Police have shot and killed a polar bear that came ashore in northwestern Iceland, the first sighting of a polar bear there since 2016. It might have hitched a ride from Greenland on a floating iceberg.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Here in the states, we shot a gorilla once.

    It, uh, . . . It didn’t go very well for a long time after that.

    Personally I’d recommend some other approach. But that’s just me.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think there’s a slight difference in a captive gorilla and wild polar bear.

      I mean (unrelated but still) I think a polar bear could 1v1 a gorilla. Meaning I think a polar bear is more dangerous. Especially a hungry one, that’s able to just walk into a population center.

      I too wish they could’ve saved the bear, but I don’t think people are gonna complain about this as much as with Harambe (RIP)

      Like even if anaesthesia was an option, they’d still have had to give it a ride back, or build it a home. And building zoos just isn’t too popular nowadays imo.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        Polar bears are three times the size and weight of a silverback. They could likely prevail in a 1v2 or 1v3. 1v4 would be a fair fight.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean, 1v1 is easy, 1v2 maybe even, but if there’s a group of silverbacks, what with being somewhat smart and sturdy themselves, I think they could occasionally even get a win.

          I’ve never seen a gorilla irl, but I’ve seen a taxidermied polar bear, and holy fuck those things are big. But then I think of just how versatile opposable thumbs are and of how insanely thick gorilla muscles are.

          I’m marking this as a thing I’d like to know but probably never will, what with the moral implications of setting animals on each other in blood sports.

          • ichbinjasokreativ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’m just saying that the romans stopped putting bears into fights in the colloseum because it got boring - the bears qust wrecked everything else the romans could get their hands on.

            Or so I’ve heard, I’m not a historian.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              I believe this.

              And they didn’t even have polar bears afaik.

              Romans should’ve put Silverfang in the ring.

            • Deceptichum@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              A bear would get obliterated by an elephant, maybe even a hippo. And the Romans could get their hands on those.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            Gorillas don’t have much for protection. The bear has 4" of fat “armor”. The gorillas won’t be able to bite or tear flesh.

            My thinking is that if the bear is able to grab one of the gorillas, it will be disabled pretty much instantly. Unless the remaining gorilla(s) can press their momentary advantage while the bear is distracted, it’s just going to rip them apart one by one.

            1v4, they might have enough clout to keep the bear immobilized long enough to kill it.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              Gorillas don’t have much for protection. The bear has 4" of fat “armor”. The gorillas won’t be able to bite or tear flesh.

              Oh yeah this is very true. But like several of them manhandling one, idk. Might be out of their capacity for coordination, though.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yeah, with adequate coordination, the gorillas should prevail in a 1v3. But I think they tend to fight more like individuals than as a pack.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think a polar bear could 1v1 a gorilla. Meaning I think a polar bear is more dangerous.

        An inuit friend once told me a polar bear could hunt, stalk, kill and eat you in about 8 minutes. I’m told the conversion from Minutes to Treadwells says it’s longer, but I didn’t check whether he was putting me on.

        a hungry one, that’s able to just walk into a population center

        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/13/churchill-canada-polar-bear-capital

        It takes a lot of training and a little acceptance. Note, in the article above, the term ‘medical bills’, which in Canada doesn’t mean “cash for care” so much as “rent and food during recovery”, which aren’t covered by insurance.

        • greedytacothief@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The inuit folk I’ve talked to said that sometimes they have to shoot a polar bear if it’s harassing the village. When they kill one, it’s not uncommon to find bullets in it from the last time it was harassing a village. Polar bears are big and scary and we are destroying their habitat.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          What does? Living in a polar bear habitat? Did you actually read the article yourself, or did you — I presume — just Google something you thought supported your view?

          “If you were to build a town today, you would never put it here,”

          Because it’s s place where polar bears naturally live, see? Unlike in Iceland. They’re not unheard of in Iceland, but it’s not their habitat.

          Did you note them size of those buses they do these bear tours in?

          Did you note that these people don’t live alongside bears as much as in a place where there are often bears. These people don’t take risks either.

          “When I was growing up, it was common for conservation officers to shoot 25 bears a season,” explains the mayor, Mike Spence, who is of Cree and Scottish descent.

          Culvert traps, baited with seal scent, line the perimeter of the community; bears that are caught in them are taken to a holding facility, popularly known as the polar bear jail, where they are held for up to 30 days (without food, to enhance the deterrence factor of the experience), before being drugged and helicoptered to a spot safely away from town – or, if late enough in the season, on to the sea ice.

          This is a single community, in a place where it’s actually feasible to anaesthetise a bear, then keep then without food in a place meant to keep bears, then fly them to a place where the bears naturally live. And it happens so often that it’s something that actually warrants constant attention, again unlike in Iceland.

          Youre proposing the entire country starts putting down polar bear baits and traps, and then when they work once in a decade when a bear floats down on accident, they’ll fly a bear from Iceland to the Arctic?

