[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

Loss of Polar Bear habitat is fake news because the bear population keeps growing. Source: polarbearscience.com

Sorry! You are passing fake news. Habitat loss is very real, and polar bears are being forced into areas they have never been until recently, for food. Brown/grizzly bears are moving north and encountering polars. Matings have occurred creating a new hybrid bear. Snow and ice of the Arctic ice is diminishing every year.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Sorry! You are passing fake news. Habitat loss is very real, and polar bears are being forced into areas they have never been until recently, for food. Brown/grizzly bears are moving north and encountering polars. Matings have occurred creating a new hybrid bear. Snow and ice of the Arctic ice is diminishing every year.

Nice try -- but data trumps narrative.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

Nice try -- but data trumps narrative.

Sorry. My "narrative" is based on NASA stats showing a loss of arctic ice at a rate of 12.2% annually.

By the way checked out your source "polarbearscience.com". A blog site!?! Just posting a supposed source does not ensurec said source is credible. My knowledge based comments come from a multitude of reliable international sources. My comments are usually a congomeration of information gathered from the sources. Therefore, trying to figure which individual source per bite to credit becomes a waste of time.
Time for coffee and pumpkin pie.
Happy Thanksgiving!

[sounding]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Sorry. My "narrative" is based on NASA stats showing a loss of arctic ice at a rate of 12.2% annually.

By the way checked out your source "polarbearscience.com". A blog site!?! Just posting a supposed source does not ensurec said source is credible. My knowledge based comments come from a multitude of reliable international sources. My comments are usually a congomeration of information gathered from the sources. Therefore, trying to figure which individual source per bite to credit becomes a waste of time.
Time for coffee and pumpkin pie.
Happy Thanksgiving!

You can choose any narrative you like, but as Polar Bear population keeps growing, harvesting will keep growing. The "harvesting" board meets each year to decide the numbers, just they do for the Black Bears in New Jersey.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

You can choose any narrative you like, but as Polar Bear population keeps growing, harvesting will keep growing. The "harvesting" board meets each year to decide the numbers, just they do for the Black Bears in New Jersey.

You are talking "harvesting" (aka killing for profit/fun, big game hunting). I'm talking habitat loss.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

You are talking "harvesting" (aka killing for profit/fun, big game hunting). I'm talking habitat loss.

And you don't think those two are related???????

Let's see----loss of habitat = LESS polar bears and therefore protected species
NO loss of habitat = MORE polar bears and hence permission to harvest.

Sorry, but once again the false climate change narrative doesn't stand up to simple logic

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And you don't think those two are related???????

Let's see----loss of habitat = LESS polar bears and therefore protected species
NO loss of habitat = MORE polar bears and hence permission to harvest.

Sorry, but once again the false climate change narrative doesn't stand up to simple logic

Sorry, but that misses a point. Loss of habitat = more encroachment on civilization = more permission to harvest (in the name of safety, of course)

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Sorry, but that misses a point. Loss of habitat = more encroachment on civilization = more permission to harvest (in the name of safety, of course)

I doubt “safety” is behind the reasoning for allowing harvesting, overpopulation of the bears and resulting starvation is far more likely. And there isn’t a whole lot of civilization where polar bears live

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I doubt “safety” is behind the reasoning for allowing harvesting, overpopulation of the bears and resulting starvation is far more likely. And there isn’t a whole lot of civilization where polar bears live

The few people that live there may feel that they are civilization enough.

Starvation of who/what? Nature tends to keep itself in check with no human intervention required. Humans tend to cause starvation situations, not solve them.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The few people that live there may feel that they are civilization enough.

Starvation of who/what? Nature tends to keep itself in check with no human intervention required. Humans tend to cause starvation situations, not solve them.

Animals can become overpopulated for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with humans

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And you don't think those two are related???????

Let's see----loss of habitat = LESS polar bears and therefore protected species
NO loss of habitat = MORE polar bears and hence permission to harvest.

Sorry, but once again the false climate change narrative doesn't stand up to simple logic

Yep. Your logic is simple. Too bad reality is so much more complex.
Just a thought. If bear numbers are a real problem, why harvest fully grown males? Harvesting females and cubs would be easier, safer, and the horrible rampaging polar bears numbers would plummet back to safe levels. No need to charge outrageous fees for a tag. Let native hunters clear the arctic for free. Polar bear coats and rugs could be a native industry.... temporarily.
Just a simple solution to the bear problem. No more bears means no more bear problems, right? Simple logic says extermination is the answer.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Yep. Your logic is simple. Too bad reality is so much more complex.
Just a thought. If bear numbers are a real problem, why harvest fully grown males? Harvesting females and cubs would be easier, safer, and the horrible rampaging polar bears numbers would plummet back to safe levels. No need to charge outrageous fees for a tag. Let native hunters clear the arctic for free. Polar bear coats and rugs could be a native industry.... temporarily.
Just a simple solution to the bear problem. No more bears means no more bear problems, right? Simple logic says extermination is the answer.

Once again, a foray into reductio ad absurdum.

Plus, no one profits from allowing hunting for free

At Chobe National Park in Botswana, we were talking with a guide who had a side business of taking big game hunters to kill a lion. He buys a "single lion kill permit" from the government and then sells the hunt and the lion for $80,000!!!!! I can only wonder what the polar bear profit scheme is.

PS: "Civilization" is encroaching lion habitats to a far greater extent than "igloo cities" are encroaching polar bears. But lions are not endangered (yet), so this type of limited hunting is permitted (for $$$$). It's highly unlikely that polar bear harvesting would be permitted if the species were endangered, due to "loss of habitat" which some deluded false narrative climate change believers claim.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I doubt “safety” is behind the reasoning for allowing harvesting, overpopulation of the bears and resulting starvation is far more likely. And there isn’t a whole lot of civilization where polar bears live

Safety has nothing to do with it. It's a chance to make $$$. Period. Exclusive for wealthy big game hunters to prove themselves against nature. 🤭🤭😏🙄

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Once again, a foray into reductio ad absurdum.

Plus, no one profits from allowing hunting for free

At Chobe National Park in Botswana, we were talking with a guide who had a side business of taking big game hunters to kill a lion. He buys a "single lion kill permit" from the government and then sells the hunt and the lion for $80,000!!!!! I can only wonder what the polar bear profit scheme is.

PS: "Civilization" is encroaching lion habitats to a far greater extent than "igloo cities" are encroaching polar bears. But lions are not endangered (yet), so this type of limited hunting is permitted (for $$$$). It's highly unlikely that polar bear harvesting would be permitted if the species were endangered, due to "loss of habitat" which some deluded false narrative climate change believers claim.

I see my sarcasm was lost on you. My apologies for not labeling it for easy recognition.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Safety has nothing to do with it. It's a chance to make $$$. Period. Exclusive for wealthy big game hunters to prove themselves against nature. 🤭🤭😏🙄

We AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, that's exactly what I posted, but I think it should count anyway