Talk:Polar Bear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Some facts I'm planning to massage into this article:

  1. polar bears feet are turned inwards. this gives them better traction when walking on slick ice
  2. polar bears are the most recent (100,000 years ago) species to begin adapting to aquatic life. The first mammal to adapt to aquatic life is the ancestor of all the whales and dolphins. The next adaptation was the seals and walruses, then the otters and their ilk.
  3. polar bears are most closely related to brown bears. crossbreeding results in fertile offspring. (add also to brown bear)

- UtherSRG 17:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've also heard somewhere that polar bears are the only animals except humans that kill for fun/sport. Can anyone verify that? --Aramgutang 02:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've heard the same thing about various dolphin species, so though few animals seem to do this, saying "only" is overstating the case. Pcb21| Pete 11:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, not true: ever watch a housecat play with a mouse? I recently read David Brin's "Earth", in which he quotes somebody, to the effect: "It's foolish to believe the lie that only humans kill for fun." (It's near the end, I think.) I believe he also gives a few examples (including the cat/mouse one). If somebody is more familiar with the book or the quote, please help... --anon

Polar bears are not aggressive animals by nature. Believe it or not, a Russian naturalist has survived some 500 encounters with this species without carrying a gun. He runs off a polar bear once just with a long stick. His book : Living with the polar bear. You can look for it on amazon.com. Do not rely on online sources too much for wild life information, some, if not many, provide biased information, sometimes based solely on word of mouth and personal opinion.

Contents

[edit] Lasers

In the article it says that the polar bear's fur can absorb light? Does this mean if they got hit by a laser designed to hurt humans they wouldn't take damage from it? What would happen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.79.168.160 (talk • contribs).

Probably the same thing that would happen to a person in a white t-shirt. According the the article, the fur absorbs UV light; i.e., a particular wavelength range (100-400 nm range). If the fur absorbed visible light (400 - 750 nm), the polar bear would appear black. Lasers are a focused beam in a specific wavelength; the particular wavelength varies depending on the type of laser. [1]. You might want to read this article for a discussion on the practicality of laser weapons. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So in theory would it be possible to actually kill a polar bear using a laser? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.79.168.160 (talk • contribs).
Theoretically, it should be possible to kill anything with a laser. As noted above, the only laser weapons currently in existence are pretty big (either stationary or mounted in a large aircraft) and are intended to be used for shooting down missiles or other projectiles. There are much easier and practical ways to kill a polar bear should the need arise. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well bears are really powerful but I don't think they're completely invincible, do you think the lasers we have now for shooting down missiles could be used to kill one of them?

[edit] Albinos?

I've been thinking of weird questions lately and I've wondered if there is such thing as an albino Polar Bear? Could somone please verify this for me? Greyhead 15:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Googling seems to indicate that while there's probably no reason a polar bear can't be albino - after all, they certainly do have melanin, which is coded for by genes that are just as susceptible to mutation as other genes - no albino polar bears are known to either exist or have existed. Why not? There just aren't, that's all; perhaps they've got melanin-coding genes on multiple alleles and even if one is defective in an albinism-causing fashion, the others compensate for it? Or maybe it's some other reason. There's only ever been one albino gorilla known, after all. Why? Who knows. DS 13:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would be extremely difficult to tell an albino polar bear from a normal polar bear and one couldn't tell if it was albino from a distance.

My grand father told me that a pink nose is the only way to tell a true albino bear. He said that a lot of them have pink dots as well. The only way to confirm a albino is the pink or red eyes.

[edit] Spirit Bears - Any Relation?

I was wondering about the Spirit bear - an interesting parallel, though I assume it is much more recent. Does anyone know? And should there be a link? --GwydionM 18:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Spirit Bears are Black Bears with a recessive mutation. Even in the area where they are found, only one Black Bear in ten bears a double helping of the recessive white gene. -- Geo Swan 10:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surreal Edits

In their spare time they do fun stuff. They slide on their bellies, box with eachother, dunk eachother, and more. When the female makes her den she makes it on a hillside so her cubs can slide down the hill on their bottomes.

I can't confirm or deny this but it seems a bit unlikely? The cubs do seem to 'play' in this way. I strongly doubt that the location of the den is decided in this fashion though. Does anyone have any data for this? akaDruid 15:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weasels?

