
Longest Polar Bear Swim Recorded (2011) - secondary
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110720-polar-bears-global-warming-sea-ice-science-environment/
======
tlb
I had a chance to talk to an expert in non-invasive polar bear research. He
believed that this, and most other polar bear studies, are deeply flawed
because of how traumatic the data collection is.

Before this particular polar bear's swim, it was: (1) pursued by a helicopter
until it couldn't run any more. (2) Shot with a tranquilizer dart. Did you
know that large animal tranquilizers don't put the animal to sleep? They
merely paralyze its muscles so researchers can work on it. So it's entirely
awake but unable to move for step (3) Extract a molar with pliers, to estimate
the bear's age. Also add a collar with a GPS tracker. (4) Let the paralysis
wear off in captivity. (5) Release it.

So, pretty fucking traumatic. Polar bears are intelligent scavengers which
means they're curious, but very danger-phobic. The fact that it swam for
hundreds of kilometers afterwards doesn't prove anything about any normal
behavior.

~~~
mikeyouse
I'm going to need a source on that tranquilizer bit.. When giving a paralytic
to a human, you need to have them attached to a vent in order to keep them
alive and breathing, I'd be surprised to learn that bears react differently to
paralytics. I'm under the impression they use opiods / benzos for large animal
sedation.

~~~
tlb
I can't find a reference for polar bears, but it's probably the same as for
grizzly bears where they use a mixture of Xylazine
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylazine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylazine))
and Telazol
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiletamine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiletamine)),
a dissociative in the same family as Ketamine. So not a paralytic, but the
animal retains memory of the experience.

[http://www.mammalogy.org/uploads/Cattet%20et%20al%202008.pdf](http://www.mammalogy.org/uploads/Cattet%20et%20al%202008.pdf)
documents the process of helicopter darting and reports substantial health and
behavioral changes for weeks after capture.

------
deanCommie
I fear the imminent future of polar bears and this is a truly depressing
story. But it should be noted it's from 2011, not new.

~~~
dougmwne
Though not "news," the climate situation in the Arctic is only getting worse.
Long polar bear swims are just the canary. The entire Arctic Ocean/tundra
ecosystem is already racially altered. Climate change is hitting the top of
the world first and hardest.

Expect ice free summers in the Arctic Ocean soon:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline#/media/...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline#/media/File:Arctic-
death-spiral.png)

Also, if you are USA based, I highly recommend the good people at:
[http://www.alaskawild.org/](http://www.alaskawild.org/). I'm no longer
affiliated, but I know first hand that they are effectively pushing the
Federal govt to pay more attention to the region. Your favorite climate
focused NGO is generally a good use of resources, as they will pressure your
elected and appointed officials on your behalf. While we all wait for Elon to
innovate us out of the problem, I also recommend including climate/energy in
your basket of issues when you go to the ballot box.

And yes, we have already dug ourselves a deep hole. We still have the
collective choice to stop digging deeper.

~~~
CalRobert
The sad thing is the vast majority of our emissions could be described as
discretionary, at least if you live a standard US lifestyle. We don't even
need Elon to save us, we just need to live a lifestyle that plenty of people
do already. We're possibly destroying Earth's ability to sustain civilization
(not to mention cool stuff like polar bears and whales) so that a relatively
small fraction of the Earth's population can have more stuff.

If you: * Eat less meat * Live in a place that allows you to walk or cycle for
your daily trips (work, groceries, etc.) * Have two or fewer children * Use
LED lighting, have good insulation, and don't live in the most hostile
climates in the world (e.g. Phoenix or Siberia) * Source your electricity
renewably, which can be as easy as changing providers and, at least in my
experience, adds perhaps $10 or so to one's monthly bill

we'd be most of the way there. It's not like people haven't already shown you
can have one fifth the carbon footprint of the average American and not be
happy.

Unfortunately, if you _do_ live in the US, or really any place that was built
in the last 60 years, you're essentially forced to live a high-carbon
lifestyle unless you're fabulously wealthy or willing not to be part of normal
society. There aren't very many affordable, walkable developments in places
with job opportunities and housing. We've made it illegal to build them
through single-use zoning and parking minimums. If we haven't done that, we
(and SF is incredibly guilty of this) have made it basically impossible to
expand existing walkable places by allowing homeowners to forbid the
construction of new homes in their neighborhoods, which is about as logical as
saying "I own a bicycle. I can get rich by making it illegal to build new
bicycles and thereby increasing the value of my own, so I'm going to vote for
just that."

There is no shortage of sprawling developments where houses are cheap and
suburban roads heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, though, so that's where
most people live. Of course, if you suggest taxes go towards funding rail or
buses people shriek that it never pays for itself, but I hardly see I-5
turning a profit.

Fair disclosure: For all this, I am a hypocrite. I cared enough about the
above to change continents, but I fly too much. It's shocking how much that
emits, and some years it's 80-90% of my carbon footprint, if the online
calculators are to be trusted.

