlies is illegal?

I think if it became common, then it would be made into a law. The problem though is in identification. This person had no idea it was a hybrid. There are not enough of them to expect or train hunters to know better. It was a fluke.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[HardCase]

And it's also legal to shoot a half-grizzly, even though shooting grizzlies is illegal?

It's illegal to shoot a grizzly if you have a polar bear tag. Maybe he gets to keep half the bear and pay half the fine.

-h-

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[uniqueUser]

And it's also legal to shoot a half-grizzly, even though shooting grizzlies is illegal?

It is not illegal, he just did not have a permit to do so. RTFA.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Imagine if some guy wandering around the Antarctic finds a meteorite with evidence of Martian life in it, and whacks it with a sledgehammer...

Right, I'm imagining it. I see shards flying off in all directions and two large pieces surrounded by a number of fragments. Meanwhile an icy wind blows and already some of the shards are covered in snow. The guy lifts the sledgehammer again and mutters to himself "I really shouldn't be wandering around here, I'd better return to base.". He pulls his coat tight around him and trudges off through the snow, clouds of icy particles forming in the air in front of him with each breath.

Was there a point to all that?

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that these are mostly Inuit people we're talking about, right? As in, people for whom this has been their traditional home for thousands of years?

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Mspangler]

"And it's also legal to shoot a half-grizzly, even though shooting grizzlies is illegal?"

What- you expect the guy to figure "Hey, this might just be the first ever in the wild grizzly-polar bear hybrid!", stick a hypo in the bear's butt, then run the blood sample through the portable DNA sequencer he had carefully put in the backpack for just such an emergency, read the results, then either shoot the bear, or not, depending on the results?

Some things you can only figure out afterwards. Especially if you want to do it from outside of the bear's digestive tract.

Granted, fishing licenses in Washington State have gotten almost to the point where you need a laser interferometer ruler, a GPS, and gene sequencer to figure out if you can keep the fish or not. And all that still won't help on the Columbia, where you need an fish anatomy chart to decide if all the fins are there or not. (Intact fish are Gods, and must be returned to the river with apologies.)

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[ArghBlarg]

Careful with those frozen Antarctic microbes from space.. they might infect all of your sled dogs.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...especially near human settlements."

It seems it won't be long before this entire planet is a 'human settlement'

Re:Bit Old?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Yea, actually. About 2-3 days ago...

INSIGHTFUL?!?!?!?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf?

trophy "hunters"

[loomis]

This was previously discussed at another forum yesterday, and the general consensus was what a complete travesty it is that this animal was killed by a "trophy hunter."

Interestingly, the people who were most offended were other hunters. Not trophy hunters, but those who hunt legally as a means to control herd populations and to feed their families. In my experince, standard hunters aren't so inexperienced and quick to shoot at anything that moves than a normal hunter. I mean you've got to get somethingto show for your 45K right?

And now, because this "hunter" didn't know the value of this animal, it is dead before it could be studied further and / or protected.

Re:trophy "hunters"

[MaineCoon]

On the flip side, as another poster said - grizzlies are tough SOBs, and can be easily aggravated, and Polar bears will attack humans without provocation (grizzlies tend to leave people alone if you keep your distance and dont give in to their threats and try running away). Mix them, and what do you get?

Grizzly-polar bear mixes are dangerous for both breeds; its a DNA cross contamination that, if it occured more frequently, would water down both breeds.

It is sad that a fairly unique creature is killed. It is not like the hunter was out hunting grizzly-polar mixes, he was hunting polar bears. But it is also most likely a type of creature that should be taken out of the habitat if there is any interest in protected the breeds. It probably never would have been spotted if it hadn't been shot; it required close examination to identify it... the kind you don't do to a living and awake polar bear (nor the kind of examination anyone apparently though was necessary to do)

Re:trophy "hunters"

[MaineCoon]

Oh might as well add - as someone who grew up in Wisconsin, I hunted, but I ate whatever I shot... man do I love venison... but I hate trophy hunters as well.

Re:trophy "hunters"

[Firethorn]

I don't hate trophy hunters, even though I'm not one of them. I'm very much a 'eat what I shoot' type person, unless I shot a non-game animal due to disease, injury(putting it out of it's misery), or threat(it's looking to eat me). Though there are people who eat bear, besides the Inuit.

I just think that if the government feels that it needs to hand out a limited number of tags, to manage a large predator population, it should be like the indians and seek the largest use from it.

If that means catering to the 'rich british safari' type, so be it. ;)

Re:trophy "hunters"

[Bing Tsher E]

And now, because this "hunter" didn't know the value of this animal, it is dead before it could be studied further and / or protected.

