Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
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...
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.
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.