Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

First Ever Wild Grizzly/Polar Hybrid Shot

Posted by Zonk on Sat May 13, 2006 10:48 PM
from the no-one-tell-stephen-colbert dept.
Science
tavilach writes "Jim Martell has a license to hunt polar bears, but when his latest kill had "white fur [that] was spotted brown and it had the long claws and slightly humped back of a grizzly," officials seized the body in order to conduct DNA tests. These tests confirm that the dead bear had a polar bear mother and grizzly father, the first documented grizzly-polar hybrid in the wild. This was lucky for Jim, who was facing a fine and jail time for possibly killing a grizzly. Scientists who would have liked to study the bear are not so lucky."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

First Ever Wild Grizzly/Polar Hybrid Shot 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Good job... (Score:4, Funny)

    by facelessnumber (613859) * <drew@NOsPAm.pittman.ws> on Saturday May 13 2006, @10:51PM (#15327894) Homepage
    Now we'll never know what kind of mystical skills and powers it had.

  • Lovely for science... (Score:4, Funny)

    by pdes (136795) on Saturday May 13 2006, @11:03PM (#15327952)
    But how does it taste?
  • So what we're talking here is a species that hunts humans, mated with a species that's known for being grumpy, vicious and well nigh indestructible.

    Thank god this guy killed it! Jail time heck, give the man a medal.
  • The burning question: was it a Pizzly Bear or a Grolar Bear?

  • So typical! (Score:4, Funny)

    by CODiNE (27417) on Saturday May 13 2006, @11:21PM (#15328025) Homepage
    genetic tests showed the bear had a polar bear for a mother and a grizzly bear for a father.

    Those grizzlys... always going after the blondes.

  • Pathetic that this animal was shot... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Entropius (188861) on Saturday May 13 2006, @11:25PM (#15328042)
    So it's apparently legal to shoot polar bears in Canada, despite the fact that they're considered one of the animals facing increasing threats in the future from withdrawing sea ice?

    And it's also legal to shoot a half-grizzly, even though shooting grizzlies is illegal?

    What a waste of a magnificent (and apparently rare) animal. I'm probably one of the more pro-hunting folk around here; I grew up eating deer and gamebirds shot by my father, and have a bunch of respect for people who know how to turn a shotgun shell or rifle bullet into dinner. But these wealthy big-game trophy hunters, who look for rare and wondrous animals only to shoot them and turn them into rugs or wall ornaments, make me sick.

    Imagine if some guy wandering around the Antarctic finds a meteorite with evidence of Martian life in it, and whacks it with a sledgehammer...

    • Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hannah E. Davis (870669) on Saturday May 13 2006, @11:45PM (#15328096) Journal
      As I understand it, polar bears are huntable in the arctic at least in part because they eat people. They're extremely dangerous animals -- apparently, they're known for showing no fear around humans and having no qualms about eating human flesh, so there are parts of Canada where you actually do have to go around armed in case one comes by looking for dinner.

      I'm still not a big fan of shooting them, but I can see why it might be allowed, especially near human settlements.

      • Re:Pathetic that this animal was shot... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Dachannien (617929) on Sunday May 14 2006, @12:26AM (#15328205)
        But they're adorable and they like Coca-Cola. How could they possibly be vicious?

      • polar bears are huntable in the arctic at least in part because they eat people.

        Then why not make the areas where polar bears live off-limits to humans? We inhabit every single part of the Earth, why not leave some space for other animals? If an animal species is being driven to extintcion due to habitat encroachment by humans, then it's only reasonable that humans stay off that species' natural habitat.

        IMHO, a polar bear is justified in killing a human because it's in his nature, but a human is supposed t

        • Re:A reasonable altyernative (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Firethorn (177587) on Sunday May 14 2006, @06:07AM (#15328959) Homepage Journal
          Then why not make the areas where polar bears live off-limits to humans?

          Because then the bears breed and expand their population, which expands their territory and suddenly the bears are threatening our enclaves again.

          I believe that the limit is something around a hundred bears a year. That's why you get the rich 'big game hunters' as they're the only ones who can afford the resulting high fees.

          If an animal species is being driven to extintcion due to habitat encroachment by humans, then it's only reasonable that humans stay off that species' natural habitat.

          They're not endangered, though their population density is tiny. And their 'natural' habitat is anywhere there's food, minus areas where more warm climate adapted bears take the territory.

          IMHO, a polar bear is justified in killing a human because it's in his nature, but a human is supposed to be "rational", which means, logical reasoning should prevail over his instinct to kill.

