Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Alaska hunters fret about polar bear ruling
reuters.com — The U.S. decision to list polar bears as a threatened species has indigenous Alaskans worried that hunting the animals they rely on for food and warmth could be banned.
cosmikdebris- 432 diggs
- digg it
- granolajoe, on 05/18/2008, -37/+16Time for a new source of food. Sorry, but animals aren't simple commodities for us to use. It's the same argument the Japanese are using for wanting to hunt wales. "B-b-b-ut we just LOVE whale meat. You can't take away or vicious killing of whales cause we just love it so much! It's part of our culture! Waaaah!"
- vault, on 05/18/2008, -6/+24What are they supposed to eat instead, seals?
- rnwen2750, on 05/18/2008, -14/+5Or any of their other local non-threatened species. I would suspect that if all else was equal, the indigenous Alaskan human population would not ever endanger the survival of the polar bear species. Unfortunately, they are not the only ones that hunt them and the invasion of ignorant companies and other organizations into their habitats are causing the indigenous population's inability to hunt the bears.
- vault, on 05/18/2008, -5/+9lol like what? It's the arctic wilderness...there aren't cows and chickens and pigs running around, they're not going to live off just what they catch fishing through the ice, and you can't grow anything.
I say let them eat the polar bears, seals, whatever.
- vault, on 05/18/2008, -5/+9lol like what? It's the arctic wilderness...there aren't cows and chickens and pigs running around, they're not going to live off just what they catch fishing through the ice, and you can't grow anything.
- mciampa1214, on 05/18/2008, -5/+9God damn hippies
- angryredplanet, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Sooner rather than later there will be no polar bears left. What will they eat then? Their problem is their apparent lack of foresight. Instead of living sustainably by switching to another food source when they clearly know that polar bear numbers are getting fewer (regardless of who's fault that is), they live beyond what their local ecosystem can sustain by claiming a cultural right to do so. Seems to be a repetitive theme throughout humanity's reign on top of the food chain. Kill, crush and destroy.
- rnwen2750, on 05/18/2008, -14/+5Or any of their other local non-threatened species. I would suspect that if all else was equal, the indigenous Alaskan human population would not ever endanger the survival of the polar bear species. Unfortunately, they are not the only ones that hunt them and the invasion of ignorant companies and other organizations into their habitats are causing the indigenous population's inability to hunt the bears.
- donjacko, on 05/18/2008, -6/+20why? the local people have hunted polar bears since the end of the last ice age, using them for everything and over the course of that time the polar bear population has remained stable. the hunters are not the problem and based on that you are very ignorant- it is the rest of the world that has done the damage here.
- tonicboy, on 05/18/2008, -4/+6while i agree with you that indigenous hunters may not have caused the problem, the reality still exists that polar bears need protection. it's also true that these same hunters no longer RELY on polar bears for food and warmth, there are more than enough alternatives in this day and age. everyone needs to make changes in their lifestyle if it's in the greater good.
- donjacko, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3well the rest of the US, the major cause of the problem has basicly said they will do jack ***** to stop climate change so why should the burden fall to the hunters?
- tonicboy, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5@donjacko - because it's not a burden. do they still have food to eat? do they still have clothes on their back? it's not as though we're robbing them of their primary source of income. if someone told you you couldn't eat beef anymore, it would suck but i'm sure you'd get by just fine. so what would your solution be? just let them go on hunting polar bears and polar bears be squeezed on both sides? something tell me that we won't solve climate change anytime soon, so there's not really much of an option, is there?
- donjacko, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1in response to tonic boy,
im actually a vegaterian just for reference so i dont eat beef anyway.
back to the main point, hunting polar bears is actually having very little impact- stopping it wont make much of a diffference to there numbers.
for the hunters however- this will change there way of life beyond recognision. yes they will still have food/clothes- food they will now have to buy in the winter. which means getting a job rather than living off the land- completly changing there way of life. the last time that happened you had alot of amerindians living on reservations with massive social problems.- angryredplanet, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1A vegetarian who claims that the hunting of an endangered animal is ok because the hunters did it in the past? Hmmm. The point that you're a vegetarian is actually irrelevant, just replace the word "beef" with "lettuce".
