This is SOOOOOO Typical of Mankind!!

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:02 pm

DNA Test Confirms Hybrid Bear in the Wild

By BETH DUFF-BROWN

TORONTO (AP) - A DNA test has confirmed what zoologists, hunters and aboriginal trackers in the far northern reaches of Canada have dreamed of for years: the first documented case of a grizzly-polar bear in the wild.

Roger Kuptana, an Inuit tracker from the Northwest Territories, suspected the American hunter he was guiding had shot a hybrid bear after noticing its white fur was spotted brown and it had the long claws and slightly humped back of a grizzly.

Territorial officials seized the bear's body and a DNA test from Wildlife Genetics International, a lab in British Columbia, confirmed the hybrid was born of a polar bear mother and grizzly father.

``It's something we've all known was theoretically possible because their habitats overlap a little bit and their breeding seasons overlap a little bit,'' said Ian Stirling, a biologist with the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton, Alberta. ``It's the first time it's known to have happened in the wild.''

He said the first person to realize something was different about the bear - shot and killed last month on the southern end of Banks Island in the Beaufort Sea - was Kuptana, the guide.

``These guides know their animals and they recognized that there were a number of things that didn't look quite right for a polar bear,'' Stirling told The Associated Press. The bear's eyes were ringed with black, its face was slightly indented, it had a mild hump to its back and long claws.

Stirling said polar bears and grizzlies have been successfully paired in zoos and that their offspring are fertile, but there had been no documented case in the wild.

Kuptana, a guide from Sachs Harbour in the Northwest Territories, was tracking with Idaho big-game hunter Jim Martell, who paid $45,450 for a license to hunt polar bears.

The DNA results were good news for the 65-year-old hunter, who was facing a possible $909 fine and up to a year in jail for shooting a grizzly. The Northwest Territories Environment and Natural Resources Department now intends to return the bear to Martell.

``It will be quite a trophy,'' Martell told the National Post last week, even before the DNA results were in. He returned to Yellowknife for another hunt, this time for a grizzly bear. He told the newspaper he has dubbed the creature ``polargrizz.''

Stirling said his colleagues have come up with a few names of their own for the hybrid: a ``pizzly'' or a ``grolar bear.'' One colleague suggested calling it ``nanulak,'' combining the Inuit names for polar bear - ``nanuk'' - and grizzly bear, which is ``aklak.''

``He has a remarkable trophy from his perspective and from the perspective of this whole fraternity of people who like to go big-game hunting for trophies,'' said Stirling.

When asked how he felt about the rare beast being killed, the biologist would only say that Canada's polar bear hunt - which runs from December through the end of May - is done on a sustainable basis.

Colin Adjun, a wildlife officer in Kugluktuk on the northern mainland in western Nunavut, said he's heard stories about an oddly colored bear cavorting with polars.

``It was a light chocolate color along with a couple of polar bears,'' Adjun said. Though people have talked about the possibility of a mix, ``it hasn't happened in our area,'' he said.

Three years ago, a research team spotted a grizzly on uninhabited Melville Island, 215 miles north of where Martell bagged his crossbreed.

Polar bear and grizzly territories also overlap in the Western Arctic around the Beaufort Sea, where the occasional grizzly is known to head onto the sea ice looking for food after emerging from hibernation. Some grizzly bears make it over the ice all the way to Banks Island and Victoria Island, where they have been spotted and shot.

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.

David Paetkau, a geneticist with Wildlife Genetics, said the hybrid bear could be an anomaly. He said that if the two types of bear continue to mate, it would water down the breeds. He also said that scientists worry melting ice caps in the Arctic could soon have a detrimental impact on polar bears, which thrive in an icy environment.

According to the National Wildlife Federation, there are about 1,200 grizzlies in the lower 48 United States, 32,000 in Alaska, and 25,000 in Canada. Stirling said there are some 24,000 polar bears in Canada, Greenland, Russia and Alaska.

AP correspondent Keith Ridler in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this story.

This is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Typical!

We find something new and rare, something never seen before, and what do we do??

Do we study it in its natural habitat and learn which species it is most similar to?

Do we film it for posterity? After all, we may never see another such hybrid.

No! We give it a stupid name and shoot the poor critter!

Bloody typical!

Bloody bloody people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-5 :-5 :-5

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:03 pm

:-1 Oh, that is sad..............

