Action is good, Real Net Gains are better (long)

[fallable]

*Let me start off by saying I don't know if this the right forum for this, but I do prefer the War Room over all other Forums.

One of the genuine truths of the world that I have come to realize over the last few years is that there is a big difference between action and real net gains. Whether it has to do with foreign policy, stock markets, or general consensus, simply throwing money at a problem or agitating on behalf of a cause doesn't guarantee that any progress will be achieved. As someone who falls somewhere within the Alt Right or Dissident Right culturally and politically, I first came to this conclusion a few years ago when I read a story about a White man arrested for murdering 6 Sikh's at a temple in Wisconsin. My thoughts at the time were that if the shooter really wanted to benefit Whites and Western Civilization, he should have had 10-12 children and done his best to raise them to become patriots who excel in the world of Science, Banking or elite Military professions. As it is, he brought a lot of negative press, the end of his own life, the end of the lives of six others, and America still doesn't have higher white birthrates, less foreign immigration, or lower third world population growth which is all at the real heart of the matter. Despite his extreme measures, there was no real net gain in his actions, but in reality a real net loss.

Now to come to my main point. Even though I fall in with the Alternative or Dissident Right, which isn't known for its advocation of environmentalism, I consider myself a staunch conservationist (I think there are many others within my poilitical sphere as well). I grew up in a rural area and on any given day I might have caught glimpse of a mule deer, bobcat, coyote, barn owl, rattlesnake etc. and it was always a welcome occasion. Furthermore I enjoy the fact that out there in the world there are countless animal species, many regal and beautiful, and I understand that it takes whole ecosystems to support them. You cant have Tigers without forests and game and you cant have Polar Bears without sea ice and seals.

Now when it comes to polar bears, no article or conversation unfolds without mention of global warming, climate change, melting sea ice, and the impending doom for the polar bear. In this discussion, and in its regard to polar bear conservation, I am going to set these issues aside. It has become very divisive. There is no consensus acceptance of the existence of climate change or its cause between different political factions. The acceptance of one sides view usually comes with dismissal from the other. I'm not a climate scientist, Ive never been to the arctic, and I haven't studied or observed polar bears in any way that might give me insight into their situation. I have read in articles that poalr bears are regularly marooned on land for longer periods of time as the sea ice is starting to form later in the year. This gives the bears less time to hunt and pack on the pounds they need to make it through the summer.

With all that being said, I regularly read articles that detail different goings on in regards to polar bears. Some of the articles Ive read tell about how polar bears scavenge the remains of the whales that are harvested for use by the Inuit people. One article mentioned that such an opportunity might be the difference between life and death for polar bears as they wait for the sea ice to form. I also have read several articles in regards to whales. It seems that several species of whales are rebounding in number now that whaling is greatly diminished. I have also read many articles about whale beachings. Recently there was an incident in New Zealand where 140 pilot whales were stranded and died. Which lead me to a conclusion as to how we can establish some real net gains for the polar bears without locking up climate change deniers, without abandoning the use of fossil fuel, and (hopefully) without turning off conservative sceptics. I don't claim to have a solution, but a realistic, accomplishable plan of action.

We load up all the dead and washed up whales within reasonable distance from the arctic onto boats and we deliver them to areas with a known polar bear population. This can give polar bears a chance at extra meals during the year that can help tie them over until the sea ice forms and they can "kill seal"

Obviously we should continue to try to save beached whales whenever possible. But it doesn't always work out and feeding the dead whales off to polar bears is better than blowing them up, which is what sometimes happens. You have whole environmental movements, ships and crews, as well as TV shows devoted to harassing Japanese whalers, maybe we can achieve the same type of movement and procure the same type of resources in regards to the transportation of beached whales to the arctic?

Thoughts?

Pictures: 80 Polar Bears Throng Village in Search of Whale

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...le-alaska-science-hunting-arctic-ice-warming/

Now that’s what you call a spare rib! Pack of bloody-faced polar bears spend day and night stripping a beached whale to its bones

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-day-night-stripping-beached-whale-bones.html

About 140 Pilot Whales Die After Getting Stranded on New Zealand Beach

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/a...ie-after-getting-stranded-new-zealand-n306376

Beached Whale Blown Up With Dynamite, Man Dies As Well
http://www.inquisitr.com/1015949/beached-whale-blown-up-with-dynamite-man-dies-as-well-video/n306376

 

[M3t4tr0n]

 

[IDL]

I don't think getting wild animals dependent on welfare is a good idea.

