Kevin's Watch

Given that their habitat is rapidly disappearing, do you feel that it would be ethical, if Polar Bears numbers were reduced to 200 or so, to relocate the last of their kind to Antarctica?

Just a thought that occured to me.

I had been thinking that I would vote "undecided" (that's why I wanted to see others opinions).

But actually I'm going to vote Yes.

My apologies to any Watchers who are of Weddell Seal or Emperor Penguin extraction.

Hmm. Coulda sworn I put an "Undecided" option in. Oh well. Should lead to a nice Polarized debate.

Awful, awful pun.

That's an incredibly dumb idea. Polar bears live in tundra, and there is none in Antarctica. Polar bears eat seals, and there are none in Antarctica (or at least the same kind). Polar bears hunt on ice packs, and there are none in Antarctica.

You could just as easilly relocate them to the north pole. The logic is the same, and just as flawed.

Wayfriend wrote:That's an incredibly dumb idea. Polar bears live in tundra, and there is none in Antarctica. Polar bears eat seals, and there are none in Antarctica (or at least the same kind). Polar bears hunt on ice packs, and there are none in Antarctica.

You could just as easilly relocate them to the north pole. The logic is the same, and just as flawed.

No ice packs in the Antarctic? I'll have to remember that in future.

Polar bears are fantastic hunters. And they're smart.

My worry is definitely not that they couldn't live without the exact same type of seal around to hunt.

My worry is that they would utterly destroy Antarctic seals which, as eloquently described by the members of the early expeditions of human explorers, have absolutely no fear of predators and lie there blithely even as you are butchering the animal next to them alive.

My worry is the impact they would have on the Antarctic, not their ability to survive there. IMHO that's a given.

As far as relocation to the North Pole goes, IIRC there has been open water at the N Pole already and this may become a standard occurence in the Northern Summer in the future. There have already been drowned bears found in Arctic waters. I certainly wasn't advocating dropping the relocated animals at 90 degrees south. Notice that I mentioned the Weddell Sea?

Like I said, it was just an idea that occured to me. I was talking about giving a species that (even the Bush Administration has recently admitted) in the near future may be on the way out forever a small chance of survival.

I believe there's been at least one expedition of polar bears to foreign pastures - a shipload of them checked out the Himalayas, but it didn't work out. Still, they helped rescue Lyra, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

edit - sh*t! wrong thread - sorry!

No for me - basically, it's survival of the fittest.

No-one voted for the dodo

I say no. It's a horrible thing, but they'll either adapt or die. Send them south and who knows what kind of a chain reaction you'd get, even if some of them manage to survive. Wanna save the polar bears? Save their existing habitat. That's the only ecologically responsible thing to do.

There's a group that adovcated (and maybe still does) saving African species like the zebra, gazelle, cheetah, etc. by relocating them to the American mid-west because of the "similar" habitat - similar in that both regions had grassland. Absolutely irresponsible, in my opinion. Just look at the massess of starlings and English sparrows in the US, cane toads in Australia... All over the world, there has been accidental and deliberate introduction of exotic species, and it rarely if ever ends succesfully.

Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:I say no. It's a horrible thing, but they'll either adapt or die. Send them south and who knows what kind of a chain reaction you'd get, even if some of them manage to survive. Wanna save the polar bears? Save their existing habitat. That's the only ecologically responsible thing to do.

Good post.

Any kind of realocation of a species to other natural habitats can be very dangerous in terms of unforeseen repercusion, as other esteemed members of the board have noted.

While it might seem the right thing to do, if you like polar bears, it takes the habitat preservation out of the equation. And that's what conservationist societys are usually all about. The big furry friends (pandas, polar bears etc.) are nothing but window dressing.

Loremaster wrote:

Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:I say no. It's a horrible thing, but they'll either adapt or die. Send them south and who knows what kind of a chain reaction you'd get, even if some of them manage to survive. Wanna save the polar bears? Save their existing habitat. That's the only ecologically responsible thing to do.

Good post.

I totally agree with that.

Again, it was just a random thought that I simply tossed out for discussion.

I'd say that the species could be preserved by those already in captivity, but I'm always unsure about the ability of species released back into the wild to reclaim their former ecological niche.

Also, Alynna Lis Eachann made a great point about the effects of previous relocations of animals.

Mind you ALE, I was quite stunned when I visited my Pa in Queensland and played golf with him on a cane-toad infested course. I saw a toad and thought it would (obviously) be best to dash it's brains out with my 6-iron. Dad stopped me doing so. Apparently that would have garnered me a $10,000 fine. So I refrained.

Although I did see a toad that had been smashed to bits with a Driver on the tee of the 8th hole (dogleg left around water).

FINE???

I thought you guys were rewarded for whacking cane-toads??

Good post indeed Alynna. Adapt or die.

--A

Alynna Lis Eachann wrote:I say no. It's a horrible thing, but they'll either adapt or die. Send them south and who knows what kind of a chain reaction you'd get, even if some of them manage to survive. Wanna save the polar bears? Save their existing habitat. That's the only ecologically responsible thing to do.

There's a group that adovcated (and maybe still does) saving African species like the zebra, gazelle, cheetah, etc. by relocating them to the American mid-west because of the "similar" habitat - similar in that both regions had grassland. Absolutely irresponsible, in my opinion. Just look at the massess of starlings and English sparrows in the US, cane toads in Australia... All over the world, there has been accidental and deliberate introduction of exotic species, and it rarely if ever ends succesfully.

Absolutely the crux of the matter. I'm not aware of a single successful example of introducing a new animal into an existing habitat.

Bad idea. Really bad idea.

Prebe wrote:FINE???

I thought you guys were rewarded for whacking cane-toads??

Apparently it's more humane to shove them in a plastic bag and stick them in the freezer.

I'd go for the 6-iron if I was a cane toad and if I had a choice

So would I. Or perhaps a 5-iron.