Yes. The true tragedy in this incident is that 'scientists' didn't have time to write a handful of grant proposals to 'study' it.

Re:trophy "hunters"

[Miraba]

Hate to break it to you, but this wasn't a unique animal. If scientists want to study a polar/grizzly cross, all they need to do is go to a zoo that already has one.

As others have pointed out, conservation biology says that this cross is a bad thing, meaning it has very low value and should not be protected. See controversy over the conservation of various big cats through cross-breeding for more info.

Re:Old News

[tavilach]

Are you sure you didn't just read about the shooting of a bear that might be a hybrid? The DNA confirmation is recent, I believe.

Stephen Colbert predicted such a monster!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a godless killing machine without a soul!

Must be a really rare spawn

[Winlin]

I wonder what it drops? And if it's something good, when does it pop next?
Note to self...really gotta take a break from MMORPGs

Headline misleading

[plunge]

We've mated these two species in captivity. Therefore, this is not the "first ever" hybrid. The person who submitted and the person who accepted, the article writeup did not read the article.

Re:Headline misleading

[Who235]

Read it again, friend. It says "First Ever WILD Grizzly/Polar Hybrid Shot" (emphasis mine).

Wild in this case certainly means not bred in captivity.

So maybe Parent should have spent less time reading TFA and more time reading TFH.

Re:Headline misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

you might want to reread that headline

Re:Headline misleading

[Lord Kano]

It's the first wild one that we know of being shot.

Was it really that hard to figure out?

LK

Re:Headline misleading

[Cheapy]

Good thing "Wild" is in the title.

Re:Headline misleading

[Bing Tsher E]

And now that a 'first' has been shot, the 'Game Farms' will clamor to be the first to breed a 'wild' hybrid that 'Big Game Hunters' can shoot in large fenced enclosures**.

Because 'Sir Caldwell McPweepwee of Nottingham' now has a trophy that all the other stuffed shirts will want.

(** the notion of 'game farm' bred grizzy bears is amusing, actually)

Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[yankpop]

Some details for your consideration:

Inuit communities are allowed a certain number of polar bear tags each season, based in part on the idea of sustainable yield (how sustainable I can't say). This is in recognition of the importance of the polar bear hunt in their traditional culture.

Each community decides how to allot their tags. Some places use all of the tags internally for subsistence hunting. Others sell a portion of them to big-game hunters, which brings a lot of money to the community. This is arguably a more efficient form of subsistence hunting: What's a better use of the resource, a) killing a bear and eating it or b)selling the chance to shoot a bear to a rich hunter and then spending the tens of thousands of dollars raised on feeding your community? Tags for outsiders are only available through the Inuit communities.

And yes, it's true that polar bears are dangerous, and anyone working in the arctic needs to carry a rifle in case of emergency encounters. Government research projects are extremely touchy about this (my wife's been up a few times) - spotting a bear anywhere near a camp results in the camp being moved rather than risk the death of a bear or a human. However, the suggestion by another poster that the hunt is necessary to keep communities safe is bullshit. Which is not to say nuisance bears won't get killed, but it certainly won't be part of the hunting tag system.

yp.

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[ElMiguel]

If the reason why Inuit communities are allowed to hunt polar bear is because this is deemed to be part of their traditional culture, why are they allowed to sell their "polar bear tags" to non-Inuits? Is trading their traditions for money also part of their traditional culture? Or is Inuit traditional culture just Canadian government's pretext to explain why polar bear hunting is allowed, the real reason being that it brings good money into Canadian economy?

Just wondering.

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, trading your traditions for money is an integral part of all human cultures I am aware of, so I don't see how it wouldn't be a part of Inuit culture, even if they were somewhat isolated for a long time.

I'm sure selling the permits is at least as moral as another culture populating the traditional hunting grounds of another, and then threatening to jail members of the older culture if they hunt more of their traditional food sources than allowed by some bureaucrat.

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[yankpop]

I expect that the amount of money polar bear hunting brings to the Canadian economy is trivial. However, it is far from trivial for the native communities involved. And given all that the Canadian government has imposed on the Inuit, I think it's a good thing that they've allowed them to make their own decisions in at least this one aspect of managing their resources.

If I recall correctly, Scotland (could've been another north Atlantic country, my undergrad is a long ways back now) adopted a similar policy with respect to their salmon fishery, ie. limiting the number of tags available to locals to take advantage of the much greater return available by catering to rich overseas fishermen. Again, I think it's a responsible decision: given that an animal is going to die, is it better that it feeds a few people directly, or many people through the sale of a much sought-after tag?

Of course, not everyone agrees with this. That's why some Inuit communities don't sell any tags to outsiders.

yp.

