PDA

View Full Version : Polar Bear


oldbillthundercheif
May 10, 2007, 10:03 PM
The polar bear is the only large animal that I've always wanted to hunt, but never have. I need to bag one before the icecaps melt.

Where and when can you hunt them right now?

Playboypenguin
May 10, 2007, 10:08 PM
Since it has been announced earlier this month that they will probably be added to the endangered species list very soon you might never get the chance.

Which is fine with me. I am not anti-hunting but I am anti-trophy hunting.

jbadams66
May 10, 2007, 11:31 PM
I imagine that hunts are booked up for awhile now that there is talk of putting them on the list. I cant remeber where I read it but I think you are looking at $25,000 - $50,000 to book a good hunt for polar bear, I could be wrong on this.

musher
May 10, 2007, 11:52 PM
You'll have to hunt them outside the US (like Canada). There's no season on polar bears in Alaska.

You'll need paperwork to get the hide/skull back into the US.

If they get listed as threatened or endangered, forget it.

oldbillthundercheif
May 11, 2007, 12:34 AM
I've never been a horn hunter either, playboy, but I grew up watching super-8 footage of my father and several of his hunting buddies being charged by a very large polar bear. They started shooting when it was at least 300 yards out but it didn't drop until it was within spitting distance. An action-packed film, let me tell you.

We had to sell the rug when he died... ugh. I wish we didn't but pop had spent all of his money hunting Africa for a few decades and cash was short.

I have the skull, but would sure like to have a shot at my own.

I know my way around the ice and would be willing to drop some serious coin (not $50K, but I would throw some cash around). Are they hunted in scandanavia?
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k223/zarganuts/IMG_0130.jpg

T. O'Heir
May 11, 2007, 01:53 AM
You're looking at booking a 2008 hunt in Northwest Territories or Nunavut in Canada. You must use a guide and comply with our gun laws(no big deal). NO HANDGUNS WHATSOEVER. Have one in your possession at the border and you will be arrested and turned over to your Homeland Security.
http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/visitin_e.asp
A U.S. importable(Nunavut bears are not legal to import to the U.S. That's a U.S. rule, I think.)polar bear hunt cost $24,900Cdn, in 2005. Plus the costs of getting there, licences, accomodations and food while in town(Holman, Northwest Territories. About $300Cdn per day in cash. No credit cards), taxi fees from the airport($10 cash each way.) and the $750Cdn trophy fee. You're probably looking at 30 grand or more, Canadian.
http://www.nwtwildlife.com/hunting/polarbeartable.htm
http://www.andrewlakelodge.com/polarbear.htm

Carryabigstick
May 23, 2007, 03:58 PM
Out of curiosity, what is the largest polar bear taken in a hunt? I've heard about one taken by multiple hunters that weighed about 2200 lbs but i can't verify.

WeedWacker
May 23, 2007, 07:16 PM
Fro, what I understand the world wide polar bear population is far from being endangered. It's the united states population that is supposedly going to be placed on the endangered species list. THere are only a few thousand that cross the alaska border and reside in the united states but worldwide they have a healthy population for bear. I remember an article on this in American Hunter. Basically if they put them on the list ANWR would be off limits for oil drilling and hunting.

Edit: I don't have a link, it was a long time ago

FirstFreedom
May 23, 2007, 08:11 PM
but I grew up watching super-8 footage of my father and several of his hunting buddies being charged by a very large polar bear. They started shooting when it was at least 300 yards out but it didn't drop until it was within spitting distance. An action-packed film, let me tell you.

Wowsa...I'd sure like to see that. :eek: At Can$30K, I doubt I'll be polar bear hunting. If I have ever have that kind of extra jack, I'll be using it for an African hunt instead.

foob
May 24, 2007, 12:19 AM
Fro, what I understand the world wide polar bear population is far from being endangered. It's the united states population that is supposedly going to be placed on the endangered species list. THere are only a few thousand that cross the alaska border and reside in the united states but worldwide they have a healthy population for bear. I remember an article on this in American Hunter. Basically if they put them on the list ANWR would be off limits for oil drilling and hunting.

Nah I just read it in the news this week. The ice caps are melting faster than computer models predict, and in 2020-2050 there won't be any ice in the summer. So basically they'll become extinct because they can't hunt seals without ice. The usual cause thrown around is global warming.

So people are thinking of solutions to save the species. Putting them on the endangered species list doesn't really do much if all the ice is gone. But the U.S. is thinking of putting them on the threatened species list.