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri May 12, 2006 2:32 pm

I agree. Call me a hypocite for eating hamburgers, but I would never shoot an animal in the wild.

Something like 1500 species of animals will go extinct this year. We've done enough damage already.

Explorer the eighth · Post by **Explorer the eighth** » Fri May 12, 2006 3:56 pm

Even if there was only one grizzly bear left in the whole world, there would be a hunter somewhere who would have no hesitation in shooting it dead and using it as a trophy. That could apply to absolutely every other endangered species like gorillas and tigers. Why can't these hunters do something useful for a change like rat-catching?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri May 12, 2006 4:57 pm

As a hunter myself, I detest, despise and loathe so-called "trophy" hunters. Hunting for the kill and the mount is sick. Hunting for food is something else altogether. A natural wonder in the wild and this ass-wipe goes and kills it. What a loser. :yh_loser

TROPHY HUNTING SUCKS!!!!

:yh_angry

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Fri May 12, 2006 10:20 pm

When asked how he felt about the rare beast being killed, the biologist would only say that Canada's polar bear hunt - which runs from December through the end of May - is done on a sustainable basis.

I can, therefore I will. (Destroy the planet, that is.)

I realise that I may have to kill to sustain my life. I wouldn't do so unless I had to. But there are so many who hunt just for the sake of it. Animals are so easy to hunt and kill. I don't actually understand where the pleasure comes from. Perhaps there's a hunter here who can describe their true motivation.

Sometimes, particularly when the moon is 'ripe', I feel the urge to hunt. But I have no need to hunt or eat the flesh of an animal. Furthermore, I get first-hand nourishment from crops rather than second-hand nourishment through an animal. And I find that I can be just as aggressive and angry without eating meat. Hunting is for those who cannot evolve as civilised human beings. Otherwise, there's no need to hunt unless there is no natural food crops available.

So what if meat tastes good. Human flesh would taste better. Vegetable nutrition is still the best option.

Sorry that I've turned this into a soapbox. I'm sure you'd rather be hunting an animal than listening to me. Just think of this, if I went hunting, I would hunt for the best meat, and that means you. I don't f**k about.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:39 am

OpenMind wrote: I can, therefore I will. (Destroy the planet, that is.)

I realise that I may have to kill to sustain my life. I wouldn't do so unless I had to. But there are so many who hunt just for the sake of it. Animals are so easy to hunt and kill. I don't actually understand where the pleasure comes from. Perhaps there's a hunter here who can describe their true motivation.

Sometimes, particularly when the moon is 'ripe', I feel the urge to hunt. But I have no need to hunt or eat the flesh of an animal. Furthermore, I get first-hand nourishment from crops rather than second-hand nourishment through an animal. And I find that I can be just as aggressive and angry without eating meat. Hunting is for those who cannot evolve as civilised human beings. Otherwise, there's no need to hunt unless there is no natural food crops available.

So what if meat tastes good. Human flesh would taste better. Vegetable nutrition is still the best option.

Sorry that I've turned this into a soapbox. I'm sure you'd rather be hunting an animal than listening to me. Just think of this, if I went hunting, I would hunt for the best meat, and that means you. I don't f**k about.
I hope this is tounge-in-cheek, OM. "Hunting is for those who cannot evolve as civilized human beings"????!?!! Actually, what it means is you think I am an uncivilized human being. Thanks for your opinion. WTF does that mean? That I want to have meat that is not packed with steroids and growth hormones? That I want to have a better and tastier meat than anything that can be found in your local supermarket? That I believe hunting is a contribution to conservation? What an ignorant thing to say. And by the way, hunting for animals is NOT easy, as you claim. When's the last time you tried it? Try stalking a deer, for hours before you get close enough to use your bow. Give it a shot one day. I bet you never even see one, let alone experience the incredible feeling of accomplishment by providing for your family when you do bring home a kill.

GOD, but anti-hunters make me want to puke. They just don't get it. It's one of those "If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand."

Are you a vegetarian? Vegan? What?

I suppose you think the cows who live in slaughter houses waiting for death by a nail gun to the head live a better life than the deer in the wild, too, huh?