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[Deusy]

"...anyone working in the arctic needs to carry a rifle in case of emergency encounters."

Erm... estimated world population of barely 22,000 for polar bears. How many billions of humans are there? 6? 7? 8!? I forget.

Anyway, my point? We should be giving the rifles to the polar bears, if only they could use them.

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[Citizen of Earth]

Is trading their traditions for money also part of their traditional culture?

It's part of the more modern aboriginal culture everywhere in the world. There wouldn't be much attendance if they opened a casino, and there isn't much opportunity for smuggling.

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[DavidTC]

Except that not shooting them wouldn't do anything about the problem of them not having anywhere to live. The amount of polar bears is exactly correctly, even slightly too much, for the amount of area they have to live in.

The only way to get more polar bears is to give them more territory.

Complaining about the few people hunting them is like complaining about how few deers there are in a certain area because development has destroyed their habitat, and thus people shouldn't hit them with their cars. That's not going to do a damn thing to recover the deer population.

And in this case, we can't just 'move back', because 'we' aren't the problem(1). Humans rarely live where polar bears live. If the area is warm enough for humans, it's warm enough for other bears, like, oh, grizzlies, which come in and take the land away from the polar bears. (Because, apparently polar bears are incompetant and have only one advantage over other bears.)P> So there are very few solutions: We can start hunting all bears slightly south except polar bears, we can figure out how to get more polar ice caps, or we can just accept the fact that polar bear population is a function of how much land exists that is isn't habitable by other bears.

1) That is, we aren't physically the problem. It's possibly that the shinking ice is due to human actions.

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[ElMiguel]

To restate my point, if you allow Inuit communities to trade their "polar bear tags" for money it means that polar bear hunting is nothing but an economic subsidy.

Given that polar bears are now considered an endangered species, that makes a big difference.

I don't know Inuit traditions, but it is possible that the role of a polar bear is irreplaceable in some of them. If that is the case, I can understand the argument for allowing some hunting, even if I may not agree.

However, if hunting is just intended as a money making resource, then it is just looks completely irresponsible on the government's part. I'm sure the Canadian government can think of other ways of making money that do not involve hunting endangered species.

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[yankpop]

First: it is not "an economic subsidy". That suggests that the government is propping up an industry that is not economically viable. This is no the case - the price for a tag is ultimately set by the market, and the government does not need to supply any sort of subsidy. The only role of the government is to provide the oversight necessary to make sure that the hunts are conducted responsibly wrt to bear populations.

Second: the bears are not endangered by hunting. All else remaining the same, the hunt could continue indefinitely without causing the extinction of the species. All else does not remain the same, of course, and the melting of the polar icecap may well drive the bears to extinction. But how reasonable is it for us southerners to impose upon the Inuit to fix our mistakes: "Sorry, but we've fucked up the climate, and 20000 or so bears will likely die as a result, but since we're too lazy or stupid to correct the problem, you'll have to forego your annual hunt of a few dozen of those animals." Basically, that's saying that we want to be responsible for killing all the bears, not just most of them. Not very helpful.

I'm not sure the distinction between 'money making resource' and 'Inuit tradtions' is all that useful. The Inuit tradition includes hunting polar bears. Why is it ok for them to hunt and eat the bears, and use the skins to make their traditional clothes, but not ok for them to sell the tags and use the money to buy food and clothing? That's a little mean-spirited I think. First we forced them off the land into permanent settlements, tried our damnedest to beat their language and tradition out of them, supplied them with addictive substances of all kinds... now you want to turn around and tell them that to use their local resources they have to pretend that money doesn't exist? After all the crap has been dumped on them they should ignore any possible benefit from european cultures?

You do understand that these people live in the tundra, right? What do you suggest that they do instead? Agriculture? What's lichen selling for these days? IT? you want to set up a call centre where english is a second language and the only connection to the US is via radio-phone? Manufacturing? What could you possibly make and distribute at a competitive price when all raw materials have to be flown up in a bush plane, or sent annually on a freighter - and the finished product has to go back the same way. No, the only thing these people have is their natural resources, and aside from a few diamond mines, eco-tourism (including hunting and scientific research) are about the only way to make a buck.

yp.

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[complete loony]

Help it's heading straight for me....

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[ElMiguel]

It seems that my point is still being missed. If the problem is the money, the government could simply hand it out to the Inuits. There is no reason at all why that money needs to be made by giving polar bear hunting rights to non-Inuit people. All this policy results in is more dead polar bears and the Canadian government saving some money. Therefore, the Canadian government is trading dead polar bears for money.

By the way, as a "Southerner" I don't consider myself any more guilty of global warming than Inuits. Chances are I use up quite a lot less energy than the average Inuit, seeing as I don't live in the tundra.