          We haven't wiped out the Polar Bears entirely, nor that many other large species recently in the northern hemisphere. I'd tend to say we are controlling it, and death/predation is both part of nature and man.

    • So it's apparently legal to shoot polar bears in Canada, despite the fact that they're considered one of the animals facing increasing threats in the future from withdrawing sea ice?

      Polar Bears around that area are so numerous they're getting to be a big problem and they have to be culled. Mostly because Polars like to supplement their diet of seals, fish and walrus with fresh dump pickings. I've heard stories of smoldering polar bears wandering through the dump at Churchil Manitoba.

      And it's also l

    • Canadian Polar Bear Hunt (Score:5, Interesting)

      by yankpop (931224) on Sunday May 14 2006, @12:07AM (#15328149)

      Some details for your consideration:

      Inuit communities are allowed a certain number of polar bear tags each season, based in part on the idea of sustainable yield (how sustainable I can't say). This is in recognition of the importance of the polar bear hunt in their traditional culture.

      Each community decides how to allot their tags. Some places use all of the tags internally for subsistence hunting. Others sell a portion of them to big-game hunters, which brings a lot of money to the community. This is arguably a more efficient form of subsistence hunting: What's a better use of the resource, a) killing a bear and eating it or b)selling the chance to shoot a bear to a rich hunter and then spending the tens of thousands of dollars raised on feeding your community? Tags for outsiders are only available through the Inuit communities.

      And yes, it's true that polar bears are dangerous, and anyone working in the arctic needs to carry a rifle in case of emergency encounters. Government research projects are extremely touchy about this (my wife's been up a few times) - spotting a bear anywhere near a camp results in the camp being moved rather than risk the death of a bear or a human. However, the suggestion by another poster that the hunt is necessary to keep communities safe is bullshit. Which is not to say nuisance bears won't get killed, but it certainly won't be part of the hunting tag system.

      yp.

      • If the reason why Inuit communities are allowed to hunt polar bear is because this is deemed to be part of their traditional culture, why are they allowed to sell their "polar bear tags" to non-Inuits? Is trading their traditions for money also part of their traditional culture? Or is Inuit traditional culture just Canadian government's pretext to explain why polar bear hunting is allowed, the real reason being that it brings good money into Canadian economy?

        Just wondering.

        • I expect that the amount of money polar bear hunting brings to the Canadian economy is trivial. However, it is far from trivial for the native communities involved. And given all that the Canadian government has imposed on the Inuit, I think it's a good thing that they've allowed them to make their own decisions in at least this one aspect of managing their resources.

          If I recall correctly, Scotland (could've been another north Atlantic country, my undergrad is a long ways back now) adopted a similar polic

          • To restate my point, if you allow Inuit communities to trade their "polar bear tags" for money it means that polar bear hunting is nothing but an economic subsidy.

            Given that polar bears are now considered an endangered species [biologicaldiversity.org], that makes a big difference.

            I don't know Inuit traditions, but it is possible that the role of a polar bear is irreplaceable in some of them. If that is the case, I can understand the argument for allowing some hunting, even if I may not agree.

            However, if hunting is just intend

    • It sounds like you're not so much pissed that a trophy hunter shot it, but that a wealthy trophy hunter shot it. This is class envy masquerading as ignorant environmentalistm.
      • Wealth only came into it because 1) this guy was wealthy, as he would have to be to buy the tag to shoot the bear and 2) only wealthy people have the time to waste to travel to far away locations just to shoot things to bring back as souvenirs.

        You apparently didn't "hear" the real distinction, which was people who shoot things to make dinner versus people who shoot things to make decorations for their den.

        I have family who hunts for sport -- as in they don't need to hunt in order to eat -- and likes a good
    • So it's apparently legal to shoot polar bears in Canada, despite the fact that they're considered one of the animals facing increasing threats in the future from withdrawing sea ice?

      It's only illegal to kill something pointlessly if you're not rich enough to waste 45,000 dollars to do it.

      That's your lesson for the day boys and girls. Everything is moral if you have enough money.

      I'm not entirely opposed to hunting, but he'd better eat that fucking bear.

  • trophy "hunters" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by loomis (141922) on Saturday May 13 2006, @11:37PM (#15328075)
    This was previously discussed at another forum yesterday, and the general consensus was what a complete travesty it is that this animal was killed by a "trophy hunter."

    Interestingly, the people who were most offended were other hunters. Not trophy hunters, but those who hunt legally as a means to control herd populations and to feed their families. In my experince, standard hunters aren't so inexperienced and quick to shoot at anything that moves than a normal hunter. I mean you've got to get somethingto show for your 45K right?

