Bear Hybrid.

Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
10,119
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
wasilla alaska
#4
They did the testing after it was killed. It has happened in zoos they where sceptical about in the wild. I wonder if its happenned up here?
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
10,119
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
wasilla alaska
#6
If there where plenty of Polar Bears and it wasnt so expensive I would probably hunt one, only one, in my lifetime. As it is they are rightly so a protected species.
 

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
36
Location
Wales
#7
Don't get me started... :)

I can't see the pleasure in bringing down such a magnificant, powerful animal.. I can only see that someone who does needs the ego boost..

It is probably easier and cheaper to see a therapist than kill a polar bear..
 

wildwings811

a.k.a: agilitydobemom
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
351
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Michigan
#8
It is a sport (hunting) and if there were no hunters the population of "game" animals would be exploding

To hunt you are required to be licensed inorder to control the amount of animals taken out of the population it is a matter of controling the "herd" to prevent overpopulation and disease that may be spread to other species and possibly to humans

Yes it is a sport but a good sport in the intrest of the animals well being
 

mojozen

bullie lover
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
1,517
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Madison, wi
#9
I personally have no problem with hunting for food. I lived with a family for 2 years on an indian reservation up in Minnesota, that got most of their meat from the various hunting seasons. They also used the skins of their kills to make blankets, mittens, and even boots out of. The animals of the land fed them, when they were too poor to buy meat on a regular basis.

What i don't agree with is hunting for trophys. Yes, the family I lived with had heads mounted on their walls, but that was still generally the bear or deer that also fed them for the entire winter. But hunting exclusively for the rack of antlers, or the upper torso of a bear to mount on your wall and give you bragging rights? That I don't agree with.

But also... bear was mighty tasty too. ;)
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
324
Likes
0
Points
16
Location
Ohio
#10
mojozen said:
I personally have no problem with hunting for food. I lived with a family for 2 years on an indian reservation up in Minnesota, that got most of their meat from the various hunting seasons. They also used the skins of their kills to make blankets, mittens, and even boots out of. The animals of the land fed them, when they were too poor to buy meat on a regular basis.

What i don't agree with is hunting for trophys. Yes, the family I lived with had heads mounted on their walls, but that was still generally the bear or deer that also fed them for the entire winter. But hunting exclusively for the rack of antlers, or the upper torso of a bear to mount on your wall and give you bragging rights? That I don't agree with.

But also... bear was mighty tasty too. ;)
I agree with you. Trophy hunting seems pointless. There are much better ways to boost your ego without killing animals.
 

~Tucker&Me~

Active Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
4,940
Likes
0
Points
36
#11
I agree with Dizzy.

Such a beautiful animal shot for a wall decoration.

I mean, if the guy is willing to pay 45 grand for a Polar Bear hunting license...

I just think of them as old, rich men with too much money, LOL. I mean, imagine even 5 grand of that going to a shelter! Or helping kids in Africa! I just think there are better ways to spend money then on shooting some trophy.
Sad... :(

~Tucker
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Lancaster, PA
#12
LOL of course this had to turn into a "hunting is wrong" thread. I don't know what else I expected to see here.

I for one think it is very neat that they now have proof of this hybrid in the wild. A new species :D Isn't that exciting? But no we have to focus on the negative :p
 

Zoom

Twin 2.0
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
40,739
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
38
Location
Denver, CO
#13
I don't necessarily think all hunting is wrong, but it kind of gets to me when I see an article about this new species or subspecies and it's usually because someone shot it first. Maybe it's unavoidable, but it still makes me sad. I would have liked to track that animal and see how it's habits differed from normal polar bears/grizzlies.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
543
Likes
0
Points
0
#14
It is a sport (hunting) and if there were no hunters the population of "game" animals would be exploding

To hunt you are required to be licensed inorder to control the amount of animals taken out of the population it is a matter of controling the "herd" to prevent overpopulation and disease that may be spread to other species and possibly to humans

Yes it is a sport but a good sport in the intrest of the animals well being
Hunting is not a sport. Plain and simple. Just like killing people is not a sport, killing animals isn't either.