And also, if hunting polar bears is that important to them, doesn't it make sense to try and avoid their extinction? They're not going to be hunting many polar bears after they go extinct.

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

The article you linked states right at the beginning that it is petitioning to put polar bears on the endangered species list because of fears that the polars bears may be driven to extinction by global warming. Polar bears are not currently considered an endangered species. That article does not support your point at all...

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

What seems clear is that _you_ are not getting it. The parent poster made it pretty clear that it is not about money and the polar bears are not in danger of being hunted into extinction. So the "point" you keep trying to raise is really just your opinion, with nothing of substance to back it up.

And now you are trying to insinuate that the Inuit are large contributers to global warming and, hence, may be driving the polar bears to extinction by global warming? Are you kidding?

Re:Canadian Polar Bear Hunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, it's one of our proud and noble traditions, eh? When we Canadians say we're going out clubbing, we're not talking about discotheques...

Headline not misleading

[Solra Bizna]

The headline: First Ever Wild Grizzly/Polar Hybrid Shot. Emphasis mine.

-:sigma.SB

Slashdot FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go submitter with this:
Scientists who would have liked to study the bear are not so lucky
Get out of your moral pulpit, no one is interested.

Nowhere in the article does it say anyone wanted to study the carcass. They've crossbred polr and grizzly bears in captivity before, I'm sure they have all the data they want from those expermients. This is simply the first time it's been seen in the wild.

Re:Slashdot FUD

[djchristensen]

Nowhere in the article does it say anyone wanted to study the carcass. They've crossbred polar and grizzly bears in captivity before, I'm sure they have all the data they want from those experiments.

You've got it exactly backwards. Sure, no one is interested in studying the carcass, because they've done all they need on captive hybrids. But I bet there are plenty of scientists who would love to get the chance to radio-tag a live one and follow it around in the wild for a while. Does it behave like a grizzly or a polar bear? Does it get along with others of either type of bear? And many more questions.

A dead bear tells no tales that haven't already been heard. A living bear would be intensely interesting to the scientific community.

Re:Slashdot FUD

[st1d]

True to a point, but it's worth bearing (um, the pun just kind of appeared, sorry) in mind that the lifestyle of a single wild hybrid really wouldn't do much more than offer an idea of what kind of life such hybrids might live. You'd need a substantial population of such animals to gain any truly scientific insights. Studying one "Polar Grizzly" would more likely carry the danger of misleading scientists, on a statistical basis alone. Could you observe one random person and determine the habits of the entire species?

That said, I didn't see anything mentioned about the bear's age. Anyone know? Perhaps our PG managed to carry on his kind, more or less. My guess, based on heavy Slashdot-based research, is that there are thousands of these bears, they just burrow into the ice when people are around. After everyone leaves, they surface and throw some of the wildest parties this side of the equator. :)

Re:Slashdot FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you need to study a lot. One is closer to a lot than none. Therefore it would have been good to study this one.

Scientists are perfectly well aware of what small number statistics can do to your sample (well, the ones I know are, I don't know any biologists but I hope they aren't clueless). Look up "cosmic variance" some time for a truly cool example.

Certainly, studing this one would have been preliminary evidence against your "party at the equator" theory...

Re:Slashdot FUD

[DavidTC]

Except this one was DEAD, you lunatics. He shot and killed it, thinking it was a polar bear, and then days later it was confirmed to be a hybrid.

What the hell did you think happened? He was out hunting and captured a one-ton animal, brought it back with him, had it DNA tested, and then blew its brains out?

I swear to God, people have not only stoped reading the articles, but now the stuff they're imagining the articles said doesn't even make any damn sense.

Re:Slashdot FUD

[djchristensen]

Umm, the fact that the bear is dead was not at issue. We were discussing whether or not it would have been scientifically useful to have tagged and studied the bear while it was still living. Purely an academic discussion, I assure you, with absolutely no misunderstanding of the contents of the article.

life imitates art

[drDugan]

jesus christ (PBUH) - life imitates art!

this is straight out of colbert

What does Hanso have to say about this?

[EddieBurkett]

Could this just be part of the "Repatriation Accelerated De-territorialization of Ursus Maritimus through gene therapy and extreme climate change?"

The only question I have is...

[hot soldering iron]

What did it taste like? Grizzly or Polar?

Re:The only question I have is...

[Anonymous Coward]

What did it taste like? Grizzly or Polar?

Chicken.

Re:The only question I have is...

[Anonymous Coward]

It tasted like chicken.

from the no-one-tell-stephen-colbert dept.

[Kenshin]

"from the no-one-tell-stephen-colbert dept."