"stopping it wont make much of a diffference to there numbers."
Yes, it will. Having more breeding stock increases the breadth of the gene pool making inbreeding less likely, thereby strengthening the species overall. In the very least it will slow their declining numbers, which is the really important point. Every little bit helps.
There are 6.5 billion humans on this small planet. We need to change in order to protect what little biodiversity we have left. If that means some obscure Alaskan tribe goes without endagered polar bear meat, then so be it. This is just another example of mankind's anthropocentric attitude.
- angryredplanet, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1A vegetarian who claims that the hunting of an endangered animal is ok because the hunters did it in the past? Hmmm. The point that you're a vegetarian is actually irrelevant, just replace the word "beef" with "lettuce".
- tonicboy, on 05/18/2008, -4/+6while i agree with you that indigenous hunters may not have caused the problem, the reality still exists that polar bears need protection. it's also true that these same hunters no longer RELY on polar bears for food and warmth, there are more than enough alternatives in this day and age. everyone needs to make changes in their lifestyle if it's in the greater good.
- mfc5200, on 05/18/2008, -5/+4And the Japanese in my opinion make a good argument. The only problem to it is that whales travel around the world and don't just live in Japanese waters. So if the Japanese are hunting whales, it might mean that New Zealand whale watchers might be affected. Basically, the whales don't solely belong to Japan, so what right do they have to hunt them as they see fit? But they aren't even asking for that right, they are just asking for reasonable quotas.
Imagine it from their point of view. You seem to like browsing the internet. What if, browsing the internet was sacrilege in another country, and these people wanted you to stop. Would you? Of course not, its part of who you are and your culture. The Japanese have been hunting whales for hundreds if not thousands of years. Who the hell are you to tell them not to?
- vault, on 05/18/2008, -6/+24What are they supposed to eat instead, seals?
- PROMOpinion, on 05/18/2008, -30/+8Nasty situation. Growing wheat there is a problem, I understand, buthow can one bear feed a village/community? Time for other resources...
- mciampa1214, on 05/18/2008, -1/+6One can't. Ten can.
- joshua8883, on 05/18/2008, -24/+6What? has moose gone out of style. I get alaska plight of.. culture and heritage. However, Roman culture ended their civilization. Evolution is key. Time for them to suck it up
- shoover, on 05/18/2008, -1/+4Um... Moose and Polar bear don't share the same habitat there sparky. Anyway, why should they have to change the way they live because *you* chose to live in excess of your needs?
- poidh, on 05/18/2008, -4/+28Don't hunt polar bears. They are nice and fluffy.
- oxdeltaxo, on 05/18/2008, -7/+2Bear meat doesn't even taste too good.
- Monk22, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2i bet it does when your hungry
- mcmitchell, on 05/18/2008, -7/+4Yes nice and fluffy. Up until the point they rip the stillbeating heart from your chest and eat it in front of you just to see you cry.
- surasshu, on 05/18/2008, -4/+3That Was The Joke.
- Coded1, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2O Rly?
- LeeSoong, on 05/18/2008, -3/+5"The bear meat has an unpleasantly strong gamey taste.
- May I recommend the good sir order the Sasquatch Barbecued Spare Ribs ?
Our Chef's specialty, simply Delicious!"- hempydave, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1No wonder the Sasquatch are getting rare , They just tastes so good.
- fuzzybeard, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I'd recommend a nice Riesling to go with the Sasquatch; followed by a Natty Lite chaser.
- oxdeltaxo, on 05/18/2008, -7/+2Bear meat doesn't even taste too good.
- itsgotyou, on 05/18/2008, -7/+7What kind of world do we live in where polar bears can rule? Down with these Ursal oppressors I say!
