First off, I believe that climate change is a serious problem, that it is human driven, and that it is having a profound effect on the Arctic. That said, it annoys me to no end that almost everything is being used to make the arguement that climate change is happening.
Look, I understand that it is a crucial issue, and one that it is difficult to convince some people (the very people who happily point out that the earth was warmer in the past accept the science that tells us that while rejecting the same science that is telling us that it is warming at unprecedented rate).
The problem with ascribing absolutely every problem or perceived problematic behaviour to climate change is that it dilutes the evidence at the end of the day. It has the power to numb, not shock. And what currently has me shaking my head is the cannibalistic Polar Bear photos and news item that is currently making its way around, the media and the internet.
Polar Bears are a touchstone for many people. They are charismatic, beautiful animals, and the ice they depend on is disappearing. Their listing as threatened by the US has done nothing to alleviate the threat to them. The threat to them isn't from hunting, either sport or by Inuit. Fifty bears or fifty thousand, when the ice disappears so will much of their food supply. There are many healthy populations right now that can and do sustain a hunt, the listing notwithstanding.
Because they have suddenly become the iconic messenger for climate change in the Arctic these photos, and the accompanying text (there are media stories as well, in pretty much every market) are being waved as climate change warning flags. "Look! The bears are being forced to eat each other because of their disappearing habitat and food supply!" "They are being forced to eat cubs!" (those are imaginary quotes – illustrative if you will.) But here is a quote for the Reuter's photos that I linked to:
into cannibals as global warming melts their Arctic ice hunting
grounds, reducing the polar bear population…"
I don't know about you, but I grew up on a steady diet of nature films/docs and practically every one that had Polar Bears had the dramatic part about the mother bear having to keep an eye out for males that will kill her cubs. Not the best evidence you say? That is true, how about this snippet from Polar Bears International
dependent cubs (Hansson and Thomassen 1983; Larsen 1985; Taylor et al.
1985; Derocher and Wiig 1999). Although this activity does not account
for a large percentage of the mortality, it is a curious cause of death
in young bears. A male bear that kills cubs fathered by another
probably confers some survival advantage to cubs he fathered by
eliminating possible competitors for resources. Also, female bears
undergo a lactational anestrus. By killing her cubs, a male interrupts
that anestrus, and theoretically could breed with the female, inducing
her to have his cubs rather than the cubs of some other male.
Infanticide, therefore, is a mechanism by which males can increase
their relative fitness.
and
kills another will eat it. The killing of young cubs is probably not
motivated by predatory instincts. Small cubs provide a very limited
amount of energy, especially considering the risk of injury to a
predatory male imposed by the defending female. Males that kill cubs
may not even consume them (Derocher and Wiig 1999; S.C. Amstrup,
unpublished data), perhaps due to their limited energy value.
So we have known behaviour from Polar Bears (and other animals, the killing of offspring is often used by males to both eliminate other male's genes from the pool and bring females back into breeding condition) suddenly being trumpeted as evidence of climate change. There's plenty of other evidence, we don't need to make everything evidence of climate change.
Comments
8 responses
I am often surprised at how stupid people can be about polar bears. They actually think the bears are cuddly and would be fun to see up close in the wild.
Great post Clare. I read a few of the articles making their way around the media on this matter in recent days and remember thinking there are other species of bears other than polar bears where males will exhibit the same behaviours but we never seem to hear about THAT inconvenient detail. Strange.
Well said, Clare. Those first three paragraphs sum up my own feelings perfectly.
My perception of the zeitgeist here is that far too many people are “switching off” at the mention of climate change — and it’s not power switches, it’s their willingness even to listen, let alone care.
I also reacted strongely to that photo, and for similar reasons (known behaviors of Polar bear, pre-global warming). But given the content of websites is now mass produced, and the ‘fact checker’ is paid about 1$ or 2$ per article, no wonder we are being fed this kind of inaccuracies. And brace yourselves, we are headed that way. Wonderful means (the internet) filled with poor content.
Amen
crap.
I’m glad you posted this, clare. I’m always distressed by the random extrapolations from the wild to the domesticated world, especially to make a political point. I’m sure polar bears (as well as grizzlies) carry on their behaviors despite our weather changing interferences. Some behaviors are probably result of human-made influences, but until we can tease out the facts, it’s best to just observe.
I think the height of that Megan has to be the zoo that offers “swimming with the polar bears” albeit behind a pexiglass barrier. I should have blogged about it at the time but was at a loss. I really didn’t know where to start. It is this, disconnect with the bears as an apex predator that leads to the “shock” that some tourists feel when they witness scenes like this. Some people cannot reconcile this with the Coke ads provide their ideas of what Polar Bear behaviour is about.
thanks Darcy, and its not only bears but animals across a wide spectrum of species that sometimes resort to infanticide.
I think you’re right Pete, and there is a large amount of “switching off” right now, which is a tragedy in the making.
I think it is a wider problem with our informations systems as a whole Suzanne. There just aren’t enough people asking critical questions about what they read.
Thanks Indigo.
Thanks and welcome Taqqiq. I’d ask you to expand on your comment but judging by the profanity laced comment that I deleted on another post that you aren’t interested in commenting so much as well, who knows. How are things in Chesterfield?
Thanks Robin. Like I intimated above, part of the problem I think in places like Churchill (near where this incident took place) is that people are coming to see iconic species without any real appreciation for what their lives are really about. It is another side to our prejudices towards charismatic species.