Well, it looks like someone missed an episode last week...

*snort*

[Anonymous Coward]

A Koodliak! HAHAHAHAHA!

I don't know why, but you are correct, that would be a mean nasty mutha! I want one! All the bubbas around here got their lame pitbulls, I need MORE POWER!

Re:*snort*

[Anonymous Coward]

it'd probably be called a Grizzoodle.

which, actually, is probably the best poodle-hybrid name i've ever seen.

Thanks for Really Vicious Bears

[MonkeyBoyo]

Polar bears have a reputation of relentlessly going after anything they can eat, even if it is humans in a strong cage firing guns at them. It is not easy to find food in the artic. Grizzly bears are just big strong bullies. A top boar will get much of his meat just by appropriating killed flesh from any bear he can intimidate. But they are not all that vicious. Now that global warming is forcing the polar bears out of the artic, I'm sure that there will be many such hybrids. I just don't want to meet one.

Re:Old News

[Txiasaeia]

The story with DNA confirmation is five days old.

I can explain it

[greg1104]

That might explain how a grizzly got to the region, but few can explain how it managed to get along with a polar bear long enough to mate.

Clearly none of the people speculating spend much time drinking. You can mate anything with enough Tequila.

Re:I can explain it

[syukton]

I can explain it too: the grizzly raped the polar bear.

Re:I can explain it

[Farmer Tim]

You can mate anything with enough Tequila.

On the other hand, its pretty hard to say no to a 500kg bear. Not that I frequent those kind of bars...

Re:I can explain it

[wkitchen]

That reminds me of a joke I heard long ago.

While working in Alaska, an oil worker from Texas decides he wants to try to fit in and be accepted by the locals. So, while at a bar, he asks what he would have to do to be considered a real Alaskan. A local fella tells him that there are three steps. First, he has to drink a pint of Alaskan whisky in a single draught. Second, he has to shoot a polar bear. And third, he has to make love to an Eskimo woman.

After downing the whisky, he wobbles out of the bar, banging into the door frame on the way out. In a few hours he returns with one boot, shredded clothing, bloody scrapes and gouges from head to toe, and missing an ear. He looks around then asks, "Now where's that Eskimo woman I'm supposed to shoot?".

Re:I can explain it

[FusionDragon2099]

And I have the potbellied elephants to prove it.

Could be better!

[mangu]

Apparently it couldn't stop bullets

Yes, but if he had wanted to dodge bullets he could have learned from this guy.

A reasonable altyernative

[mangu]

polar bears are huntable in the arctic at least in part because they eat people.

Then why not make the areas where polar bears live off-limits to humans? We inhabit every single part of the Earth, why not leave some space for other animals? If an animal species is being driven to extintcion due to habitat encroachment by humans, then it's only reasonable that humans stay off that species' natural habitat.

IMHO, a polar bear is justified in killing a human because it's in his nature, but a human is supposed to be "rational", which means, logical reasoning should prevail over his instinct to kill.

Re:A reasonable altyernative

[Firethorn]

Then why not make the areas where polar bears live off-limits to humans?

Because then the bears breed and expand their population, which expands their territory and suddenly the bears are threatening our enclaves again.

I believe that the limit is something around a hundred bears a year. That's why you get the rich 'big game hunters' as they're the only ones who can afford the resulting high fees.

If an animal species is being driven to extintcion due to habitat encroachment by humans, then it's only reasonable that humans stay off that species' natural habitat.

They're not endangered, though their population density is tiny. And their 'natural' habitat is anywhere there's food, minus areas where more warm climate adapted bears take the territory.

IMHO, a polar bear is justified in killing a human because it's in his nature, but a human is supposed to be "rational", which means, logical reasoning should prevail over his instinct to kill.

We haven't wiped out the Polar Bears entirely, nor that many other large species recently in the northern hemisphere. I'd tend to say we are controlling it, and death/predation is both part of nature and man.

Re:A reasonable altyernative

[Bing Tsher E]

a human is supposed to be "rational", which means, logical reasoning should prevail over his instinct to kill.

So you're saying we are 'higher than the animals' and as we're 'above' them, we should establish thoughtful dominion over them.

Don't look now, but your front lawn is full of angry shouting animal rights nuts.

Re:A reasonable altyernative

[SocietyoftheFist]

How about I live where I want? I have a right to defend myself, just like any other animal would defend itself, and the fact that I can handle and use lethal weapons makes my defense easier. If I chose to live in an area inhabited by polar bears we are in competition and therefore I have a right to assure my survival. You should get in the real world.

Re:A reasonable altyernative

[aevan]

I'm pretty sure the Inuit would like to extend a large 'fuck you' (or its own equivalent). It isn't so much expansion up in Nunavut but their long time homes.