- billizm, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3I for one welcome our new fuzzy white overlords.
- jbenson2, on 05/18/2008, -28/+28The eskimos are the least of the problem. Just consider the effects of this bone-headed law. Here are some past cases:
"Are you telling me I can't build my Burger King because a Delhi Sands flower-loving fly that has never been seen and is above ground only a few days a year might be near-by?" YES
"I can't build a connector road because the noise from construction might damage the hearing of the Stephens' kangaroo rat thus impairing its reproduction?" YES
"All construction in San Diego involving impacts to road ruts which might contain Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp is enjoined? All construction?" YES
The Polar Bear listing is worse than any of these examples, because it will affect all businesses that require Federal licensing or approval.
Test cases should be brought by industry that argue that various federal permits --import/export permits, private jet landing permits, conservation banking permits-- all have greenhouse gas impacts, no matter how small, and thus that they must be subject to Section 7 review.
I would love to see industry go after the Hollywood private jet industry. Oh, how the effete snobs would react. It would be positively wonderful!- kublerross, on 05/18/2008, -4/+5any reason not to build a burger king sounds great to me!
- robfrye, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2While it's easy to brand those initiatives as tree-hugging hippy laws (and make comments about unrelated other issues like private jet usage), often times protecting a linchpin species such as a type of rat (or owl...) can have the effect of saving an entire ecosystem, and benefit the general populace much more than a new Burger King or connector road. I know where I live (in Riverside, southern California), most of our formerly beautiful hills are now covered with hideous tract homes, except for a distinct area that is wilderness, provides great hiking and is in general beautiful, and it only survives unharmed because of an endangered species of rat.
- hairydotus, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1robfrye I must say that you have made one of the most educated posts I have seen on digg in a long time. We don't need burger kings we need less, we don't need new roads we need to fix our old ones etc.
- jbenson2, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What it so galling is these "holier than thou" tree huggers want to protect animals like the spotted owl because it only can live in "old growth forests" and then we found out that it is living in the K of a K-Mart sign right next to a busy parking lot.
Lying bastards.
- Gforce20, on 05/18/2008, -6/+2Dugg for the sickeningly cute polar bear picture next to the article.
- aComa, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2Cute... until it bites your ***** head off and rips your organs out and slowly converts them to fecal matter which it will then excrete thoughtlessly. Cute you say? I think otherwise.
- Gforce20, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1They're still cute from a distance... :|
- TheThirdLevel, on 05/18/2008, -2/+01...2...3... AWWWW.
I luv polar bears, they're so soft and fluffy ^.^
- aComa, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2Cute... until it bites your ***** head off and rips your organs out and slowly converts them to fecal matter which it will then excrete thoughtlessly. Cute you say? I think otherwise.
- RetardoCrisp, on 05/18/2008, -13/+4Yeah well the world is changing rapidly due to our ignorance and greed so time to change your customs for the better. Honor and tradition have no place when the existence of a species is at stake. Deal with it!
- briguymaine, on 05/18/2008, -3/+4your digg name seems appropriate. Did you ever think that polar bear is probably one of the few sources of food for these people? Not everyone has a Quickie Mart around the corner.
- RedPhalanx, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2Obvious troll is obvious
- RetardoCrisp, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2OK..so what do you suggest then? Instead of saying something constructive and intelligent to counteract my statement, you both resort to finger pointing and cyinicism. So your obvious suggestion is to keep them off the endangered list and let their populace decimate even quicker? There are other methods these locals could follow for food. I am pretty sure there are fish and seals, no? Also, there are ways for bringing in food to these people and if you had read the article, they never said polar bears were their ONLY staple but rather part of TRADITION. There is a huge difference there and therefore tradition is no reason to be sympathetic at the cost of an endangered species. These are some of the same people that claim tradition in whale hunting but use guns to do it, yeah that is traditional isn't it? Think before jumping in to Digg me down people.