 

[Renard]

Wouldn't it be better to round up and kill all the brown bears then give their land to the polar bears, ensuring the purest race of bears reigns supreme

 

[fallable]

I don't think getting wild animals dependent on welfare is a good idea.

Fair enough.

Although in my experience watching wild life programs (I know) and reading about different species of predators and their behavior in the wild, there are many instances almost universal among predators in reards to scavenging. All predators do it.

Recently I watched a show titled Cougar vs. Wolf that deals with the interactions once again occurring in Western landscapes now that wolves are re-established. One scene was recorded on a trail cam, that was put in place in view of a ranchers cow that died of natural causes. One scene showed a lone wolf scavenging the kill, very cautiously. The next two weeks of footage show the same cougar feeding on the remains time and again. It was implied the cougar ran off the lone wolf.

Also, to re-establish California condors in the wild, conservationists provide feeding stations near the beach that provide slaughtered animals to the condors. Its hoped the condors will start finding carrion on their own, traditionally dead marine mammals made up a large portion of their diet.

Also, what are known as "winter kills" animals that die due to harsh weather and/or lack of food, make up a big portion of predator diets in the spring, especially for grizzlies. I wouldn't consider that welfare. Its part of nature.

Also, polar bears are known to scavenge any garbage that they come across. This leads them into areas with humans which prove detrimental to us and them, so hey already receive a form of welfare from people, and not a natural one either.

When whales in the arctic die and wash ashore, which does happen naturally, they are exploited by polar bears, arctic fox, and various types of birds of prey. I don't advocate providing polar bears with year round sustenance, just those extra couple of meals through the year which might make the difference between life and death, until a real solution be developed or it is detirmined to be a losing battle, or that no threat exists to the bears. Obviously some sort of specialists on the matter would need to determine if it would prove detrimental to polar bears.

My main point though in the thread though, concerns finding realistic solutions for problems that exist, without forcing 7 billion people to abandon the modern world, locking up sceptics, or creating more of a divide and conquer phenomena. I sincerely acknowledge that my plan may be entirely unrealistic or un-beneficial.

 

[fallable]

Wouldn't it be better to round up and kill all the brown bears then give their land to the polar bears, ensuring the purest race of bears reigns supreme

Some brown bears actually have blondish hair, so they are alright in my book.

 

[sloppypie]

i'm genuinely not being a dick when i say this, i read your first post twice and i really have no idea what you are talking about.

the only thing i kinda took away was a hypothetical of whether it's better to feed whales to bears or just blow the whales up. which i'll go with blowing them up, b/c if i had to make the choice for myself, i wanna go out big. i don't want someone at my eulogy to say "sloppypie was a great guy, kind of a dick, and he is now a pile of bear shit in the middle of the woods. hashtag respect."

 

[fallable]

i'm genuinely not being a dick when i say this, i read your first post twice and i really have no idea what you are talking about.

the only thing i kinda took away was a hypothetical of whether it's better to feed whales to bears or just blow the whales up. which i'll go with blowing them up, b/c if i had to make the choice for myself, i wanna go out big. i don't want someone at my eulogy to say "sloppypie was a great guy, kind of a dick, and he is now a pile of bear shit in the middle of the woods. hashtag respect."

Polar bears are marooned on land for longer periods of time waiting for sea ice to form. They need sea ice to hunt. The longer they wait for the sea ice to form the more they starve. Every year the government allows Inuit to harvest a certain number of whales. Inuit take the usuable meat and blubber and leave the rest on the beach. Polar bears scavenge the leftovers. Because polar bears have less time to hunt the ice these whale carcasses provide crucial meals that allow the polar bears to last through the longer summer until the ice forms. There are around 25,000 polar bears. Maybe a few hundred get to scavenge the leftover Inuit whales. How about moving dead whale carcases from places theres no bears into places where there are bears. So that a greater number of bears get the extra few meals they need to last the summer without starving.

There is a lot of talk about climate change. The main political and economic factions (mainstream right and left) are at odds. No one is even agreeing about the cause or existence of global warming, let alone abandoning fossil fuels or whatever is supposed to be done. Meanwhile according to biologists, polar bears continue to starve for longer periods of time. Lets go around the political mess, and just try to find some solutions that can be implemented for polar bears, and any other problems that arise. Instead of paying a carbon tax, which is politically divisive and which wont help any polar bears, lets try to find some real net gains. In this case mimicking the situation in which polar bears scavenge Inuit whale kills on a larger scale through the relocation of deceased beached whales.