I had the impression from somewhere that polar bears aren't actually "bears" - that is, although morphologically they certainly look like bears, immunogenetic and/or skeletal analysis showed that they're far more closely related to weasels than they are to other bears. Does anyone know anything about this? DS 13:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe you have Pandas confused with Polar Bears.

NEVER MIND, I just read the Panda article and through recent genetic testing Panda's are infact bears.

As polar bears are capable of producing fertile hybrids with brown bears, they must be very similar genetically.

There is a type of bear we Inuit call a weasel bear it is when the bear gets over 12'. other than the build differance it is the same bear. Maybe you herd this and got it confused.

[edit] Endangered?

I have read an article that environmentalists are petitioning to have the polar bear listed as endangered because they feel that this will protect polar bears from becoming extinct. The arctic sea ice is disappearing Sandy June 02:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Polar bears are now drowning to death due to global warming. This seems to run counter to the statement that they're "excellent swimmers". http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html
There's a difference between swimming 50km to get from land to ice (that's still excellent swimming), and swimming 200km - that distance they might be able to do if they had some food on the way, but as the article points out, although they can swim well, they can't catch seals in the water, they have to get them on ice floes. The arctic ice cap is thawing so much that it is getting beyond their swimming abilities. - MPF 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That is what is going on: polar bears are "excellent swimmers" and they can swim up to 100 miles to reach the ice packs, but they are not designed to swim 200 or more. They are not swimming in a nice, quiet, backyard pool either-- add rough seas to the picture and the concept of polar bears drowning is not too hard to grasp.

It is hard to believe this scince I have seen and herd from my Inuit elders that bears can sleep in water if tired. After a bear gets so big they become to big to hold their weight on ice for very long. Most bears never touch land agian after they are born. These bears must of died of hunger no ice means that they cannot hunt seals. Which like to sun on ice. People have allwas been trying to put them on the list for as long as i can remember. Now they are even trying to put the ringed seal on the list cause the bear hunts them. Even though the warmer seasons are helping the seals mortality rate. Go Figure! I am all in for conservation but people need to make informed dicisions before they go to far.

[edit] Left-handedness?

Is it true that all Polar Bears are left-handed? Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 21:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Polar bears can't use their hands to hold, grip, or manipulate things in any meaningful way. Thus, left or right handedness is irrelevant to them Malamockq 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No this is not true Most bears are right-handed not all though. I was tought that when my Grandfathers father hunted them with dogs and a spear he would look for this. They run with thier stronger foot first this is their "handedness". When charged by a bear that this is their one weakness they cannot turn very fast to their oppisite hand. To think that animals do not share our traits is very... jaded. Sorry! The mystic and respect for the polar bear is one that none can share.

[edit] Polar bear dimmensions

I remember hearing somewhere that a giant male was exhibited in 1962 at the Seattle world Fair. It's mounted height was 11 ft 2 inches and it had an estimated original weight of 2,200 lbs.

That's right. But, becareful, that is an estimate. A male polar bear stands about 2.2m - 3m on its hind legs and weighs 350kg - 600kg. I have been trying to verify this figure for a year now.Thanks for your figure, I can now quite assure that the bear in question weighs perhaps about 650kg-720kg, not that heavy( bigger than even a large bison bull). When you compare the size among specimens, you wil figure out it is impossible for a polar bear to weigh that heavy with this size. One thing that could make the bear heavier is the last time it feeds before being killed. A polar bear of this size can put in about 60kg of food. So, at peak, this guy weighs 700kg-780kg with a full stomach. Thanks again for the figure.

One more thing, when talking about the weight of a Kodiak bear: Before it goes into its winter den, it puts on up to 180kg of fat. So, if you hear that Kodiak bear is very heavy, that's also deceptive. The best way to measure the "working weight" of a brownbear is at the time it's active during the year. tht is truly the real weight, the weight based on which you can measure the corresponding strenght of a bear. So, with regards to some Kodiak bears which can measure 680kg in the wild, I suspect that those are shot in winter. In summer, they are about 500kg-540kg.