- usbserial, on 05/18/2008, -12/+17Why do some people think it's okay to stop people from slashing and burning of rain forest in Africa to make farmable land, but it's not okay to stop these people from hunting an endangered animal?
Yes, it isn't their fault that the polar bears are starting to go extinct. But if they keep killing them now it will only reduce their population further. So they have the option of a) stop killing them now and maybe they will be able to hunt them again some day in the future or b) keep killing them, hurting their already dropping numbers, and then they can't hunt them anyway because they all died off.- Gregbertt, on 05/18/2008, -3/+17"Endangered"? "Starting to go extinct"? "...already dropping numbers"? Time look to someone else to tell you what to think. Polar bear populations have been on the rise for some time now.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/08050 ...
"Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off."
But don't forget to read the rest of the article...- anduril171, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0J. Scott Armstrong is a professor of marketing... Clearly he's a leading expert on conservation, but I'm going to have to go with the real climate scientists on this one.
It's a favorite tactic of the right, whether talking about climate change or evolution, to quote anyone they can find, regardless of their actual qualifications... You should check your sources before you cite them.- Gregbertt, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1You spent so much time looking for something wrong with the article you forgot to read it, didn't you?
That's ok. You don't have to agree with the facts just because they exist...or do you have anything relevant to add besides your affinity for just "going with the real climate scientists on this one"? Do any of them claim that the polar bear numbers are not on the rise? Any of them?
Better check your sources before you cite them, if so.
Oops.
- Gregbertt, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1You spent so much time looking for something wrong with the article you forgot to read it, didn't you?
- anduril171, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0J. Scott Armstrong is a professor of marketing... Clearly he's a leading expert on conservation, but I'm going to have to go with the real climate scientists on this one.
- michael43, on 05/18/2008, -6/+1So you basically would rather see people die than a polar bear? ***** a polar bear and ***** you.
- DerangedPenguin, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Starting to go extinct polar bear populations... oh never mind Gregbertt already had the web page.
but in case you missed it... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/08050 ...
P.S. I dugg your comments up so other can read it and weep. - minou99, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0I have family in the Barrow area and they live off the land. The world would be a better place if you were extinct.
- Gregbertt, on 05/18/2008, -3/+17"Endangered"? "Starting to go extinct"? "...already dropping numbers"? Time look to someone else to tell you what to think. Polar bear populations have been on the rise for some time now.
- curseoflou, on 05/18/2008, -5/+8indigenous animals win over indigenous people everytime. ask a native american if you can find one.
- ultimateMJ, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Yep, those damn buffalo won that fight!
- lukehyper, on 05/18/2008, -12/+2there will always be someone fretting over the dwindling resources. the us has 3 % of the virgin forests left, but you bet those loggers were protesting when we slowed down the logging, ditto with fishing. look at the state of the salmon industry. what do you expect when humanities history has been to trash, exploit the resources to the point of extinction? you can go into almost any native village during hunting season, and find bloated wasted carcasses, laying in heaps. did i say wasted? the natives are no better at cherishing their resources than the rest of america. they use their technology (snow machines, hi powered rifles, uzies) to blast the s***t outta whatever is migrating, then take a little here and there to eat. let the rest rot. just like white man did to the buffalo.most natives live on govt welfare, govt housing, govt services. they're too lazy to do it the ancestral way. what will the poor fellows do when there are NO fish, NO polar bears, NO seals. we shall see soon enough? we live in "interesting" times now, and it will only get better. let the games begin.
- justz00t, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4Wow, written like its from someone who really does not know what the ***** they are talking about. Good job.
- lukehyper, on 05/18/2008, -8/+2hey digg, i dug the comment above me up and it went down, whats up w/ that?got yer button mixed up?