WeedWacker
May 24, 2007, 02:16 AM
If the caps are melting wouldn't they just move north? And weather is not 100% prefictable. We might have a climitization change where it freezes up north and gets hot down south. It's happened before in the middle ages when vikings were roming the seas and mercantilism was booming. Then there was a massive freeze. Before people were sailing from iceland to greenland and they did not see any icecaps or snow. It was actually warmer then than it is now. Climate changes and everyone freaks. When the climate comes back down to normal everyone will hail it as the efforts everyone put into preventing global warming and the guys will get recognition for the next climate chrisis: Global Cooling!!! *da da daaaaaa* [/evil music]

oldbillthundercheif
May 24, 2007, 02:44 AM
If we had a few whopper volcanic events we could buy the icecaps some time...

Washington State, you need to take one for the team and blow the top of Rainier off with a small nuke. I want to hunt polar bear and it's going to take me a while to organize my finances. Pyroclastic flows and lahars are great for grilling weenies and learning to mudslide-surf.:D

stevelyn
May 24, 2007, 06:57 AM
Polar bears in the US don't need to be placed on the Endangered list. The Marine Mammal Protection Act already covers them.

The placing of polar bears in the Endangered list is postuing by the global warming weenies like Owl Gore and his eco-nazi mercenaries.

foob
May 24, 2007, 07:18 AM
If the caps are melting wouldn't they just move north? And weather is not 100% prefictable. We might have a climitization change where it freezes up north and gets hot down south.[/evil music]

They are saying all the ice has melted in the summer. There's no north to move to.

Anyway since they are saying 2050, some of us will live to see whether it is true or not.

FirstFreedom
May 24, 2007, 09:33 AM
Historically, ice ages are preceded by a brief warming period just exactly as we are experiencing now. Hard to say, but if it does go into an ice age, then the bears will thrive. Humans notsomuch. But right, when the ice flows/ice caps melt, that's less "land" for the bears to utilize to find food (primarily seals). In addition, they can easily overheat. In weather we would consider cool or cold (say, +40 deg F), polar bears can die of heat exhaustion moving around looking for food - that's just how well insulated they are.

On the other hand, if the warming continues to the point where the Greenland icecap melts, the oceans will get up to 20 feet higher, putting much of the world's coastal land mass underwater. Venice, Miami, and Boston for example, would become completely submerged.

If we had a few whopper volcanic events we could buy the icecaps some time...

Washington State, you need to take one for the team and blow the top of Rainier off with a small nuke. I want to hunt polar bear and it's going to take me a while to organize my finances. Pyroclastic flows and lahars are great for grilling weenies and learning to mudslide-surf

Bwaahahaha! Now that's a novel idea there. I kinda like it. :)

OBIWAN
May 24, 2007, 09:47 AM
There was a report recently about some icecaps increasing

So wait for them to come to you:D

I got no problem with hunting any animal that has the ability to kill/eat you

Polar Bears qualify

WeedWacker
May 24, 2007, 12:00 PM
They are saying all the ice has melted in the summer. There's no north to move to.

The arctic is not completely ice. There is quite a bit of land mass located under the layers of ice meaning that the bears can still move around. I'm not saying that the population will maintain the same healthy number it has now but they will be able to survive. It's like saying "In another 100 years the yellow breasted finflint will not have any habitat to live in so we are making it illegal to harvest feathers for flymaking." Or deer. In 800 years the deer will no longer have any habitat so to protect them we are putting them on the endangered list and you can't hunt them anymore.

foob
May 24, 2007, 12:29 PM
The arctic is not completely ice. There is quite a bit of land mass located under the layers of ice meaning that the bears can still move around.

Sorry I miswrote what I meant. What the news article said was when there's no ice, the polar bears can't catch seals, so they'll starve to death. Think they said they need the white ice as camouflage.

WeedWacker
May 24, 2007, 12:52 PM
Camo is nice but the ice will not be completely gone so they will have somthing to hide in. i also think that the bears wait by holes in the ice to catch the seals when they come up for air.

foob
May 24, 2007, 01:23 PM
... the news articles are saying there will be no ice in the summer in a few decades. That means completely gone in the summer. There is no hole when there is no ice.

don_hamer
May 25, 2007, 12:02 PM
I would expect it would be pretty expensive... but I would think if you go overseas, then you would be able to hunt one.

jssbastiat
May 27, 2007, 12:26 AM
If your a registered member of a native corporation in alaska...

in 1973, the natives of alaska signed the Alaskan Natives Claims Act and were given approximately 100000 of thousands of acres in land and close to like one billion dollars or so in money....they divided up alaska into like 13 regions and incorporated instead of doing reservations...except for one tribe whome for whatever reason did stay as a reservation...now, they are coproratioins leasing loggin/mineral rights, fishing rights, running coops, gold mines nad many times being shut down for embelzelment and fraud, oh and racketeering....

in the settlement, because they used polar bear, walrus, seal, and other aquatic animals, oh, whales, they are the ONLY ones whom can legally take any of these animals...with no limits!!!!!! none are endangered....maybe the whale, depending on which one.....but i live in Ak and know for a fact that this is the law...actually, it is governed by a federal law, "aquatic marine/mamal act" or something like that...

but, a person whom is not registered with a corporation, IE white person, or non native.....cannot even TOUCH, help skin or tan one of these animals even with a native there UNLESS you are registered with the govt as a tanner, etc....its a huge deal here with the natives....