 

[Lead]

i'm genuinely not being a dick when i say this, i read your first post twice and i really have no idea what you are talking about.

the only thing i kinda took away was a hypothetical of whether it's better to feed whales to bears or just blow the whales up. which i'll go with blowing them up,

Idk why but your post to this point made me bust out laughing. Just the confusion and the attempt to still go with whatever it was about.

 

[fallable]

Idk why but your post to this point made me bust out laughing. Just the confusion and the attempt to still go with whatever it was about.

After a few of the responses I realize that I made the point of my post in a round about way. I was trying to add context and a little nuance for that matter. I have the benefit of having read many articles and watched many programs with wildlife biologists that relate to the topic I posted for discussion. I was under the assumption that not everyone would have that foreknowledge. Since all that context already exists in my head, my post seemed to describe the situation effectively, but I realize people had trouble with it. Sorry for the lacking elucidation.

I had two points I was trying to make. One, that lumping all issues of conservation into the issue of man made global warming, into an issue of strictly management, or into an issue of survival of the fittest, often has the effect of turning one side against the other based on ones politics or economics. Point being to try to establish measurable success by avoiding the divisiveness and implementing a stomachable strategem. Also that throwing money at the problem or browbeating the opposition doesn't necessarily lead to real net gains, which is what the goal needs to be.

The second point I was trying to make is that irregardless of your opinion of climate change or the agenda of those involved, according to wildlife biologists, and also some of the inhabitants of the arctic, sea ice is forming later in the year and for a shorter period of time. This makes polar bear conservation rather unique as compared to that of many other species. As an example, it may be a difficult thing to accomplish, but if you stop clear cutting forests in Asia, stop poaching tigers, and sustainably manage animals that tigers eat, their numbers will rise. With Polar bears, they adapted to hunting seals and for the vast majority of kills that they procure, the ability to utilize the sea ice is necessary. So to better manage forests is one thing, to freeze hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean is another.

If it is true that sea ice formation is trending towards less and less, this will either force polar bears to adapt a new way of life, produce a new better adapted polar bear, or drive them toward the geat abyss. As I said in my original post, two other posts I made, and in two of the links I provided, polar bears scavenge the remains of the whales that are legally harvested by Inuit people (I am unaware of any wildlife biologists who denounce this as detrimental to wild bears). As you can see from the picture I posted of the bears scavenging the whale carcass, there is no sea ice in the background. Meaning that in at least this instance, the bears have access to a very valuable meal during the summer months when it is usually lean times for polar bears. The reality of a high fat high protein meal during these times is definetly a boon to those bears, especially for a female bear with nursing cubs.

There are actually several populations of polar bears. The Greenland population, the Svalbard population, the Hudson Bay population, Franz Joseph population etc. Not all of these bears have the opportunity to scavenge whale kills. Some have to suffer through the summer months in anticipation of the se ice return. There are several different ways polar bears wait out the summer. Some stay at sea and follow populations of walrus from rocky outcrop to rocky outcrop, usually larger males. Some come ashore and eat whatever they can procure, grass, seaweed, caribou, aquatic birds and eggs etc. Others slow their matabalism, sleep a lot, and live off fat reserves. It depends on the point the bear is at in its ife and the population it comes from, and its circumstances.

My thinking is that polar bear conservation is as important as any other species conservation (except maybe pollinators), yet poses huge challeges due to the nature of a polar bears lifestyle, if it is indeed true that sea ice is depleting. So taking my lead from the fact that some polar bears who have the opportunity to scavenge whale carcasses during lean times might be better positioned to survive to the next year, and the fact that many whales wash up on shore and die every year, many of which are just blown up with dynamite, we might direct a little of that spirit that exists with those anti whaling whale wars peeps, who have large ships and crews, towards expanding the opportunity for more polar bears to have whale to scavenge during lean times.

I understand my idea may be a stupid idea, an unfeasible idea, or as IDL noted, that animal welfare may prove to be unhealthy and detrimental to wild animal hunters (although as I noted in a response to IDL, it happens now in many forms even in the world of conservation), But as I said polar bear conservation poses unique challenges, and while driving a Prius may be long term beneficial its not happening on a large scale and its not guaranteed to put seal in bears mouths. We cant agree about climate change but we should be able to agree about animal conservation. Since polar bear conservation is so different I thought it would be worth it to at least throw my idea about relocating beached whales into polar bear habitat out there.