- BloodWenis, on 05/18/2008, -1/+4you probable just dugg, and two people had buried before your digg comment was refreshed
- mattn, on 05/18/2008, -7/+8Seriously. It's a delicacy? So what. It's like if they took cows away from white people? If we were hunting cows from the wild and, for any reason, they became endangered, then we would (should, I guess) ban cow hunting. I agree that it shouldn't be entirely their responsibility, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be their responsibility at all.
- mrogi, on 05/18/2008, -3/+11"We like the new polar bear protection law. Now we can eat humans and don't even have to worry about getting shot."
- Polar Bears of Alaska- Ceaser57, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1I laughed so I'd like to digg you, but I'm worried there's a possibility of you being serious.
Damn you internet sarcasm!!!!!
- Ceaser57, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1I laughed so I'd like to digg you, but I'm worried there's a possibility of you being serious.
- str3ama, on 05/18/2008, -20/+6"Alaskans worried that hunting the animals they rely on for food and warmth could be banned"
boohoo..go eat something else. Learn to adapt.- JointVenture, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4Boo hoo hooo how about the Polar Bears learn to adapt or die the way evolution intended it.
- nblsavage, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2Lets see, polar bears go extinct so the Eskimos will not be able to eat them, also the bears will not be able to keep the seal/sea lion population in check so there will be more of them eating more fish that the fishermen rely on for their livelihood. You take a major predator out of the food chain and there will be serious consequences.
- jameskong15, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2You act like the food chain is some static list that never changes. The bears going extinct would just be another change to the chain which has been changing for millions of years. And guess what? Humans AND animals have adapted throughout this process at various points.
You need to pull your head out of the sand and realize you're fighting against a natural process. It's a fruitless fight because eventually the bears WILL go extinct, no amount of ***** you try will change that basic fact, and predators in the natural cycle (that has worked fine for millions of years) don't sit back trying to fight against the process like you want us to do. - nblsavage, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3Kong that's ***** and you know it. By that logic we should keep polluting, strip mining and overhunting/overfishing because its "part of the natural process"
- str3ama, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1becareful, he's likely to believe that.
- jameskong15, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2You act like the food chain is some static list that never changes. The bears going extinct would just be another change to the chain which has been changing for millions of years. And guess what? Humans AND animals have adapted throughout this process at various points.
- nblsavage, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2Lets see, polar bears go extinct so the Eskimos will not be able to eat them, also the bears will not be able to keep the seal/sea lion population in check so there will be more of them eating more fish that the fishermen rely on for their livelihood. You take a major predator out of the food chain and there will be serious consequences.
- JointVenture, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4Boo hoo hooo how about the Polar Bears learn to adapt or die the way evolution intended it.
- Chunken, on 05/18/2008, -11/+4Polar Bear is not one of their main foods. It's something they kill once a winter and it's really not very good to eat. They will be fine without killing polar bears.
- jameskong15, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3I'm glad you know exactly how fine all the people out there will be. And I'm sure you'll be fine without the internet, so let's just cut you off right here, ok?
- vareko, on 05/18/2008, -8/+3This article is one example of the difficulties we are beginning to face because of irresponsible uses of energy, fuel..etc. The habitat of the bears is degrading because of greenhouse gases/global warming. We may be dragged, kicking and screaming all the way, into a new way of living, just because it will finally become impossible to live they way we have been living for so long. Well maybe not all that long in the scheme of things.
- Rawclyce, on 05/18/2008, -5/+3It's no fault of the U.S. calling it an endangered species if it is. I don't much understand the outrage.
- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -7/+3"Let me tell ya about endangered species, all right? Saving endangered species is
just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature. It's arrogant
meddling. It's what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn't anybody
understand that? Interfering with nature. Over 90%, over, way over, 90% of all the
species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. They're
extinct. We didn't kill them all. They just disappeared. That's what nature does.
They disappear these days at the rate of 25 a day, and I mean regardless of our
behavior. Irrespective of how we act on this planet, 25 species that were here
today, will be gone tomorrow. Let them go gracefully. Leave nature alone. Haven't
we done enough?"