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat May 13, 2006 3:42 am

BabyRider wrote: I hope this is tounge-in-cheek, OM. "Hunting is for those who cannot evolve as civilized human beings"????!?!! Actually, what it means is you think I am an uncivilized human being. Thanks for your opinion. WTF does that mean? That I want to have meat that is not packed with steroids and growth hormones? That I want to have a better and tastier meat than anything that can be found in your local supermarket? That I believe hunting is a contribution to conservation? What an ignorant thing to say. And by the way, hunting for animals is NOT easy, as you claim. When's the last time you tried it? Try stalking a deer, for hours before you get close enough to use your bow. Give it a shot one day. I bet you never even see one, let alone experience the incredible feeling of accomplishment by providing for your family when you do bring home a kill.

GOD, but anti-hunters make me want to puke. They just don't get it. It's one of those "If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand."

Are you a vegetarian? Vegan? What?

I suppose you think the cows who live in slaughter houses waiting for death by a nail gun to the head live a better life than the deer in the wild, too, huh?

I still have the instinct to hunt as I inferred in my post. But I know the fear of being hunted as well as the thrill of hunting. Although I am a vegetarian, I am able to kill quickly which is something that the majority of meat eaters cannot do.

I confess that after all this time, I may not have the patience to hunt just for sport. In fact, I wouldn't hunt just for sport, I would only hunt if I had no other option.

It is an uncivilised sport. There is no need for anyone to hunt these days other than self-satisfaction. All our nutritional needs are met by the variety of vegetables, fruit, and so on that are available to us.

Have you ever been hunted. Do you know the fear of being hunted. Perhaps if you experienced this 'thrilling sport' as the prey you might understand just how uncivilised it is. Can you imagine yourself running in fear of your life? This is the life of the uncivilised, the wild.

It is your right. But there is nothing civilised about a sport that involves killing for fun. Animals do it because they have no other choice. I have no doubt that they do it for fun also. We do have a choice. I made my choice a long time ago to respect the life of an animal.

I call myself a vegetarian for simplicity. If I have no choice, I would have to eat meat. I have studied nutrition and it turns out that the only advantage that meat offers is that it is easier for our bodies to assimilate it. There is no nutritional advantage to eating meat.

I neither condemn nor condone hunters. I just feel sorry for them. But you and I have already come to loggerheads over the treatment of animals. I am surprised that you hunt, BR, considering your love for animals.

venus · Post by **venus** » Sat May 13, 2006 8:34 am

I am a vegie and l cannot imagine killing an animal for fun or to eat it.

I do however cook meat for my family and l do wear leather.. The people who make mwe really sickare tjose who kill for sport and leave the majority of hte animal to rot..

The people l have alot of respect for people like the native americans and the inuit, who would not only eat the flesh but use almost every possible piece of the animal.

That animal has given its life to you, use it wisely and not waste for that is more saddening than anything.

I do however have issue with the way we farm some animals and their treatment and l think an animal that has loved a good life in a forest etc is happier than some poor young calf kept in a crate in hte dark and force fed milk..

geese, ducks, calves we are not such a civilised race after all really in mho:(

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat May 13, 2006 9:30 am

As far as I possibly can, I do not buy anything made from an animal. I have to wear safety boots and this is the exception.

For footwear, I recommend www.ethicalwares.com . Their footwear has lasted me well. They are based in Wales and are very helpful.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat May 13, 2006 12:55 pm

OpenMind wrote: As far as I possibly can, I do not buy anything made from an animal. I have to wear safety boots and this is the exception.

For footwear, I recommend www.ethicalwares.com . Their footwear has lasted me well. They are based in Wales and are very helpful.
So you don't eat eggs, or drink milk?

I guess, using your theory, my "exception" is hunting.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sat May 13, 2006 1:01 pm

OpenMind wrote: It is an uncivilised sport. There is no need for anyone to hunt these days other than self-satisfaction.
This is a faulty and flat-out WRONG statement. It is not uncivilized. There is ritual, there is learning, there is communing with nature, especially when I can sit in my blind and watch the deer within range and just appreciate the beauty of the animal, along with many others.

As far as self-satisfaction goes, yes, there is satisfaction in succesfully tracking, outwitting and getting a good shot off at a deer. But as I stated before...I do not wish to feed my family the meat that is bought in grocery stores, laden with growth hormones and other garbage. The meat I eat is pure. And don't even get me started about what would happen if no one ever hunted again. It's called herd control. Approximately 300,000 deer (I'd have to find the exact numbers) were taken in the 2005 hunting season, and guess what? The herd this year is bigger than the one last year.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Sat May 13, 2006 1:25 pm

BabyRider wrote: This is a faulty and flat-out WRONG statement. It is not uncivilized. There is ritual, there is learning, there is communing with nature, especially when I can sit in my blind and watch the deer within range and just appreciate the beauty of the animal, along with many others.