    • 𝚝𝚛𝚔@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      The irony of an American lecturing another country on finding an alternative to shooting.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s a lot of justification for killing something that can go fishing for food.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      but can they actually go fishing for food? If a wild animal is wandering into human territory, there is usually a resource-limiting reason for it.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        According to Iceland the entire island is human territory. I’m going to press F to doubt.

        And they very much can. This was a rural home, not some suburb. But even that wouldn’t be the first time in the North.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      Except that’s not how Polar Bears prefer to hunt. They prefer to hunt by holes over pack ice, where they wait for animals like seals to surface for air. When there’s no pack ice, which is what is happening thanks to global warming, they hunt for whatever they can on land. And if that land is inhabited by humans, that means humans.

      I would say the potential to kill and eat humans, including infants, is excellent justification.

      Does it suck that this is our fault to begin with? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean that human lives should be put at risk as well.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        Humans have lived in polar bear territory for centuries though. So we know it’s possible. Shooting endangered animals on sight because you don’t want to learn how to co-habitate a region is just peak shitty human.

        And they’re bears they can absolutely find other sources of food without killing humans.

        • Krzd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          How the fuck do you imagine “co-habitating” with polar bears??? That’s like starving a wolf and telling it to “co-habitate” with a baby.
          Yes, it sucks that we have forced polar bears out of their natural habit and that they now have to hunt humans for food, however if something starts hunting humans for food it’s just gonna get killed.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            Nobody in the article said it was hunting humans. That’s pure exaggeration and fever dream shit from the comments section. This entire fucking comments section just assumes polar bears prefer to hunt humans.

            • Krzd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s not just an assumption. Polar bears will hunt humans. They’re the absolute apex predator in their habitat so why shouldn’t they just hunt everything that moves?

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                Because most animals, including polar bears, have learned to be wary of groups of humans. And nobody is saying they won’t hunt humans. But the article doesn’t support that this one was. The comment section is acting like they’re obligated to hunt humans.

                • Maalus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Polar bears are absolutely not wary of humans. You keep talking about the topic as if you don’t really know anything about them.

                • Krzd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Lol, polar bears do not avoid humans, that’s like running away from food

            • Maalus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              They do kill and hunt humans. It’s a fact, not an assumption. It was a threat to people, going closer to inhabited areas. What were they supposed to do, check if this one is a vegan?

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                Nobody said it doesn’t happen. But the article doesn’t support that it was happening there.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            That says you’re supposed to scare them off first. Shooting them is a last resort. Not the first resort. In Iceland they made it the first resort by law. That’s the issue.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Got it. As long as the children have a way of scaring off the hungry polar bear when it gets to the school playground, no worries.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I see, so post multiple guards around any place children might be just in case the rare polar bear makes landfall on Iceland so it can get scared away instead of mauling children.

                  Very reasonable.

            • Twiglet@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              So you want a non-native animal with no suitable habitat and no food source other than humans to be given special preferential treatment over the humans that happen to live there, allowing it to roam and maul at it’s leisure while people politely try to shoo it away from the child buffet?

              You have zero context and zero knowledge of the situation, the country or that environment but sit there on your high horse pretending to be morally superior to the people in actual mortal danger.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                They are not in any more danger than other places that live with polar bears. That’s the point. They have the same situation but a different, worse, standard for dealing with it.

                Also it’s a bear, it can fish on the coasts, in rivers, and hunt other animals just fine. It’s not some horror movie monster just coming after people.

                • Twiglet@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Polar bears aren’t native there, and you have no idea what the natural area is like. It’s an island built on fishing, all the towns are on the coast, where the bears would like to hunt. Polar bears don’t live there, because it’s not an environment that can sustain them, and the biggest native wild animal is the arctic fox. Rest is all farm animals with some reindeer introduced to the highlands in the 70’s for game/sport hunting.

                  You’re arguing from pure ignorance.

        • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Brother you are literally required by law to carry a firearm in svalbard if you go outside of longyearbyen because if polar bears. Its pretty shitty if iceland(400k people) suddenly have to deal with the mess.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            Really because Flying Squid’s link only recommends them. It requires a method of scaring them off. And life happens. We don’t have a right to just exterminate everything inconvenient around us.

            • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              With this logic humans exterminating everything around them is life just happening. Humans are animals. What i propose is that humans should stop ruining their natural habitat so they wont have to migrate to new places where they are dangerous to not only humans but probably other species that live there.

      • Floodedwomb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        So tranquilizers and trailers don’t exist in Iceland? They couldn’t just send it back to Greenland?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          So no map? You said it wasn’t an immediate threat. Where’s your evidence?

          Also, why are you assuming it came from Greenland and why are you assuming that it would survive just being dropped off in some random place in the humongous island of Greenland anyway?

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              The article that says relocating it to Greenland was a non-starter?

              The article that says this?