-GC-- mattn, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2Really? Because life has been around for something like 3+ billion years. Of course a ton of species have gone extinct. That's not an excuse for us to do whatever the hell we want. We should go, "Hey, we're kinda ***** over the polar bears (or whatever animal). Let's try to make this right".
- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2"Hey, we're kinda ***** over the polar bears"
How?- mattn, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/andrew_dero ...
It's a bit long but it's worth a quick skim.
Essentially it comes down to sea ice freezing later and melting earlier, shrinking their best hunting time and forcing them to fast for a greater portion of the year. Adult female weights seem to have declined by just over 20% from 1980 to 2004, and is only another 21% over 189kg, which seems to be a lower bound for weights that females will reproduce at. (this stuff is from page 3)
Whether you believe in human-caused climate change is one thing, but it is the general consensus of the scientific community that we have a significant impact on it. - mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1@mattn
You understand that most of the things that cause global warming along with the nature cooling( killed dinosaurs) and warming ones, Were invented and needed for growth and the survival of human species... - mattn, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Absolutely. I don't think we should prioritize another species over us, but we CAN do something in this instance. Things aren't going to become all kittens and rainbows with hunting restrictions on polar bears, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.
As far as global warming, we can't wave a magic wand and save the world, but alternative energy sources are necessity in our future (no one pretends that fossil fuels will last forever). - mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1I agree, But I understand why the some might be upset. .The Inupiat have hunted the polar bear for years, not necessarily for trophy matters but for food, and the hide itself is used for clothing materials". Take away anything from anybody and most of the time they'll be upset, I'm sure they'll adjust ,.And its not like it was gluttony on their part. "He estimates that about 20 bears a year are killed by authorized Inupiat hunters in the Barrow area"
- mattn, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/andrew_dero ...
- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1"That's not an excuse for us to do whatever the hell we want"
"Alaska hunters fret about polar bear ruling"
- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -2/+2"Hey, we're kinda ***** over the polar bears"
- briguymaine, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Wow, Grover Cleveland said that?
- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1No, "George Clooney"
- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1No just kidding, It was "Gesus Chriist"
- mattn, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2Really? Because life has been around for something like 3+ billion years. Of course a ton of species have gone extinct. That's not an excuse for us to do whatever the hell we want. We should go, "Hey, we're kinda ***** over the polar bears (or whatever animal). Let's try to make this right".
- Betrayer, on 05/18/2008, -6/+3Classic STUPID HUMAN MENTALITY!; if the bears are going extinct, why not open temporarily Close the Bear season and open it up to "Bear hunters", this will help decrease the "threat" to the bears and will give the hunters something else to kill.
- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Classless STUPID HUMAN!
- Ceaser57, on 05/18/2008, -0/+4What creature hunts polar bears besides humans? Unless you are suggesting we start a human hunting season in which case you have my full support
- mariowario, on 05/18/2008, -3/+10"I like to eat bear meat almost every winter, can't go without it"
That sounds so badass.- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2Ive only had black bear, But found it to sweet for my taste.
- rock774, on 05/18/2008, -9/+2buried "fret"
- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4"Hey, we're kinda ***** over the polar bears"
How?- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2This comment (reply) is lost.
- slicenglide, on 05/18/2008, -8/+2I'm all for letting them keep hunting the animal until it's gone. Then maybe we will all learn a lesson.
Then again, I drive a car, and bang b*tches in the back while leaving the engine running listening to barry manilow.
So I'm a hypocrite.- Dragular, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3And a liar, gtfo.
- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2"letting them keep hunting the animal until it's gone. Then maybe we will all learn a lesson."
Lesson learned; "letting them keep hunting the animal until it's gone"
- methos75, on 05/18/2008, -3/+10Look the Eskimo's harvest a very very small numbers of bears a year and they do this out of tradition, so IMO they should still be able to do so to a point. Its the hunters taking 5-6 a year that is the issue, not the indengious people that have lived among the bears for 13,000 years now.