As far as self-satisfaction goes, yes, there is satisfaction in succesfully tracking, outwitting and getting a good shot off at a deer. But as I stated before...I do not wish to feed my family the meat that is bought in grocery stores, laden with growth hormones and other garbage. The meat I eat is pure. And don't even get me started about what would happen if no one ever hunted again. It's called herd control. Approximately 300,000 deer (I'd have to find the exact numbers) were taken in the 2005 hunting season, and guess what? The herd this year is bigger than the one last year.

You make some good points, BR. The reason you give for hunting is a valid one and I would be the first one to support a person's right to hunt for food. This is the only reason that I would hunt. But then, I would be in an extreme position if I had to resort to this.

Thinking back on some of the things I said in this thread, I would concede that a good hunter would kill quickly and efficiently so that the prey wouldn't even know it was being hunted. This is a humane method of hunting.

Herd control could be carried out by sterilization though. As a matter of fact, when an animal population is reduced, nature tends to overcompensate. This would be one reason (and only one of several) why the herd has increased this year.

Venus made a good point about wastage though. Sterilization would be less wasteful. Again, though, I would expect nature to compensate for this somehow.

Oh, and I am not a vegan. I do not believe that milking and egg taking causes suffering. The eggs though have to be from hens who are allowed to roam. Nonetheless, I rarely have either as they are high in cholesterol. I only have milk in tea or coffee and I don't drink much of either of these. I use soya milk on my cereals.

BadDog · Post by **BadDog** » Sat May 13, 2006 5:12 pm

As a Tennessean I live right in the heart of hunting country, and as a meat eater I have hunted myself. I like squirrel the most, and if you ate my wifes fried squirrel, and dumplings you would too. I promote the growth of trees like the scaley bark hickory, because that in turn promotes the growth of squirrels. The big problem with hunters in this area is they are not killing enough does. We are so overun with them the fish, and game commission are going out themselves and killing. we have to keep them in check. Man always has in tennessee, First the indians now us. I don't have to hunt dear anymore though, I get enough given to me by hunters uninterested in cleaning them to fill my need for dear.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sun May 14, 2006 1:06 am

OpenMind wrote: You make some good points, BR. The reason you give for hunting is a valid one and I would be the first one to support a person's right to hunt for food. This is the only reason that I would hunt. But then, I would be in an extreme position if I had to resort to this.

Thinking back on some of the things I said in this thread, I would concede that a good hunter would kill quickly and efficiently so that the prey wouldn't even know it was being hunted. This is a humane method of hunting.

Herd control could be carried out by sterilization though. As a matter of fact, when an animal population is reduced, nature tends to overcompensate. This would be one reason (and only one of several) why the herd has increased this year.

Venus made a good point about wastage though. Sterilization would be less wasteful. Again, though, I would expect nature to compensate for this somehow.

Oh, and I am not a vegan. I do not believe that milking and egg taking causes suffering. The eggs though have to be from hens who are allowed to roam. Nonetheless, I rarely have either as they are high in cholesterol. I only have milk in tea or coffee and I don't drink much of either of these. I use soya milk on my cereals.
So. Tell me your ingenius plan to utilize "sterilization." This I gotta hear.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Wed May 17, 2006 1:10 pm

BabyRider wrote: So. Tell me your ingenius plan to utilize "sterilization." This I gotta hear.

Sorry for the three day delay in replying, BR.

Not being personally involved, I don't have any plans. However, The Science and conservation Center and Wildlife Fertility Control have been working on a specific method since 1988 and have reported positive success.

If you're interested, and I would like to think you are, take a look at their site: -

http://www.pzpinfo.org/zoomontana.html

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed May 17, 2006 1:29 pm

OpenMind wrote: Sorry for the three day delay in replying, BR.

Not being personally involved, I don't have any plans. However, The Science and conservation Center and Wildlife Fertility Control have been working on a specific method since 1988 and have reported positive success.

If you're interested, and I would like to think you are, take a look at their site: -

http://www.pzpinfo.org/zoomontana.html
I will absolutely look at the site, Open. Soon as I finish my PM replies and check out my subscribed threads and what-not, yeah, I'll have a look. Could prove very interesting. Thanks for putting it up here.