I hope this clear the doubt about which is the really biggest bear. Polar bear is the "biggest bear species". Only some exceptionally large Kodiak bear in winter can match the size of a large Polar bear. The sources claiming that brown bear weighing 1000kg or more is unbelievable. To reach that size, a bear would need to be at least 5m tall, or else it won't be able to move, let alone feeding itself, much like obesity in human. A bison averages twice the weight of a brown Kodiak bear, a bison can grow up to 1100kg, how can some creature half its bulk can surpass it? It is just unreasonable, especially in the wild, where every one fights for food, and every one can starve, now and again.

"Bears of the world" has a reasonable discussion on the size of all bear species. You can have a look.

When I was 12 I went to the muesum in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory they had a 13'9" on display it is a giant to behold! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.204.126 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 17 November 2005.

[edit] "Global warming" instead of "climate change"

"Climate Change" was a propaganda term pushed into popular usage by Frank Luntz. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html

[edit] Capitalization of common names

Copied the following from User talk:Keenan Pepper and User talk:Wsiegmund. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Keenan! I wonder if you are aware that capitalization of terms like polar bear is controversial? "Whether the common names of species should start with a capital letter has been hotly debated in the past and has remained unresolved. As a matter of truce both styles are acceptable (except for proper names), but a redirect should be created from the alternative form." See WP:MOS. Earlier, the MOS advises "do not enforce American rules on pages about Commonwealth topics". Since polar bears live in both America (Alaska) and Canada (as well as other non-English countries), their nationality may be disputed.

The article was started in October 2001 with polar bear uncapitalized. [2] It was changed in March 2004. However, most of the edits have occurred since the latter date. It is possible that other changes occurred; my search was not exhaustive. I think the article history is sufficiently checkered that neither side can claim significant support from it. [3]

I have little interest in this argument since it affects the content not at all. Moreover, it seems to me to be one of the delights of editing Wikipedea to learn about this sort of thing. But, I thought some background on this matter might be helpful to you, in case you were unaware of it. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me about the capitalization of common names for species; I didn't even know there was any controversy. Do Canadians really capitalize it "Polar Bear"? I was just going by what I read at Talk:Bear#Caps. —Keenan Pepper 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out Talk:Bear#Caps. That was a low intensity discussion! The second edit was almost two years after the first, and your edits were nine months after that. User:Funnyhat is still around. He has been editing U.S. topics, so it may be that he was just citing the American practice, rather than Wikipedea policy. I may leave him a note on his talk page tomorrow. Regarding the Canadian practice, I really can't say. But, I have worked with one English editor who said that they capitalize common names. I didn't find consistent (or even frequent) capitalization of common names at the Banff and Jasper National Parks websites. [4] [5] My impression is that Canadian English is intermediate between the U.K. and U.S., but that is only an impression. I'm pretty certain that they have retained much of the U.K. spelling of words, e.g., colour. Word pronounciation is much closer to the U.S. than to the U.K. I'm relieved that you didn't mind my comments. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Keenan Pepper! I was curious this morning to look into the current practice for capitalizing the common names of North American mammals. Among Grizzly Bear, American Black Bear, Gray Wolf, Moose, Wapiti (Elk), Bighorn Sheep, Mountain goat, Wolverine, Puma, and Pronghorn, lower case seems to be more common. For plants, the common names are mostly or all capitalized. See Subalpine Fir, Engelmann Spruce, Whitebark Pine, Limber Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Rocky Mountains Juniper and Quaking Aspen. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Keenan - happened on your note at Walter's talk page, thought I'd add a bit for clarity. It isn't a US/Canadian or any other variant of English, it's more of a disambiguation and clarification thing, with capitalisation probably started by various field guide authors many years ago (e.g. Roger Tory Peterson capitalised names in his field guides; he may well be one of the first). There are various reasons for it, most importantly that a brown bear (a bear that happens to be brown in colour) is not necessarily the same as a Brown Bear (a particular species, Ursus arctos) - e.g. many Black Bears are actually brown. Also very useful is that it takes away the need to know the etymology of a species name, as to whether it is derived from a proper name or not, e.g. if using proper name rules, did you know that Brazilwood should not be capitalised (the country is named after the tree, not vice-versa), whereas Bishop Pine is (named after the CA town San Louis Obispo, not after the church rank) - and then there's names borrowed from other languages, e.g. should Pohutukawa be capitalised or not - do you know enough Maori language?!? I don't!! Another is that it gives uniformity of treatment in lists without "first-class, capitalised" species and "lesser, non-capitalised" species. Generally, most wildlife-interested people capitalise species common names (having picked the habit up from field guides), whereas most other people don't, but it isn't a hard-and-fast rule. If you want to dig further, there's been extensive discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life page, take a look through the archives. There's been a small but consistent majority in favour of caps (with no discernible geographic bias of those for and against). Hope this helps! - MPF 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Keenan - I looked into this a bit more. I have field guides with capitalized common names and field guides with uncapitalized common names (I got into this controversy in the first place by referring to the latter). However, the more major ones, especially The Sibley Guide to Birds (a new American guide) and others use the capitalized convention. The WP:MOS asserts, American English and Commonwealth English differ in their inclination to use capitals. Commonwealth English uses capitals more widely than American English does. That is how I got the notion that this was a US/UK usage difference. But, the Times (London) uses uncapitalized common names. [6] So, I stand corrected. I'm convinced by Michael's arguments and support the use of capitalized (or capitalised) common names in Wikipedia articles on plants and animals. Thank you, Michael. BTW, do either of you object to putting a copy of this discussion on the Polar Bear talk page where it might be found more easily? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] so much vitamine A in their liver ?