I can't stand hearing the hunters greatest overpopulation excuse. Do you not know why there is a overpopulation in some species in the first place? Well, let me inform you. It's because they have no predators. And guess who killed 'em?

I for one think it is very neat that they now have proof of this hybrid in the wild. A new species Isn't that exciting? But no we have to focus on the negative
Yeah, it is excellent. Too bad it isn't a new species though, it's dead.
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Lancaster, PA
#15
RetrieverLove said:
Hunting is not a sport. Plain and simple. Just like killing people is not a sport, killing animals isn't either.

I can't stand hearing the hunters greatest overpopulation excuse. Do you not know why there is a overpopulation in some species in the first place? Well, let me inform you. It's because they have no predators. And guess who killed 'em?


Yeah, it is excellent. Too bad it isn't a new species though, it's dead.

Oh give it a rest. Do you think this was the ONLY one out there? there are some in zoos. So there does that make you feel better?

I personally haven't tried bear. Heck I'm not even a fan of deer really but I could definately go for some fresh turkey.

P.S- perhaps they should make hunting humans a sport. Weed out the weak or in this world THE CRAZY ones ;)
 

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
36
Location
Wales
#16
To clarify, crossing a grizzly and a polar bear does not produce a new species, anymore than crossing 2 different breeds of dog does....

It is just a cross bred bear, nothing terribly exciting really..

I hope they ate the bear and used the skin for something. What a waste.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
4,003
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
The great whi...err...green(?) North
#17
Dizzy said:
It is just a cross bred bear, nothing terribly exciting really.
Actually, it's quite exciting considering the two species generally don't breed with each other in the wild and possibly never have before. A naturally occuring cross-breed has never been documented before this (ie, a grizzly had to have been out on the ice-flows during breeding season when they're normally inland) making this a 'discovery' of sorts.

Interestingly, some scientific communities regard polar bears and grizzlies as the same species. Having a hybrid naturally occur who could breed (and I make that point because grizzly/black bear hybrids are sterile) shows just how close the two species really are.

With all the talk of global warming and the threat it brings to the polar bears habitat (ie, the ice cap where they spend a great deal of time is shrinking), perhaps hybridization is natures insurance against the complete loss of a species should polar bear habitat loss become that critical.

And just one last little though on the matter - which I think makes the point of just how interesting this is: Grizzly bears are considered terrestrial bears. Polar bears, spending most of their lives on the ocean (albeit a frozen ocean) are considered marine mammals or a marine bear.

Any way you slice it, it's very interesting.
 

JennSLK

F150 and a .30-06
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
6,956
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
35
Location
Alberta
#18
My dad and Fiance are avid hunters.

My dad kills a bear a year and a bunch of deer.

he has hunted in africa and has got a Grizzly bear. He hasn't gone after a Polar Bear though. YET.

He doesnt like bear meat so he takes the rug and give the meat away. It's not like he leaves it there. Our whol family LOVE deer Meat. Me included, it's one of the best. Antilope (sp?) steaks are amazing as well. So is aligator.

Im not much for the african deer type things. I didnt really like their meats. Buffallo is good.

Dont turn this into a hunting debate.

It's kinda neat. Like it was said before, it would have been cool to study it, I wonder if it's habitat/actions were more Grizzly or Polar Bear.
 

smkie

pointer/labrador/terrier
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Messages
55,184
Likes
35
Points
48
#20
i dont think of a new hybrid as a species..if i am not mistaken a hybrid will revert back to it's old genetics if not continually specifically bred where as a species is something that continues it's new line on it's own. I might be wrong. like the tion or the liger if they bred back to their own that would be the end of it..they wouldnt seek out each other for that reason..just a fluke.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top