Can zoos really help save polar bears?

[DavidBrown]

There is an interesting article in the Washington Post about whether zoos can conserve genetic diversity of polar bear populations and whether this is genuinely helpful to their long term future.

Captivity could help polar bears survive global warming assault, some zoos say - The Washington Post

The zoos themselves acknowledge that reducing carbon emissions and conserving habitat are the REAL solutions to the problem, rather than captive breeding. They are claiming that they can help explain to the public why carbon emissions need to be lowered through polar bear exhibits.

This is a critically important question. Are there any verifiable answers?

 

[Dassie rat]

There are about 200 polar bears in ISIS-listed zoos, which is probably enough to save the species, if there is enough genetic diversity. I think one of the better ideas of Zoo Check was to consider the welfare of polar bears, with zoos stopping displays of bears with severe mental health problems.

Of course, it would be better to save the bears in the wild, but I can't see many people making the sacrifices needed to save the Arctic ice from melting further. The UK government is talking about bringing in the Army to ensure that motorists get their petrol if tanker drivers strike. Friends have told me that many Americans drive gas-guzzling cars, which are not helping the environment. A few months ago, a polar bear killed a British student in Norway, but I can't really see people leaving the bears alone. As people encroach further into the Arctic, there will be more confrontations and more deaths.

I'd like to think there would be some hope for wild polar bears, but I think this would be unrealistically optimistic. I believe that zoos should co-ordinate to ensure that physically and mentally fit polar bears have the opportunity to breed and live in suitable enclosures, including large pools to swim in. I can't really see the likelihood of captive polar bears, which associate people with food, living independent lives in the Arctic.

I hope I'm wrong about this.

 

[nanoboy]

Anyone ever heard of a scientist called Bjorn Lomborg? I must confess that I am a big fan of his ideas.

Anyway, what he says is that instead of wasting money on cutting carbon emissions which the scientists all agree would only reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a degree, we should be focused on reducing temperatures locally. So, considering the urban heat effect, we could paint roads a lighter colour, have more rooftop gardens, invest more in renewables research etc.

To push the idea further, instead of being passive observers of the bears demise, maybe we can provide food for them, especially when pack ice has melted. Maybe we could feed them with wounded seals, so at least they sort of have to hunt them. Interestingly, Bjorn commented that we talk about saving the polar bears by spending billions on programmes that will not really help the bears, yet we hunt about 300 per year (I have read 700 in other sources)! How about if we banned hunting polar bears first and foremost?

 

[Stefka]

To push the idea further, instead of being passive observers of the bears demise, maybe we can provide food for them, especially when pack ice has melted. Maybe we could feed them with wounded seals, so at least they sort of have to hunt them. Interestingly, Bjorn commented that we talk about saving the polar bears by spending billions on programmes that will not really help the bears, yet we hunt about 300 per year (I have read 700 in other sources)! How about if we banned hunting polar bears first and foremost?

Totally agree with you on the "providing food thing". When you watch various documentaries showing starving animals that have nothing to eat because the sea ice has melted, what is so wrong about leaving some food there for them? People often say "do not interfere", but we messed it up so we should help them now. And I don´t think that it would affect their hunting behavior - they often eat whale carrions and other "disgusting staff" when there is nothing to hunt.

I´ve read an interesting idea on TED recently. A guy named Michael Moskowitz (don´t know if it is his real name) posted this on a thread about climate change:

The solution might come from deploying temporary "rafts" or "barges" that float down from the arctic to the north western Atlantic. Once the floats come down, they could be reused, but while in the arctic they would be build so that the bears and seals could climb upon them.

These "rafts" would serve as an alternative to the ice.Perhaps made of recycled water bottles to serve as a reflective plastic barge or of biodegradable intelligent materials that would have properties similar to ice. They would have to be suitable for bear and seal purposes; namely hunting, respite from swimming in the arctic and perhaps temporary shelter.

Not the most ideal but I believe we can create an innovative solution to this symptom while we address the larger issue of protecting the environment.

I don´t know if this idea is realistic or not. But maybe it would´t even have to be "floating raft", maybe some kind of artificial islands?

I don´t know, I´m not an engineer, but it does sound interesting.


And to the hunting part... Just terrible... In what countries is it legal?

 

[nanoboy]

And I don´t think that it would affect their hunting behavior - they often eat whale carrions and other "disgusting staff" when there is nothing to hunt.

I have a few detestable colleagues at work that I would love to donate to the programme.

 

[nanoboy]

From what I read online, you can legally hunt polar bears in Canada, even if you are non-native.

With regards to your other points, I think that the overarching principle remains the same: unless we intervene, polar bears may go extinct in our lifetime. Does intervention only have to be in the form of reduced carbon emissions? I think not, because if you read a bit more on the subject, if we reduced our carbon emissions to zero tomorrow, the earth would still continue heating up for years. This, clearly, cannot be the only solution to save polar bears, because it may be past the tipping point when the Artic has more ice in years to come.

So do we throw our hands in the air in despair and preach this whole "leave nature to take its course"? I would like to think not, because as you said, we caused the problem in the first place, so we have a duty to solve it. It's not like polar bears aren't becoming accustomed to humans with increased tourism, settlement expansion, and oil/gas exploration. We have all seen footage of them rummaging through our garbage dumps. Is it such a big step for us to have a more structured assistance programme in place so that they don't starve?

 

[Stefka]

I have a few detestable colleagues at work that I would love to donate to the programme.

OMG, did I really write "staff"??!!