Anybody knows why polar bears (more generally polar mamals), got so much vitamine A in their liver? Probably an adaptation for the extreme cold, but how does it work ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.228.135.57 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 30 December 2005.

[edit] Biggest bear

I removed "The Polar Bears are one of the biggest carnivores and it is the biggest bear", just now. The first point is already in the article. The second is implicit in the second sentence of the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names

Why not include the name "Nanook" which is the traditional name of polar bears used by the Inuit? They are the people who have the most history and stongest connection with these bears.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polar Bear-baiting

Polar Bear-baiting If u have more information, citations, images or other, please do not hesitate to post it to the articles discussion page. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 02:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The largest extant land carnivore..."

I would recommed removing phrase "The largest extant land carnivore..." as many sources state that Kodiak Bears are larger than Polar Bears (Kodiaks are subspecies of brown bears). I have also read that the largest bear ever recorded was a Kodiak bear. (Even the wikipedia Brown Bear article says so) (Puna)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Please cite one of the sources that you mention, if you would, please. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Ursus arctos middendorfi (the Kodiak Bear), is the largest bear according to "Missä maa ja meri kohtaavat" (English original work "Where Land and Sea Meet" by Michael Bright). It also says so in http://animalplanet.co.uk/grizzly/feature2.shtml (section 2).(Puna)

I corrected this in the article a couple of days ago and someone reverted, to clarify the point, this article says that kodiaks often weigh over 1,500 lbs and peak at 2500 lbs (and even more in the zoo). This article says that polar bears weigh from 900 to 1300 lb and occasionally over 1750 lbs. This clearly means that kodiaks are larger (note that if you compare height kodiaks are also taller). Vicarious 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
But it's a sub-species. Taken in toto Brown Bears are not on average larger than Polar Bears. There is great differentiation amongst the former. Marskell 12:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In retrospect, I should have made the point that Brown Bears are omnivores whereas Polar Bears, along with Lions are carnivores. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Altought Brown Bears omnivorous, they are still carnivores. Polar bears are omnivorous too. Also, it is silly to say that something is "the biggest thing" if there really is someting bigger. Kodak Bear are larger than Polars on the average, so it sounds odd to say that "they are sometimes bigger". Sub-species or not, Kodac Bears are larger than Polar Bears, so i think it is utterly misleading to say that Polar Bears are largest bears. I would suggest that we would not use superlatives in matters like these, they don't add much to the informative value of the article and are prone to controversy.(Puna)