- chemdiva, on 05/18/2008, -3/+2I think this is one of the driving factors that has kept polar bears of the "at risk" list in Canada. I think it's a particularly interesting problem because it's largely up to the south-centric government to decide if the polar bear should be listed as endangered, but it's the people who actually live in the north who will be most impacted by the decision.
The Walrus (left leaning, right wingers be warned) had a really interesting article on climate change from the Inuit point of view, the issue was November 2007, article name "Camels in the Arctic" - the November 2007 Walrus was an Arctic special issue. I think most of it is available on-line without a subscription, but i haven't checked. Link: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2007.11-arc ...
A recurring theme in this Arctic special issue was the sense that, while southerners romanticize and seek to preserve the unseen arctic, many (though certainly not all) Inuit hope for more industrial development because they need the revenue and the jobs. Do we (southerners) have the right to impose a moratorium on arctic industrialization, to preserve a land that most of us will never see, because our own industrialization has put it so at risk? This is an interesting counterpart to other questions, including: do we (southern corporations) have the right to exploit natural resources in an area where we'll never have to face the direct consequences?- ultimateMJ, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1And how have southerners imposed a moratorium on arctic industrialization? If Alaskans want better jobs they can move south, or companies can move north. I'm pretty sure there are no federal barriers to trade.
- MarioWhereRu, on 05/18/2008, -8/+6Well I guess the cuteness of the polar bears is more important than the eskimos having something to to eat during the winter.
- nblsavage, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1and when the polar bear is extinct?
- mattn, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1It's not even their primary food source. It's a delicacy. It'd be like if veal and leather jackets became illegal.
- mal1964, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3Meat is meat and clothes are clothes for some people
- skully1337, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2I for one support our new polar bear overlords
- SemiSarcastic, on 05/18/2008, -2/+3Can't they just eat ice for dinner?
- MadEnvoy, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Ice is endangered too.
- rheaume, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1They can eat ***** for dinner
- CrimsonFlash, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6Actually, as far as I know, in Canada, the natives are exempt from most bans. Unless, of course, the animal is on the mega-endangered-holy-crap-there-are-two-left list.
For example, You can only catch two fish (to keep) a day with most fishing licenses, but natives could drain the whole lake of fish and not get in trouble. (I may be wrong on this, but it is my basic understanding)
So sure, they may have a ban on hunting them, but I would guess the natives would be exempt more or less from the ban. - Tetra, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3If McDonald's stops serving the Polar McBear Nuggets, I'm going to get very upset!
- straylight08, on 05/18/2008, -2/+6I'm sorry but 60,000 bears sounds like a pretty small bear population to me when there are 6.5 billion people in the world. I say ban the bear hunting.
- Myztry, on 05/18/2008, -1/+1Indigenous Aboriginals in Australia have a legal exemption from bans on hunting animals like Kangaroos. Though they are much more likely to do it from a helicopter with a rifle, than a traditional spear or hunting boomerang...
Will someone please send the Alaskan (Eskimos) some replacement thermal jackets (I'm sure they have some already) and some frozen carcasses to tie to their Shimano fishing rods. - usingpond, on 05/18/2008, -3/+3Tough ***** for them. Assimilate like the rest of the world, they are not special.
- skews13, on 05/18/2008, -4/+6how quaint. white people from the lower 48, expressing their opinions on something the innuit people have been doing for thousands of years. all of you enviormentalist, peta types. shut the ***** up.
- heoko, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Inupiaq, Inuits are canadian! :D THE MORE YOU KNOW!
- nblsavage, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Any of you geniuses want to comment on what happens when you remove a major predator from the food chain? If we lose the polar bear then the Inuit will be far more screwed.
- skews13, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1dude, the polar bears have been here for the same amount of time as the innuit, so their hunting them is not the issue. it's other people who are not innuit that are the problem. if laws are put in place to only allow them to hunt the bears in the numbers they do. that would be a more sensible solution.