              Greenland is an autonomous territory but also part of Denmark — refusing permission either on the grounds of concerns about disease, or because of the local population not being keen on a larger polar bear population on its glacier.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yes that part and the part about the bear being in the trash outside. Not an immediate threat.

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        I wouldn’t say it’s sufficient justification, to be honest. I guess it depends on the population to some degree. But since we caused this problem, I would say moving even a whole village out of polar bear habitat is worth the cost of shooting even one, and we can suppose there will be more to come. I think we have a responsibility to get the hell out of their space, even at a huge cost to us.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Sorry… you think an entire village needs to be moved when a polar bear is seen in Iceland? How would that even work?

          • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            What do you mean how would that work? Polar bear habitat is declared national park, inhabitants get assistance moving elsewhere. Extremely expensive? Yes. Complicated? Not really.

            I get that people aren’t gonna go for this, but I stand by the position that it would be the ethically correct thing, and we should be honest with ourselves that we are compromising on that.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Did you even read the headline of this article? This is the first polar bear seen in Iceland since 2016. They swim.

              Where exactly is this habitat supposed to be? The entire coast?

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              There are still literally tens of thousands of polar bears.

              As a global population for a species, that’s low.

              But as something that would mean relocating entire towns full of people — when towns are usually doing something important production wise and can’t just be moved willy nilly — that’s a whole lot.

              “Move an entire town”

              Then half a year later when the bear moves to another town, do it again. And again. And again.

              Seriously? Do you know the size of the town compared to the national population in Iceland?

              That’s just a logistical nightmare which wouldn’t even accomplish any of the virtues you’re signaling so hard.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                3 months ago

                The polar bears aren’t following the people. It can absolutely hunt (and would prefer) a coastline.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Villages live in polar bear territory in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, and Russia just fine. So Iceland has to learn some new rules. It’s no reason to contribute to the extinction of a species.

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      132
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      polar bears will absolutely hunt humans for food without a second thought. And you will not be able to outrun them or scare them away.

      This one came quite close to homes, which is a reason for almost all towns with polar bears in the area to shoot them.

      That this bear was the first in quite a while is a sad thing, but it’s understandable that the town doesn’t want a bear mauling people for a snack

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Read the article. They don’t even go onto that. They have a shoot on sight policy regardless.

        • brenticus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you can see a polar bear it’s a threat.

          They really aren’t like other bear species. They are an apex predator in an area where basically nothing other than another polar bear can even harm them. They see most things as food, including humans.

          As a bonus, Iceland has a pretty wonky ecosystem that needs protecting as is and polar bears aren’t native to the island. They have to swim extreme distances to get there, making relocation extremely difficult and expensive, plus if they leave it be it will entirely disrupt other wildlife in the area, to say nothing of the human population.

          As others have said, it sucks that it got shot, but Iceland especially has very limited options on how else to deal with it. Shoot on sight is, unfortunately, a very reasonable policy for them.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            A whole ass country can’t afford to trap and relocate 1 Bear per decade?

            That’s ridiculous.

        • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yes. Because they’re not going to wait until someone got turned into kibble for something to do

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Which isn’t the reason the Iceland government gives. Again. Go read the article. But also that’s the same excuse we almost made wolves extinct with. Animals as a rule avoid people when possible.

      • rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        This reads like it’s justified.

        We destroy their habitats so they need to come to us to survive only to get killed by us.

        Sounds like we are just bad guys.

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is going to be increasing in the coming years. The ice is melting, and they will be forced onto land to look for food.

          • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I’d like to point out to you that Neanderthals and the premodern man did not have high-powered hunting rifles and didn’t live in almost every conceivable area on the planet with those hunting rifles.

            • troed@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              You’re absolutely correct. Since we stopped allowing hunting* the number of polar bears has grown consistently.

              Historically, overhunting was the polar bears’ greatest threat. From the 1800s up through the 1960s, commercial and later sport hunters greatly reduced polar bear numbers. Populations rebounded in most places after the five polar bear nations signed the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. The Agreement halted commercial hunting and significantly curtailed sport hunting.

              https://polarbearsinternational.org/news-media/articles/why-is-polar-bear-hunting-allowed

              *) with caveats, as the article is really about

          • Drusas@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’ll work out a lot better for them if people don’t just shoot them every time they see them on land.

  • NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    If you’re going to regularly shoot a polar bear every 8 years, that seems like you’re starting a new tradition rather than following a policy.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Polar bears hunt humans for food. You cannot scare them away, you and your loved ones are prey. You will not win a fight against them, they are too big and too strong.

      Unless you are fine being dinner, then yes, the polar bear is getting shot.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Somehow it’s always the case when it’s other people. Somehow I don’t expect you to allow yourself to be killed and eaten

        • Deceptichum@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Cool, go out there and volunteer to be their dinner.

          Always some edgelord commenting on “we need less humans”, never willing to be the less human themselves though.