The phrasing of the statement is "the largest extant land carnivore", not the largest species. In order to be in the running you do not have to be your own species you simply have to be extant (which means still alive), live on the land, and eat meat. If you wish to rephrase this claim to the largest extant land carnivore species, I'd find it a bit wordy but you'd be able to call polar bears the biggest. (although this article also says that polar bears might be a subspecies of brown bear, but we can ignore that for now). When saying that the Great albatross has the largest wingspan of any bird you don't average it out with all the other Albatross.
As for the comment you did put in that the kodiak is occasionally larger, what part of the numbers say it's on occasion? aside from how drastically the peak numbers of the kodiak are higher (which suggests a higher average weight) the brownbear atricle says kodiaks are commonly over 1500 lb; while this article says polar bears are 900-1300 lb. Vicarious 22:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
OK look, Kodiak doesn't have its own page because its not its own species. We're discussing Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos, right? And we're redirecting in that sentence to the latter as larger than the former which doesn't make sense. There's this (looks corny, but actually Library of Congress): [[7]]. Marskell 10:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot of crap to wade through in searching for definitive sizes, but this from the Alaska gov seems relatively authoritative :[8]. It lists 800-1400 pounds for male Kodiak Brown Bears which is equal to our range for Polars (900-1300).
The original wording was correct. The Kodiak Brown Bear is an omnivore, and not a carnivore, as well, as the anon above asserts. The current wording is misleading because it implies that the Brown Bear is a carnivore. I'm deleting the parenthetical remark. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Polar bears don't have many plants in their habitat to eat. To be an omnivore though you don't have to eat plants, you just have to be able to, with a digestive track that can handle cellulose. Are polar bears and brown bears so different that one of them can and the other can't? Vicarious 19:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Polar Bear is an obligate carnivore. "It is the most completely carnivorous member of the bear family." Brown Bears could be argued to be carnivores since they are the order Carnivora, but "are not particularly carnivorous; they derive up to three-quarters of their dietary food energy from vegetable matter". It "has teeth adapted to an omnivorous diet." (The quotations are from their respective articles.) The BBC's treatment is similar to what I'm advocating. [9][10] Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems to have become a very difficult sentence. I'm willing to conceed that the kodiak is an omnivore and polar bear is a carnivore, however I think the kodiak deserves a mention. We still haven't established which is bigger anyway so I'll phrase it as to not specify which is larger. Vicarious 21:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antarctic

Surely the first line should read "The Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus), aka purple bear aka north-east-western bear aka puddle bear, is a large bear native to the Arctic" (not "Antarctic" as it read on Mar 1).

[edit] Relocation to Antarctica?

"There have been no proposals to date to transplant the species to some other environment, such as Antarctica." If there have been no proposals, why is this line even in the entry? Is there any source for the notion that this would even be a viable idea?

What a dreadful idea. If it succeeded, it would almost certainly result in the extinction of Antarctic fauna, e.g., Emperor Penguins. It seems to have been added in early October. [11] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] needs looking over by someone a tad more expert perhaps?

Good first draft, but: "For example, when a Polar Bear sits and waits by a seal's breathing hole, it covers its nose with its paws. This is because a Polar Bear's nose is the only non-white colored part of their body, and a seal could see it through the surface of the water."

This is a rubbish myth and it is compounded 2 pars later with the even more rubbishy myth about hand preference.

"Almost every polar bear is left handed. When stalking prey on the ice, a polar bear draws his right paw across his black nose, hiding his primary dark body part, the better to successfully sneak up on his next meal. (Some polar bears also squeeze their eyes almost closed, for even more complete camouflage.) Then, the bear batters his lunch to death with his stronger, dominant, left paw."

I've edited both references out. Plus I've removed the external reference http://www.wildanimalsonline.com/mammals/polarbear.php which not only appears to be a source (there are thousands more all over the net, of course) of the handednes/hunting story but is also a commercial sucker site, baited with pop-ups that are just ready to trap kids who may be looking for homework references.

Any chance of getting a little more rigorous with fact through the entire article? Thedarky 16:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true polar bears have been observed to cover their noses when hunting and while sleeping to improve heat retention. When they are studied by reseachers they put the paw on the nose to keep them warm until they revive. Once agian all animals share alot of our traits to think that they are stupid or not like us is IDIOTIC and should have no place in the sensitive balance of our ecosystem.

[edit] Capitalization?

