Talk:Polar bear

Inuit speaking Yupik

"The Inuit refer to the animal as nanook...and nanuuk in Siberian Yupik." Why would Inuit be speaking Yupik? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That sentence should be reworded as it does incorrectly group Inuit with Yupik/Eskimo. I don't know enough about the Yupik language family to update this sentence, but I agree on your point. I made a modification to seperate the two groups on the main page. BaShildy (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Purported Population Recovery

Intro paragraphs contain the following; "For decades, unrestricted hunting raised international concern for the future of the species; populations have rebounded after controls and quotas began to take effect."

There was an Economist article about how populations are crashing, about how regulation has totally failed (Greenland half-counting its kills by doubling counting a quota) and how the locals may well be imagining there are more bears because they're seeing more of them; but it's actually because they're starving, where their normal food chain is falling apart from overfishing (they are apex hunters; overfishing decimates the species they feed on, which in turn live on fish). Toby Douglass (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

P.s. I did wonder when I read that sentence. There are, AFAIK, *no* examples of regulation and quotas protecting or conserving ANY farmed/fished/hunted population. It would be a miracle if polar bears happened to be first. Toby Douglass (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a bit of a problem with that sentence as well. When and where was the "unrestricted hunting" that "raised international concern"? I've been here since 1974 (NWT/Nunavut) and hunting has always been restricted so I tagged that. I had also seen the reports of people seeing more bears. There's a write up of that here but I can't find the other one that said that not only were there more bears being seen but that they were not starving and appeared quite healthy. However, the Elders always said that if you saw a bear on land be very cautious as it would be hungry. That is, bears would only be on land hunting if food was not available on the ice. As to the hunting being a problem, that does not appear to be the case, the problem is "habitat loss and the effect of climate change." That is why I tagged the overfishing as original research and needing a source.

By the way the Muskox was brought back from near extinction after being over hunted by the use of regulations and now a quota system. There's an article at Petersen's Hunting and it's backed up by the IUCN Red List. something lame from CBW 09:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As with any article and any subject, you can find articles that are pro and con. To tag this article with Original Research is heavy handed. I will remove the tag in one week if not done sooner and will cite articles to support the con position. Morenooso (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is no support for the overfishing claim in a week not only can the tag, which is not for the entire article but just for the claim that overfishing is the cause of the decline in bear numbers, be removed but so can the claim. I see all kinds of reports that say the bears numbers are declining due to climate change but I have yet to see one that says it is being caused by overfishing. Why are there no reports of seal stocks declining if overfishing is a problem? The Ringed Seal and the Bearded Seal are both listed as being of least concern which is odd given that the article now says that Polar Bear "populations anyway may be continuing to shrink due to collapse of the populations of their prey". If overfishing is the cause of the decrease in bears why has it not been mentioned in the article before. That's because it's climate change and not a supposed drop in the number of seals due to their prey be overfished. something lame from CBW 15:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please change the article; I wrote from memory, which isn't a reliable (or quoteable) source. Toby Douglass (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I will let one of the regular editors take care of this. At the same time or actually prior, the editor should create a new section on this talkpage which tells why tags are being removed. Morenooso (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what some of the other "regular" editors say. In a day or so, I'd recommend that someone post a new "Tag Removal" discussion that reflects this subsection. Morenooso (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed this: "hunting is now regulated, although with conflicts between the various hunting nations about quotas which may mean that the quota level is higher than the special reproduction rate and populations anyway may be continuing to shrink due to collapse of the populations of their prey due to overfishing.". I don't know what "special reproduction rate" means. The primary prey species of polar bears are ringed and bearded seals, both of which are considered species of least concern, and the IUCN does not cite overfishing as a major threat to either type of seal.[1][2] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that was the problem I had with the section. something lame from CBW 18:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is shaping up nicely now that we have concurence. Morenooso (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

special reproduction rate - special is the odd but correct spelling of the word species with the -ial suffix. So it means the reproduction rate of the species. Toby Douglass (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Eukarya

Can you please remove Eukarya from the taxobox? 92.25.194.105 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why?--Kevmin (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See Domain (biology). According to the three-domain system of Carl Woese, introduced in 1990, the Tree of Life consists of three domains: Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya. Eukarya's kingdom shows Animalia to which polar bears belong. Morenooso (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Eukarya isn't required. Read the taxobox rules. Adding Eukarya to the taxobox is like one saying "London, England, UK, Europe". 89.241.57.106 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What if someone wanted to know what continent London belonged to?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Other taxo boxes go with Kingdom and either Animal or Animalia. Personally, I think Kingdom is better as Eukarya is hard to understand if you don't follow the hyperlinks. Morenooso (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it looks odd. I've removed Eukarya. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Polar bears in Halifax?

From the Global Warming section: "Hungry polar bears have been spotted in Halifax and Ontario, Canada, foraging for food in people's garbage cans." While there may be polar bears in the extreme north of Ontario, if there were any near Halifax, they would have escaped from a zoo. Halifax, Nova Scotia, is approximately the same latitude as Portland, Oregon, or Portland, Maine for that matter. But, if the is material to be cited to show this is true.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbuddhafreak (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this: "Hungry polar bears have been spotted in Halifax and Ontario, Canada, foraging for food in people's garbage cans." I did a Google News search for "polar bear Halifax" without quotes and couldn't find anything relevant.[3] As for Ontario, this is a normal part of the polar bear's range and the article already says that polar bears forage for human garbage. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

the panda bears are kinda like bears but live in north pole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.184.198 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

New study on the evolution of polar bears

Complete mitochondrial genome of a Pleistocene jawbone unveils the origin of polar bear

Should be implemented into the article by someone who's familiar with the topic. --bender235 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No one? Okay, so I'll do it. --bender235 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

oil and gas section seems speculative and political

Basically cobbled together a speculation that oil spills could impact the polar bears. But there is no real sense of how much habitat the bears have (they are wide ranging) and how much immediate area would be taken away by oil development. For that matter no sense of the frequency and expected extent of spills and how much damage that does. And for that matter there is a history of oil development on the north shore of Alaska, in bear range. But nothing in the article about what that has been observed to d to polar bears. Common sense would indicate that rigs, especially off shore would have limited impact from just being there. Spills are an issue, but still are limited in size and duration. Perhaps the biggest issue is just the prescence of people and the need for some defensive hunting. However, it's unclear if bear reproduction will make that up and still rewach carrying capacity based on prey availability (and/or if bears learn to avoid humans with sufficient contact). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.157 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

yyyyyeeeesssss.....oil and gas are bad for all polar bears, because they drink it, and when they go to smoke, then they catch on fire....VERRRRY tragic indeed!

Jford12889 (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)