    And now, because this "hunter" didn't know the value of this animal, it is dead before it could be studied further and / or protected.
    • Hate to break it to you, but this wasn't a unique animal. If scientists want to study a polar/grizzly cross, all they need to do is go to a zoo that already has one.

      As others have pointed out, conservation biology says that this cross is a bad thing, meaning it has very low value and should not be protected. See controversy over the conservation of various big cats through cross-breeding for more info.

  • Must be a really rare spawn (Score:3, Funny)

    by Winlin (42941) on Saturday May 13 2006, @11:44PM (#15328094)
    I wonder what it drops? And if it's something good, when does it pop next?
    Note to self...really gotta take a break from MMORPGs

  • What does Hanso have to say about this? (Score:3, Funny)

    by EddieBurkett (614927) on Sunday May 14 2006, @12:17AM (#15328177)
    Could this just be part of the "Repatriation Accelerated De-territorialization of Ursus Maritimus through gene therapy and extreme climate change?"

  • I can explain it (Score:4, Funny)

    by greg1104 (461138) <gsmith@gregsmith.com> on Sunday May 14 2006, @02:47AM (#15328543) Homepage
    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.

    Clearly none of the people speculating spend much time drinking. You can mate anything with enough Tequila.

  • same domestic problems as humans (Score:3, Funny)

    by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Sunday May 14 2006, @05:44AM (#15328917)
    "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."

    alcohol

    --

  • there's more, you know (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DemiKnute (237008) on Sunday May 14 2006, @06:07AM (#15328960) Homepage
    Scientists who would have liked to study the bear are not so lucky.

    Maybe the scientists who would have liked to study a grizzly/polar mix should go to a zoo, where they already exist, as mentioned in the article. I think that would be a lot easier.

  • Sounds like a job for Animal Of The Week (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bertie (87778) on Sunday May 14 2006, @07:19AM (#15329110)
    Who needs Wikipedia when you've got this sort of expertise?

    " animal of the week today is the polar bear which is pretty much the king of the animal kingdom because it is a cross of the best bits of a tiger, a shark and a Hulk Hogan. if you think that you can imagine how strong a polar bear is then think again because you are wrong. it is stronger than that and it is probably stronger than your next guess. we are talking about an animal that can leg press over 500kg and curl 200kg with ease. pretty much the only thing that it cant do is squat thrusts but they are gay anyway. polar bears have a furry bellend to protect it from the cold."

    Animal Of The Week [animaloftheweek.co.uk]

  • we'll never know (Score:3, Funny)

    by aapold (753705) * on Sunday May 14 2006, @08:46AM (#15329298) Homepage Journal
    if it drank coca-cola or pepsi....

    • Re:Was it a mule? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RsG (809189) on Saturday May 13 2006, @11:04PM (#15327957)
      "If the two types of bear can mate and produce fertile offspring, then
      they are really the same species."

      Nah, different species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Look up "ring species" for examples where A can breed with B, and B can breed with C but C cannot breed with A.

      Mostly this reflects the fact that the term "species" is a fairly arbitrary distinction that goes back before our understanding of evolution.
        • Only if it happened in a short enough period such that the genetic diversity brought by the polar bears is not lost. There would be no selection to keep polar traits in the gene pool since they are disadvantageous. I would think biologists would describe that as just extinction of polar bears, and evolution of a new species.

    • Re:Was it a mule? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lubricated (49106) <michalp AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday May 13 2006, @11:09PM (#15327977)
      If the two types of bear can mate and produce fertile offspring, then
      they are really the same species.
      That's really an older view of things. There are many animals that are concidered different species even though a fertile rare hybrid appears. The most obvious is wolves, coyotes and dogs. But also different species of abalone, cicklids(sp?) are other examples. Biologists have a hard time defining on what exactly makes a species, because horizontal gene transfer among what are considered species happens surprisingly often.
        • Sure, but what are the chances of those fertile offspring breeding? It's ok to have a little gene flow, they can still be considered certain species, so long as there is little enough( has to be less than somwhere in the neighborhood of one individual per generation).
    • We've mated camels with llamas. Are they now the same species?
    • Nowhere in the article does it say anyone wanted to study the carcass. They've crossbred polar and grizzly bears in captivity before, I'm sure they have all the data they want from those experiments.

      You've got it exactly backwards. Sure, no one is interested in studying the carcass, because they've done all they need on captive hybrids. But I bet there are plenty of scientists who would love to get the chance to radio-tag a live one and follow it around in the wild for a while. Does it behave like a gri

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.