Is there a reason why nearly every time the species' common name appears in the text, both words are capitalized? This does not seem standard to me... Radagast 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It varies all over the place, and has been brought up numerous times to much debate and no concensus on a standard, thus capitalization and lack of capitalization methods are both accepted, as long as the article is consistent. -Dawson 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunting by humans

My school-aged daughter came home today with a very POV (anti-hunting) article on polar bear hunting (i.e. hunting of polar bears by humans). Since I knew nothing about it, I checked Wikipedia and to my dismay there seems to be nothing on it. A quick google reveals about 500 are hunted per year, about 1/5 by Inuit, the rest by hunters who pay a hefty license fee. Anyone knowledgable want to write something up? Otherwise I'll add a very terse section myself. It seems to me far more relevant than Polar Bear-baiting, which has its own article. Rocksong 10:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added Polar bear hunting article, and will add a link from this article shortly. Rocksong 02:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello I am happy to wade into this issue with you and your daughter. I am a Inuit Hunter I have also been on a few sporthunts. do you have any specific questions I will be happy to answer any questions.

[edit] Blubber?

I'm certainly no expert, but is it correct to say, as this article does in its first paragraph, that polar bears have blubber? I thought blubber was limited to marine mammals and was physiologically different from fat. Could someone who knows more than I about adipose tissue and polar bears please weigh in on this and correct the article if I'm right? Do polar bears have fat or blubber? — CKA3KA (Skazka) 07:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, and the substance may well be physiologically different, but for the common understanding of the term blubber, I think it applies. Almost every source I've read on polar bears, from kiddie encyclopedia to scientific papers, refers to their fat layer as blubber. -Dawson 16:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Polar Bears Are conciderd as marine mammals. It looks and tastes like blubber also.

[edit] Exceptional size/footnotes

On 18 April 2006 an anonomous editor added information on exceptional size sourcing "Guinness world of records" (undated). [12] I wasn't able to verify this but replaced it with a number from a web source that I cited, but didn't necessarily view as a WP:RS. On 06:30, 22 April 2006 an anon (probably the same one) left me a nice note on my talk page, [13] and restored the information citing "Guinness World of records 2006". [14] This complies with my understanding of the guidelines for reliable sources, and I think it should stand. I've added the complete citation. While I was at it, I converted the footnotes to the Cite.php form. See WP:FN. The web footnotes need to be fleshed out and I will do that if no one else beats me to it. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hibernation of Polar Bears

Do Polar Bears Hibernate?

Hibernation in its true sense does not apply to polar bears. True hibernators experience a large drop in heart rate and a body temperature that drops to circa O° C (32° F). Brown and black bears are also not true hibernators. Though their heart rate slows, their body temperature does not decline to this extent. Bears do not enter a state of deep hibernation because they need a higher body temperature in order to meet the demands of pregnancy, birth, and the nursing of young. Though brown and black bears hibernate in winter, all polar bears do not. Only pregnant female polar bears hole up in a den. Pregnant female polar bears den up from August/September to March/April. Some polar bears also enter a state of hibernation due to the lack of food. Because they don't den, scientists have dubbed the condition "walking hibernation." Polar bears appear to have the ability to control their hibernation. A study done on a group of Hudson Bay polar bears that fed at a garbage dump during the autumn "lean period" revealed that the animals were not in a state of hibernation. Those bears, however, that steered clear of the dump were. (source : http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/)

[edit] Source

The part about eating grease and motor oil, that's from an issue of either Equinox or Canadian Geographic that I read when I was at my parents' house. I'll see about finding the specific bibliographic data. DS 21:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming induced arctic extinctions