Pretty sure brown bears are the ones suffering human encroachment from us southlanders expanding...polars I think are the ones expanding into us as their homes melt.

Government does tend to be actively concerned about the bears.

Re:A reasonable altyernative

[penguin-collective]

If I chose to live in an area inhabited by polar bears we are in competition and therefore I have a right to assure my survival.

Humanity can't survive if we settle every habitable square mile of the earth--we need large portions of the earth to remain uninhabited in order to ensure that we get the climate stability and natural resources that our continued survival as a species requires.

So, in effect, people who behave like you are killing our species. But, hey, by your reasoning, I should be able to go out an kill you, since I have "a right to assure my survival", too, and you are threatening it a lot more than polar bears.

Of course, call me a soft-hearted, liberal environmentalist, but I think we should not actually kill people like you, but we don't have a choice but to keep people like you from destroying humanity through political means.

Re:A reasonable altyernative

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh god, really fuck off.

Keep your fucking laws off my freedom. Unlike you, are aren't afraid to string up tyrants that would oppress us.

Re:A reasonable altyernative

[Anonymous Coward]

You think human beings became the dominant species on the planet by not killing the other animals?

We're the dominant species because we're the most vicious, irrational killers on this planet short of viruses (which are above us on the who-kills-who chain, even now). We kill anything we want to eat, and anything we think might eat us, and then sometimes we kill other things because it's annoying, or just for fun.

Vegetarians and animal pacifists existed back during neanderthal times, contrary to popular belief they aren't new to humanity - it's just that back then, people who refused to kill the polar bear mauling them just got eaten. My question is, how did your people survive mass extinction?

same domestic problems as humans

[sl4shd0rk]

"That might explain how a grizzly got to the region, but few can explain how it managed to get along with a polar bear long enough to mate."

alcohol

--

there's more, you know

[DemiKnute]

Scientists who would have liked to study the bear are not so lucky.

Maybe the scientists who would have liked to study a grizzly/polar mix should go to a zoo, where they already exist, as mentioned in the article. I think that would be a lot easier.

Re:there's more, you know

[Bing Tsher E]

The 'scientists' who wanted to 'study' the bear are actually camping enthusiasts. And getting grant funding to go out and camp and have fun and ostensibly 'study' some odd bear is a lark compared to visiting the bear compound at the local zoo.

Remeber, we're talking about $cience here.

Re:there's more, you know

[sckeener]

Scientists who would have liked to study the bear are not so lucky.

Maybe the scientists who would have liked to study a grizzly/polar mix should go to a zoo, where they already exist, as mentioned in the article. I think that would be a lot easier.

exactly. I was wondering what its coat was like. Can it dive into freezing waters and be fine? If so, is this a way to preserve some of the genetic makeup of the polar bear? grizzlies can survive in a wider field of environments than polars...there's got to be some +/-s going on and I'd love to know what they were.

OMG! They shots it!!!!11one

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, need a reminder? It's freakin' 2006! You wanna know what it can do? Just clone the fucker! :P

Sounds like a job for Animal Of The Week

[Bertie]

Who needs Wikipedia when you've got this sort of expertise?

" animal of the week today is the polar bear which is pretty much the king of the animal kingdom because it is a cross of the best bits of a tiger, a shark and a Hulk Hogan. if you think that you can imagine how strong a polar bear is then think again because you are wrong. it is stronger than that and it is probably stronger than your next guess. we are talking about an animal that can leg press over 500kg and curl 200kg with ease. pretty much the only thing that it cant do is squat thrusts but they are gay anyway. polar bears have a furry bellend to protect it from the cold."

Animal Of The Week

we'll never know

[aapold]

if it drank coca-cola or pepsi....

Like the old joke says...

[Create an Account]

...like a cross between a bald eagle and a Florida panther.

From overlooked-irony dept

[carpeweb]

Scientists who would have liked to study the bear are not so lucky.

Well, they were luckier than the bear.

Kinda like a liger

[whoop]

... bred for their skills in magic.

it's not "class warfare"

[penguin-collective]

The term "wealthy trophy hunter" tells us that the guy had a free choice--that's why the financial status of the person matters. Disapproving of that choice has nothing to do with "class warfare", it's a simple recognition that motivation matters.

People like you just find it convenient to deflect from their reprehensible behavior by saying "you'd do this, too, if you only had the money". Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but that's wrong: while we excuse bad choices made under economic or other duress to some degree, when people have a free choice and choose badly, we disapprove.

