From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) Newsgroups: sci.bio.ethology,sci.bio.misc,sci.med,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion Subject: Re: Dogs are the best for Antarctica Date: 11 Mar 1999 05:37:58 GMT In <36e62747.20469998@nntp.ix.netcom.com> s.meric@ix.netcom.com (Polar) writes: >On 9 Mar 1999 09:57:34 GMT, sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) >wrote: > >>In <Pine.OSF.4.05.9903051620460.12613-100000@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> >>"John K.C. Lewis" <court@kelvin.physics.mun.ca> writes: >> >>>>There should be a science of biology superlatives where one lists in >>>>an encyclopedia type fashion the superlatives of living creatures. >> >>>Polar bears would certainly garner a few; I would think, for example, >>>that their ferocity*intelligence index is far greater than that of any >>>other species except H. sapiens. >> >> >>Yep. There aren't many critters that actively hunt humans, but polar >>bears are one. A few old and toothless, or hungry and lactating tigers >>or lions may also indulge, too, mostly out of shear necessity. But the >>polar bear takes the prize as the most incorrigable man hunter. Except >>for man himself, of course, as you point out. Homo homini lupus, as >>those old Romans used to say. > >Why would a Polar bear bother to hunt humans in preference, say, to >its normal fare, the seal. The Polar bear eats the blubber and skin >and leaves the meat (which is scavenged by the Arctic fox, in areas >not too far from shore). > >Since we humans are poorly furnished with blubber, we would not be the >Polar bear's meal of choice, except where no alternative is available. How many polar bears do you really think have eaten enough people to have learned to have a preference? Come on. Polar bears are programmed to eat any meat that moves and they can catch. >Polar bears hang around human habitations (as in Churchill, Manitoba) >waiting for the sea ice to freeze so they can go back to seal hunting. >At that point, they have not eaten for the best part of a year -- part >of their natural cycle. So if they come across a human where he >shouldn't be risking himself, it's not surprising that they would eat >him. Does that make the Polar bear an "incorrigible man hunter"? >I don't think so! There are records of polar bears going after humans at all times and all places encountered. They are not the misunderstood sharks of the frozen north. They are large, hungry, dangerous as hell mammals, and in their human-avoidant behavior not at all like their close cousins the grizzleys. At no time or place can you be even reasonably sure of being safe out on the ice with one. Unless you're in a polar bear proof cage. Or you and several persons in your group are armed with an automatic 12 or 10 guage shotgun loaded with OO buck (a horror weapon that will stop anything at 20 feet, excluding possibly elephant-- and even then I would not want to be the elephant).
From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.ethology,sci.bio.misc,sci.med,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dogs are the best for Antarctica
Date: 11 Mar 1999 06:58:29 GMT
In <7c62c5$8ts@enews1.newsguy.com> floyd@tanana.polarnet.com (Floyd
Davidson) writes:
>Except... it just ain't so. Polar bears don't hunt people at
>all, much less are they incorrigible!
>
>Polar bears hunt seals, and when they see a human they sometimes
>think the human is a seal. However, once they have killed the
>human they find that what they have is a worthless pile of meat
>with no blubber.
A lot that matters to the person. The fact is that bears see very
well and are not dumb. Whether or not they "mistake" humans for seals
is unanswerable. The fact is that they keep biting long after they
very well know that a seal is not what they have. Which a shark often
will not.
See the grizzley, huge and wild
It has devoured the infant child
The infant child is not aware
It has been eaten by the bear...
As I said, it's not much consolation. As Edward Abbey says, there are
few more pleasing sounds than that of a hungry animal at its food.
Unless you are the food.
> Polar bears are in the habit of eating seal
>blubber, not meat... so they usually do not eat humans even when
>they accidentally kill them.
I suppose it depends on how fat the humans are. Even a skinny human
runs 15% fat, and what do you suppose your average Eskimo runs?
(Besides fast, when he sees a polar bear). Obviously bears contain a
lot of protein, need protein for growth and gestation (and even for
metabolic turnover) and therefore do eat something besides seal
blubber. Unless you are suggesting that bears perhaps fix atmospheric
nitrogen, like soybeans. I don't know where the mythology started that
polar bears don't eat meat. If it's not the major source of calories,
fine.
From: floyd@tanana.polarnet.com (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: Dogs are the best for Antarctica Date: 11 Mar 1999 Newsgroups: sci.bio.ethology,sci.bio.misc,sci.med,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion Steven B. Harris <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >floyd@tanana.polarnet.com (Floyd Davidson) writes: > >>Except... it just ain't so. Polar bears don't hunt people at >>all, much less are they incorrigible! >> >>Polar bears hunt seals, and when they see a human they sometimes >>think the human is a seal. However, once they have killed the >>human they find that what they have is a worthless pile of meat >>with no blubber. > > A lot that matters to the person. The fact is that bears see very >well and are not dumb. Whether or not they "mistake" humans for seals >is unanswerable. The fact is that they keep biting long after they >very well know that a seal is not what they have. Which a shark often >will not. Bears in general do not see well at all. Polar bears can see better than brown bears, though I don't know just how well. Brown/grizzly bears can't see much of anything past the end of their nose! They are very very near sighted. The fact is they do NOT keep biting long after they know what they have. Polar bears kill almost instantly, hence the victem is dead before the bear has any idea what it is. Brown bears are very different, even though they are closely related to polar bears and can actually interbreed with them. Brown bears attack humans to kill them, not to eat them. They will stop biting as soon as they think you are dead, hence the most common way to survive a brown/grizzly attack is to play dead. > > See the grizzley, huge and wild > It has devoured the infant child > The infant child is not aware > It has been eaten by the bear... Grizzly bears have no interest in eating humans. It is *very* rare that a brown/grizzly bear eats even part of a human after killing it. They just do NOT like humans at all and generally avoid them. The usual cause for attacking a human is to protect an animal they have killed and cached. Your little ditty is cute, but exceedingly inaccurate. >> Polar bears are in the habit of eating seal >>blubber, not meat... so they usually do not eat humans even when >>they accidentally kill them. > > I suppose it depends on how fat the humans are. Even a skinny human >runs 15% fat, I'd guess you don't realize just how silly that is. The bear just isn't interested in 15% fat. >... Obviously bears contain a >lot of protein, need protein for growth and gestation (and even for >metabolic turnover) and therefore do eat something besides seal >blubber. Unless you are suggesting that bears perhaps fix atmospheric >nitrogen, like soybeans. I don't know where the mythology started that >polar bears don't eat meat. If it's not the major source of calories, >fine. The mythology started when scientists 1) talked to Eskimos about what polar bears eat, and 2) studied polar bears themselves to see if the Eskimos were right. (They were.) Do a web search on polar bears and see if you don't find several references to exactly that characteristic of polar bear diet! Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson floyd@ptialaska.net Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com Pictures of the North Slope at <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>