User talk:NeuronExMachina has added weasel words to the assertion of likely global warming induced Arctic extinctions and added a contrary opinion from National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative industry funded think tank. [15] Since this source does not satisfy WP:RS for a science article, i.e., a peer-reviewed article published in a reputable scientific journal, I am reverting this change. The impact of global warming on the Arctic ecosystem is better discussed at Effects_of_global_warming#Ecosystems. In my opinion, this article has too narrow a focus for that debate. However, this article should reflect the consensus of Effects of global warming. My reading of that article is that it does not accept the view promulgated by the National Center for Policy Analysis. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where is the peer-reviewed article supporting the statement that polar bears are being threatened by global warming? I'm sure a number of other species would be threatened, but what about polar bears specifically? On a side note, I wonder if there's any evidence of mass polar-bear extinctions during periods when the temperature was substantially warmer than it is now. --NeuronExMachina 00:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added some material from a 2004 National Geographic study. Jkelly 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems a near consensus that ice thinning caused by global warming is leading to a reduction in polar bear numbers. A simple google search for 'global warming polar bears' describes evidence accumulated by the Canadian Wildlife Service, the US Minerals Management Service, and the US Fish and Wildlife service. Scientific consensus attributes global warming to human-produced CO2 emissions. Any article on a form of wildlife, especially one whose numbers are shrinking, should address the issue of their conservation. It therefore makes sense to make the edit (which I've done) from 'may', which suggests much uncertainty, to 'has been attributed to', which suggests the topic is still under investigation but is nonetheless well on the way to becoming scientific fact. LeoTrottier 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! --NeuronExMachina 01:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polar Bear Walrus Syllogism

Does anyone recall an entry about the predator-prey relationship of polar bears and walruses? There was a statement that said something along the lines of, All walruses are afraid of polar bears, even though no one polar bear can [take] a walrus" Anyway, while not particularly useful in this page, I thought it was a very interesting syllogism, and it made me laugh. Does anyone know where this statement went? - I couldn't find it in the edits history. Just curious, thanks.

[edit] Divergence From Brown Bears

I tried to edit the section on Phylogeny to change the time of divergence of polar bears from Brown bears from 2 million years ago to 200,000 years ago, but someone has reverted the edit back. The 200 thousand years ago figure is consistent with everything I have seen on this topic. To be specific the Smithsonian website says about 100,000 years (and notes that that makes them the most recently evolved large mammal). The Bear Den website says 100,000 to 250,000 years ago, as does the University of Maryland's department of geology website, and Polar Bears International website says about 200,000 years ago. So "about 200,000 years ago" seems reasonable and the 2 million years ago figure seem completely out of bounds. So if someone is going to revert the section back to the 2 million years ago figure I would at least like to have an explanation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rusty Cashman (talk • contribs) .

Great work tracking down all the citations! I am not an expert in Polar Bears, nor am I the one who was doing the reverting. I may however, have the reason for the disagreement: from what I have heard there is a divergence between the traditional paleontological dating of fossils and recent genetic dating. Beta, Sumich, and Kovacs Marine Mammals, 2006 (full citation below) indicates that fossils give dates of 0.7-0.1 Ma, while molecular methods indicate the divergence occured at 1-1.5 Ma. I checked their reference for the molecular date (Yu et al 2004), which has a 95% Confidence interval around this estimate of 0.01-3.08. Given these data, I tend to think your date is the better of the two.
The two works cited above are
  • Berta, Annalisa, James Sumich, and Kit Kovacs. 2004. Marine Mammals: Evolutionary Biology 2nd ed. Academic Press.
  • Yu, Li, Qing-wei Li, OA Ryder and Y-ping Zhang. 2004. Phylogeny of bears (Ursidae) based on nuclear and mitochondrial genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 32: 480-494.
The two methods may be the reason for the different views on the date. I think we should leave it at 200,000 and track down on of the citations you mention and add it to the article. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did a significant revision of this section. I changed the name of the section from "Phylogeny" to "Evolutionary Relationships" because I consider that to be clearer and it is consitent with the terminology being used in other articles (such as bears). I added a mention of the Sheilds/Talbot paper that showed that some brown bears on certain Alaska Islands had a more recent common ancestor with polar bears than with other brown bears, and I added a link to the grizzly/polar bear hybrid article. Hopefully, this section of the article is now more upto date and more consistent with other articles. Rusty Cashman 07:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Quick Edit

I deleted the information regarding H. Sterling Burnett's point of view because it seemed as though it clouded the issue. Even though the air temperatures may be decreasing near certain areas by the poles, the polar ice cap is still melting. And most scientists believe that it will continue to do so since global temperatures are projected to rise significantly over the next several centures. If this does indeed occur entire arctic ecosystems will be threatened; the polar bears are clearly a part of this ecosystem.