And it's natural that the wealthy should be under increased scrutiny and criticism, since they can choose freely in many more matters than people of more limited means. That's why, when you are wealthy, there is a special moral responsibility on you to behave properly. Many wealthy people recognize that and behave accordingly, but I suppose some don't even grasp the concept of personal responsibility for their actions.

it's not outdated

[penguin-collective]

There's nothing "outdated" about it; the definition in terms of interbreeding comes from Mayr, one of the top evolutionary biologists of the 20th century.

Like many real-world definitions, there are some fringe cases it doesn't handle well. In those cases, it's OK to say "we can't decide whether these are the same species". That doesn't invalidate the fundamental importance and validity of his definition of "species".

Re:it's not outdated

[cutedinochick]

Except that the "biological species concept" is outdated, despite its acceptance 50 years ago. There doesn't seem to be any one species definition that fits for everything, and I think Parent's point was that the idea of species is outdated. "Species" is a Linnaean concept that goes way back, certainly before evolution was understood at all. Transitions between species were unthought of. We are trying to find definitons and distinctions that work, but with all the complex components that go into speciation events, it's very difficult. But why study something which is understood completely? This is an exciting, collaborative field of study, and has grown with the cooperation of people who study fossils as well as people who study extant life.

Re:it's not outdated

[penguin-collective]

and I think Parent's point was that the idea of species is outdated. [...] "Species" is a Linnaean concept that goes way back, certainly before evolution was understood at all.

The situation is quite analogous to the distinction between solids, liquids, and gasses. People knew about those long before modern physics, and the purpose of physical theory was to explain them. Physics did this, and in the process also discovered that there are cases in which those terms are meaningless, hard to determine, fuzzy, or ill-defined.

Just like the concepts of "solid", "liquid", and "gas", the Linnean or Mayerian concept of "species" is readily observable in nature and it needs to be explained by theory; you can't just define it away. In fact, in some sense, one of the primary goals of evolutionary biology is to explain when groups of organisms stop breeding with one another.

Re:it's not outdated

[dajak]

Indeed. The point of interbreeding is to test and exploit the uncanny predictability of the genotype-phenotype map, not to define the common sense ecological and phenetic classification away. If, according to your criteria, Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears really belong to the same species, then you are using the wrong criteria since they clearly have a different colour and ecological niche.

Re:it's not outdated

[penguin-collective]

If, according to your criteria, Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears really belong to the same species, then you are using the wrong criteria since they clearly have a different colour and ecological niche.

So do Massai and Eskimos, yet they are clearly the same species. So do cocker spaniels and dalmatians, yet they, too, are clearly the same species.

It's you who is using the wrong criteria.

As for polar bears and grizzly bears, they may or may not be the same species, or they may be a border case.

Re:it's not outdated

[dajak]

You are right. I formulated that too strongly. There should be in current practice some biological basis, however weak, for the distinction on the species level in Zoology, but the biological identity is not enough to establish the existence of a species.

We are only interested in non-interbreeding pairs of creatures if there are also clear ecological and phenetic identity criteria to separate them. If there are no such criteria, the existence of the non-interbreeding pairs cannot be generalized to the existence of separate species. Testing the hypothesis that there are two biological taxa is only relevant because there is an existing phenetic/ecological distinction. If there are two different biological taxa, but there is also a group able to interbreed, then the latter group will be assigned to species based on phenetic and ecological criteria. The existence of a (sterile?) living hybrid proves nothing. Lions and Tigers were never re-classified because of Ligers and Tigons. Two grizzlies producing a polar is more convincing.

Zoologists can move phenetic/ecological distinctions to the subspecies level on biological grounds, but the classification itself is phenetic/ecological and should remain so to be relevant to the outside world. Since the species/subspecies partitions are demonstrably to poor an instrument for biological classification ("ring" species), one would have expected Zoology to develop a separate lattice for biological classification to map to phenetic/ecological traits instead of messing around with an existing phenetic taxonomy. Identifying animals only on biological grounds is similar to claiming there can be people who appear intelligent only on an IQ test. It defines away the things you are supposed to explain.

Dog breeds are (now) almost purely phenetic categories, even to the extent of only being recognized as purebred if they meet phenetic criteria. They all live in our houses (same habitat) and can interbreed (if we allow them). Why are wolves and jackals considered different species? Surely some jackal species are also able to interbreed with dogs and wolves, even if they normally don't?

Same with people: there is now a strong presumption in favour of them being one (sub)species because we shipped around dozens of millions of them, and they all appear to be tolerant of a wide variety of habitats and interbreed voluntarily and without problems. When different phenetic types were still closely linked to different habitats we intuitively classified them as different. This was never done before with for instance blue and brown eyes or hair colour, because this was always conceived of as natural phenetic variety in the same population in the same habitat. The pretension that strict adherence to a biological species concept somehow sheds light on racism is superficial: nobody questions the biological basis of sex, but this does not prove the scientific credibility of sexism.