NOW, i know of people that go out with natives in the north and the native lets them 'shoot' their polar bear...they skin it and send it to a tanner for you and you tip them...now, i';m not saying it's legal, but, just saying that is what is done..and hey, it's their land, their animals....i don't have a problem with it...

but, you know, next time someone po'pos' immigration control...poiint out what happened to the natives here in america when they did not violently oppose white immigration to america!!!!....geeeeez, if they would have turned back europeans from teh beginning, the world might look alot differnet today.....no major vaccines, no space shuttles, but, lots of polar bears and animals to hunt!!!..hey, I kind alike this alternate world!!!!

but, those are the facts! seal season is on right now in the village i live in!...

scotty

jssbastiat
May 27, 2007, 12:32 AM
Ok, the 13 native corps got 1000 'sof acres of land each....but, the govt took the native regions each tribe lives in....and took the hectres of land, or, actually, 5 sq blocks i believe, what ever that is called...and divided like every other block to the govt, one to the natives, one to the govt, one to the natives....so, our freaking hunting maps look like a freaking checker board! Then, in the middle of this, there are other private lands blocked off and then federal hunting lands blocked off, THEN FREAKING FEDERAL preserves that you CANNOT hunt!!!!...

so, to hunt legally you gotta have a freaking gps since your not suppose to cross private lands, ie the native corps or any other homestead sites!!!!!

but, it's so remote, you just go through the native lands toget to the blm or federal lands or STATE govt lands, hell, I left them out!...

get my point...alaska can be a tangle web of snares that you can screw yourself in within a heartbeat....and everyone knows it...especially if your a white guy living in a native village.....you'll go out and do something everyone else says is legal or you perceive is ok, but, then it's not nad your the only one someone. long pee ant in the village will report!!!! jsut because they don't like white folk...and let me tell you, where I live, almost all the natives are nice and accepting of white folk, but all it takes is oneto catch you making a mistake....

for what it is worth!
scotty

CarbineCaleb
May 27, 2007, 01:14 PM
The trouble with the idea of the polar bears just moving north is, the further north you go, the less area is left on the big blue marble, so the habitat is shrinking.

Seals live at the interface of the ice and the sea, and polar bears eat seals as their principle dietary component, so they too, live at this interface. The bears normally ambush the more agile seals when they come up for a breath of air in a breathing hole in the ice. I don't think they can catch them in open water or on the shoreline very well, so even if the seals could tolerate the dissappearence of the ice, the bears cannot.

The Arctic is largely composed of the Arctic Ocean, with ice floating on it - there is no land mass at the North Pole. There has been approximately a 1/3 reduction in the mass of this sea ice in the last 30 years alone, a shrinking trend that's been going on since at least the turn of the last century. Here's a comparison of satellite photos across 24 years, summer 1979 to summer 2003. The land masses are Siberia, Greenland, and Northernmost Canada:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=24570&stc=1&d=1180289368

Is the ice all gone yet? No. Is there a significant long term trend of decline? Yes.

Jseime
May 28, 2007, 03:03 PM
On the other hand, if the warming continues to the point where the Greenland icecap melts, the oceans will get up to 20 feet higher, putting much of the world's coastal land mass underwater. Venice, Miami, and Boston for example, would become completely submerged.

So the Canadian Prairies dont look so bad after all. See you later Los Angeles. I have kept current on the whole global warming issue in my last two years in college and to be honest there are so many reports out there that contradict and completely flip-flop that the only way to see if global warming is true is to wait it out and see. The general consensus in the scientific community is that the ice caps are melting and that global warming is occuring, however the effects will be much worse than not being able to hunt polar bears.

If you have 30K around you should really send it to me because polar bears are dangerous and have been known to turn the hunter into the hunted in several instances. Ill take that 30K, invest it, and send you some pictures of my nice new truck.

kingudaroad
May 28, 2007, 06:02 PM
the news articles are saying there will be no ice in the summer in a few decades

They have a hard time predicting tomorrows weather let alone in a few decades. But if it said so on the internet, that's different.:rolleyes:

springmom
May 29, 2007, 09:23 AM
On the other hand, if the warming continues to the point where the Greenland icecap melts, the oceans will get up to 20 feet higher, putting much of the world's coastal land mass underwater. Venice, Miami, and Boston for example, would become completely submerged.