- nblsavage, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Dude, I know that, I'm making the point that if the bears are not protected the whole issue is moot.
- skews13, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1dude, the polar bears have been here for the same amount of time as the innuit, so their hunting them is not the issue. it's other people who are not innuit that are the problem. if laws are put in place to only allow them to hunt the bears in the numbers they do. that would be a more sensible solution.
- XoieJuno, on 05/18/2008, -4/+1Wow they actually eat bears? I'm so far removed from these kind of people its crazy. How can you eat an animal? Do you eat their eyeballs? and brains? Its crazy. I don't care how long they've done this for. Things need to be evaluated in the now, not based on what people used to do. I really do hate culture. Religion and culture destroy the world with their conservative illogical crap. The government should just step in and either send them canned food or help them move if they need to. Though they'd probably also be crazy about that and act like certain regions of the gravitationally bound rock that orbits our star are special to them just because dead humans they inherited genes from used to occupy those regions.
- jameskong15, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5Don't push your veggie lifestyle on me and I won't push my animal eating lifestyle on you. Stupid people trying to control my diet are destroying the world with their hippy illogical crap.
- solid12345, on 05/18/2008, -0/+3Well if you have a problem take it up with mother nature, evolution made us eat meating creatures.
- heoko, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2well we cant eat their liver, The only guy who survived LICKING the knife that came in contact with the liver suffered from massive Vitamin A overexposure, which lead him to suffer from Micheal Jackson Desiese Vitiligo.
Also We kill them because they kill and eat people, Its not just some hunt for polar bears, polar bears do eat people, and people have guns to protect themselves.
Mainly its on whaling expeditions or ice walrus/seal hunts. Polar bears eat anything.
- solid12345, on 05/18/2008, -0/+1Damn, so is this going to halt my order for a polar-bear skin case mod for my PC?
- breakermorant, on 05/18/2008, -0/+2First off, Polar Bears are covered under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and it has been illegal to hunt them for that long, except for certain Alaska Natives. A moron wrote the article and other morons in the news media somehow missed this fact. It is even illegal for the most part to import items made from Polar Bears from Canada. Now for the rest of the lesson: Alaskans are special and you flat landers from the lower 48 are not.
- DerangedPenguin, on 05/18/2008, -1/+2I think putting Polar Bears on the endangered species list, had more to do with another way to block exploration for oil on U.S. soil than it did with actually protecting the bears. Interesting that this bill came right after Bush met with the Saudi's. Has anyone looked to see if environmental groups are receiving funding from the Saudi's and radical Muslim groups who seek to weaken the United States?
- heoko, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Its mainly to stop the native corporations from gaining more financial power, People dont like native groups being in charge of things in the USA :| Even if it is their own land.
- PhantomPhoenix, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Well, in fifty years they might just be completely out of luck when the polar bear goes extinct.
Either they have to make changes to their lifestyle now, or face the consequences of having to abruptly change then. - novenator, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Seriously, how many indigenous aleut still subsist off of polar bears and seals anymore? As a matter of cultural heritage, this should be their right as part of the 'first ones' on this continent, yet. still, outside of traditional rights, polar bears really aren't whats for dinner anymore.
- orangehead99, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Let them eat MRE's
- britoca, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1that's just too bad I say
- AmericansRevolt, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0uh... so we have these things called 'states' for a reason... and believe it or not they are able to make their own decisions. let alaska decide what to do with its polar bears... im sure canada will do what they can for theirs too. if the US really wants to help polar bears they can start using that inflated printed money they make to actually reduce greenhouse gases this country outputs..
- changedmind, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0Diggers taste so much better anyways...
- rohitnarayan, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
YOU GUYS WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The raw power of passion & the spirit of cinema come together. Check this out to see what I really mean. http://www.film-crew.blogspot.com/
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by