Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 4:09:14 GMT -8
Thanks for the link, RS.
That sounds like a bear-species dog-fight sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. That's the image I got from reading the article and a couple background pages on history of the area. In that "dog-fight," it's tough to separate some natural conflict between species from the conflict imposed by human civilizations far removed from more simple Eskimo hunter-gatherer subsistence. Environmental changes precipitate the conflict.
The grizzly is a land-based, hibernating mammal experiencing hyperphagia — an intense appetite that prepares the species for long winter sleep. The polar bear is a marine-based, non-hibernating mammal that is steadily being deprived of habitat by warming climate. The article suggests that the grizzly has evolved to be more aggressive on land, while the polar bear has evolved escaping to sea-ice. So in that area the polar bear is less inclined to battle against the more aggressive but smaller grizzly.
But the warming climate has inclined the polar bear to come ashore to where the grizzly dominates. And there, to provide a focal point to the conflict, is a meat-scrap gut-pile left by Eskimo whale hunters — who apparently learned their craft from non-native civilizations of another land.
So the "dog-fight" is not really an outright battle but rather a subtle conflict between species over a scarce food supply. And in that conflict I see repeatedly the effects of over-populating and over-consuming humans. They perpetuate warming seas, deprive the polar bear of native habitat, drive it to land, provide the arena of conflict, and then tell the story. It's a human's tale of two species that have gathered in an artificial arena to fight over scraps of meat that other humans have left behind.
There is far more involved here than only two species of bears.
That sounds like a bear-species dog-fight sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. That's the image I got from reading the article and a couple background pages on history of the area. In that "dog-fight," it's tough to separate some natural conflict between species from the conflict imposed by human civilizations far removed from more simple Eskimo hunter-gatherer subsistence. Environmental changes precipitate the conflict.
The grizzly is a land-based, hibernating mammal experiencing hyperphagia — an intense appetite that prepares the species for long winter sleep. The polar bear is a marine-based, non-hibernating mammal that is steadily being deprived of habitat by warming climate. The article suggests that the grizzly has evolved to be more aggressive on land, while the polar bear has evolved escaping to sea-ice. So in that area the polar bear is less inclined to battle against the more aggressive but smaller grizzly.
But the warming climate has inclined the polar bear to come ashore to where the grizzly dominates. And there, to provide a focal point to the conflict, is a meat-scrap gut-pile left by Eskimo whale hunters — who apparently learned their craft from non-native civilizations of another land.
So the "dog-fight" is not really an outright battle but rather a subtle conflict between species over a scarce food supply. And in that conflict I see repeatedly the effects of over-populating and over-consuming humans. They perpetuate warming seas, deprive the polar bear of native habitat, drive it to land, provide the arena of conflict, and then tell the story. It's a human's tale of two species that have gathered in an artificial arena to fight over scraps of meat that other humans have left behind.
There is far more involved here than only two species of bears.