Well, since I live about 70 feet above sea level, north of Houston, I can look forward to ocean front property by the time I die...;)

Springmom

CarbineCaleb
May 29, 2007, 11:02 AM
It is correct to point out the difficulty of making precise predictions decades out. However, there is a big distinction to be made here - the task is not to predict for example, the weather in Cleveland on Tuesday, October 15, 2051, which would be impossible. The task is, for example, to predict the global average temperature for the year 2051. That is a very different task and while difficult, it is certainly approachable.

There really is no serious debate that the greenhouse effect exists (radiation physics or chemistry for those so inclined) and is what keeps the earth much warmer than it would otherwise be (this can be directly calculated), nor that the greenhouse effect is due to greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide and methane (can be established by the known absorption spectra and atmospheric concentrations), nor that the earth is warming due to increased concentrations in greenhouse gases (can be seen directly in measurements), due principally to the activities of man (can be deduced from known anthropogenic sources, such as the burning of fossil fuels for energy and transportation).

So the earth *is* warming, and it's going to get worse. The place where the debate really is, is on the predictions of how much worse it will be, decades out. The early models showed relatively poor agreement with data, but the latest models are actually quite impressive.

Of course, even if the models were 100% accurate, no one can still tell exactly what the global average temperature will be in 2050 - because we may do something differently between now and 2050. That is the whole point of the debate - what should we be doing differently to avoid negative consequences?

springmom
May 29, 2007, 12:49 PM
Of course, Mars is also seeing a global warming trend, according to some recent data. And I don't think they have a greenhouse gas problem... maybe it's something else?

Either way, I hope the OP gets his polar bear hunt. Not sure I'd have the nerve for it, but it would be worth the money (if you HAVE that much!) to do it.

Springmom

BillCA
May 29, 2007, 01:42 PM
Polar Bears -- probably the top predator on the planet. Any animal that can take on and kill a 2,000 lb bull walrus, kill it and haul it out from the edge of the water 300 yards inland is not to be trifled with.

Hmmm... I recall reading that since the Ulysses and SoHo satellites were launched in the 90's information from them, combined with information from ground observations of the sun have indicated a 4% increase in solar intensity over the last 25 years. Solar specialists and climatology experts think the sun is going through a cycle of "increased activity" that may last a few more decades.

According to one scientist, it is irresponsible to claim anthropomorphic causes for climate changes without studying the impact of a thermonuclear furnace that is over 330,000 times the mass of earth only 93 million miles away.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant since we all know that man is responsible for any changes to climate. :rolleyes:

CarbineCaleb
May 29, 2007, 10:14 PM
Well, quoting from the recent educational report issued by the National Academy of Sciences, regarding the possibility of attributing recent warming to variation in solar forcing:
The rising temperatures observed since 1978 are particularly noteworthy because the rate of increase is so high and because, during the same period, the energy reaching the Earth from the Sun had been measured precisely enough to conclude that Earth's warming was not due to changes in the Sun. Scientists find clear evidence of this warming trend even after removing data from urban areas where an urban heat-island effect could influence temperature readings. Furthermore, the data are consistent with other evidence of warming, such as increases in ocean temperatures, shrinking mountain glaciers, and decreasing polar ice cover.
This is the word from the National Academy, not from a particular scientist. It's good enough for me. It's a nice overview, in plain English, for anyone interested.

See:
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf

P.S. It's not just the National Academy of Sciences that holds the officially stated consensus opinion that they believe that the earth is warming and that it is due to man's activities. We can also add:
- National Academy of Sciences
- National Research Council
- American Meteorological Society
- American Geophysical Union
- American Institute of Physics
- American Astronomical Society
- American Chemical Society
- American Association for the Advancement of Science

EricTheBarbarian
May 30, 2007, 10:01 AM
if only dinosaurs and wooly mammoths had been on the endagered species list......

if a species cant hang, they get weeded out. what good does people saving them do if they cant live on their own?

Hello123
June 4, 2007, 12:55 PM
Playboy penguin, your opinion of trophy hunting may be based on personal opinion, but not on fact. I am kind of in your corner regarding the ethics of killing something one is not going to eat, unless it is vermin. However, the science supports trophy hunting. Wherever trophy hunting is allowed, the wildlife instantly have an economic value to the native population. Hence, the wildlife thrives. That is why to the global polar bear population is at an all time high, regardless of the shrinking habitat.