Re:it's not outdated

[penguin-collective]

We are only interested in non-interbreeding pairs of creatures if there are also clear ecological and phenetic identity criteria to separate them.

First, the interbreeding criterion for species is obviously a statistical criterion at the population level (it does require fertile offspring). You could pick an arbitrary numerical threshold to make a decision in the oddball cases, the analog of an LD50, but it's not worth bothering: most cases are clearcut, and the ones that aren't require additional explanation anyway.

Second, populations of creatures that occupy the same ecological niche and "phenetic identity criteria" are essentially non-existent; usually, diversification or separation precedes an inability to breed. Dogs will eventually speciate.

Third, even if otherwise identical, non-interbreeding subpopulations were to occur, they would probably soon occupy different niches or start appearing differently.

Why are wolves and jackals considered different species? Surely some jackal species are also able to interbreed with dogs and wolves, even if they normally don't?

Well, biology reclassified dogs and wolves as the same species, so the same may yet happen for dogs and golden jackals.

Re:Bit Old?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please grow up. Thanks.

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF, Troll? I bet lots of scientists would breed with animals for the purpose of science, if they could. And some of those crazy people who keep apes as pets probably do attempt to form bonds with bonobos in the standard bonoboish way.

ahhh yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: What's brown and sits in the woods?
A: Winnie's Poo(h)

So do we call such a beast "Pizzly" or "Grolar"?

[The_REAL_DZA]

Just curious (not as curious as either the polar or the grizzly, but still...)

Are we "thinning the herd"

[Gorkamecha]

or was this more a "It's coming right at us" moment on the Jimbo and Ned hunting hour?

$909 Fine

[uniqueUser]

If they paid over $45,000 for the hunting license, do you think that they would care about a $909 fine?

Welp, that about does it for us meat bags

[Darth_brooks]

Grizzly and Polar bears mating. Well that's just farking wonderful. Grizzly's are known for a horrible disposition. Polar bears are known for hunting down and killing whatever they come across. (they don't actually "hunt humans" they just see us for what we are. fuzzless, slow moving bags of fatty meat.)

That settles it. We're doomed. We can only hope that they don't somehow pick up the cunning of one of the really scary-smart members of the animal kingdom like the Octopus or a Dolphin. At least now we've got time to start building our defenses.

It's their bad reputation!

[Colonel Angus]

When you start getting in street fights with protective mothers, people like you a lot less and they will shoot you! Come on, bears! It's common sense!

I, for one, welcome our new...

[Morrigu]

grizzlardolphoctopus overlords.

re-sig

[Anonymous Coward]

S/b FETISH or OBSESSSION or should really be KINKY.... not exotic!

This is already being turned into a movie:

[PapaBoojum]

"Bearback Mountin'"

Ugh... sorry.

manbearpig

[NuShrike]

Are you sure it wasn't the manbearpig that we were warned us about?

It's coming right for us!

Licensing issues - some more irony

[ehud42]

One bit of irony here is that, because the hunter had a 'polar bear' tag, he was under threat of prosecution if the bear was determined to be a grizzly - however, now that the matter is cleared up, he can pick up the carcass while he's on another hunting trip in the same area - for a grizzly! (for which he presumably purchased a license for...)

Martell had a tag that allowed him to hunt polar bears, but conservation officers were threatening to charge him with shooting a grizzly. It could have landed him 12 months in jail. Martel wasn't very happy, having spent $50,000 on his trip. He was also worried he wouldn't be able to take the hide back home with him to Idaho. ENR will return the hide to Martell, who is already back in the territory - on a grizzly hunt. CBC recently had a write up on the issue.

Hybrid animals, the search for new parts

[genuwinehammer21]

There are all kinds of hybrids being found, so how long till we start to find animal human hybrids, I mean we now have cloning technology, so is it not possible for us to mix DNA, and create these new creatures?

Re:Hybrid animals, the search for new parts

[Anonymous Coward]

cloning technology, so is it not possible for us to mix DNA, and create these new creatures?

  you can be sure the sheepish looking in New Zealand weren't

Re:Hybrid animals, the search for new parts

[Anonymous Coward]

Lonely folks, in the more rural parts, have been trying to create these hybrids for years.

Re:Old News

[cheese-cube]

I regret posting the original comment in the first place. The -1 Offtopic score sent my karma from Positive to Bad.

Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot... QWZX

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, you just made an incredibly racist remark. You're implying that different human races are not both Homo Sapien, but are different animals, like a grizzly bear and a polar bear.

Sheesh, talk about being a retard.