The information regarding H. Sterling Burnett's point of view, while potentially accurate, act to cloud the issue while it is really fairly straightforward - in my humble opinion.

Thanks!

Jdsmith03 11:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)jdsmith03

[edit] New info about polar bears and Global Warming

[16]. Maybe it should be incorporated into the article? JoshuaZ 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polar bears only hunt when there's sea ice?

[17]

The video from Weather.com claims that bears are starving because they only hunt when there is sea ice around, and will the melting going on, their hunting season has dropped an entire month in the last 15 years. This has led to polar bears starving. Can some one confirm/deny/add? (I'd check up on it, but I don't have time right now). Thanks! Janet13 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polar Bears Not Endangered by Global Warming, Greenland Ice Thickening/Expanding as a Whole

Sources:

  1. http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDFkNjliNTIxYjJjNmQxNjdhYjdjNTA0ZTU2ZGFjNzQ=
  2. http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzg3NTcwZjhhYzFhNTM2MTk1MDVkNGUxNWNjMjhhMTM=
  3. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22170
  4. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15957
  5. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/686008/posts
  6. http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2006/Mar%2018.htm
  7. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281
  8. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/07/05/a_convenient_lie

Artic Ice Melting Cycle:

  1. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743085/posts

(please note that some of these sources will include information and opinions not pertinent to the issue at hand, and should be ignored as topics of debate)

I worry when the article includes unlikely hypothetical scenarios as fact. Rampant speculation on such a sensitive topic only leads to conflict. - MSTCrow 05:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My view is that these are not peer-reviewed scientific journals and do not satisfy WP:RS. Many seem to be pushing a political point of view and selectively quote scientific papers for that purpose. I agree that the content in the article could be better sourced. However, debate about global warming and its effects on ecosystems may be better pursued on Talk:Global warming and its related pages. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get into the global warming debate as a whole, only if polar bears are in some way being affected by effect X or not. The article needs to state both points of view, without coming down on one side or the other. - MSTCrow 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
To remove cited information is hardly the way to get the article to state both points of view. Wouldn't it make more sense to add a balancing paragraph of your own, in the form of a neutral presentation of the perspective you favor? With sources with some scientific credibility, please. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
Removing one side that incorrectly lists itself as accepted fact makes sense. I'll rework the thing with both points of view, with neither side claiming total acceptance. - MSTCrow 22:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid and T.K.

I added the geneolgy of the Hybrid Polar-griz This report was given to us by Economic and Natural Resourses Canada. I thought it added a little to the that bit of trivia. Since it has less relation with the polar bear mabye the whole thing should be taken out?? Anyway I was wandering if you would accept Traditional Knowledge in this site. I think I would add to the overall knowledge base this site holds.

Polar Bears are one of the Inuit's most highly regarded animals on the planet. We as a people would never put them in a position to endanger their well-being.

I thought above statement should go on the page as well. To remind others that this was our responiblity long before climate change started or myths of over hunting.

[edit] YouTube

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beavers

A little known fact about the polar bear is that it's not really a bear at all, but a rather large relative of the beaver family.

Are we sure about this? It doesn't seem likely that it could mate with brown bears if this were the case. Kisch 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptional weight

An anonomous editor disputes the record weight number.[18] I'd like to see it corrected, as needed, and the citation replaced by one of higher quality. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] resting

the bear isnt resting, its clearlying having a good doss, it needs to be changed. immediately.

[edit] Fur Legend

In the Fur and skin Section, there is a short bit about the guard hairs:

The hair does not have fiber-optic properties, nor does it transmit light or heat to the skin (an urban legend).


This could be improved with a reference to someplace with a fuller explanation of this often told "fact". There seems to be a guy named Daniel Koon who wrote about this.

I think the term "urban legend" is being misapplied.

216.254.12.114 17:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I read a long article about this in the Journal of Optics in the 1970s. This is NOT an urban legend. This is the truth.--Filll 17:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I read a few discussions of this in the literature. It appears that this theory was disproved. I included a reference and made a note to this effect. If you make a statement such as this, back it up with some research and a reference so people do not have to go through the hoops that I did.--Filll 23:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is good to see a source for this item. Thanks, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/Talk%7EPolar_Bear_4554.html"