Biology Is Life !

The Polar Bear population has definitely declined. I understand that many believe that Global Warming has something to do with this, but I think the main reason for this decline is human hunters. Hunting began as a way to survive and then became a “sport.” I mean I understand if it’s me or the polar bear being killed I would hope that you would choose to kill the polar bear, but what is your excuse for killing an innocent animal if you are not in self defense or do not need it to survive? You want to be involved in sporting events? Hey join a baseball team or take up golf.
Polar bears are also often killed for their pelts. Why people would want to wear the pelt of a murdered animal is beyond me. I mean you wouldn’t want to wear a human’s skin after they were murdered, would you? I understand if it was the only thing you could do in order to keep warm, you need the pelt to survive, but the people in the market for these coats 9 out of 10 times are probably not cold Eskimos.

Here is a link to a Polar Bear information site:

http://esl.fis.edu/students/projects/ecology/polar.ht
m

Enjoy!
 

I think that the Polar Bear population has been declined for some reasons. Things like hunters and global warming are two very likely reasons. But personally I think that the hunters are the main reason that the Polar Bear have been going extinct. People, hunters, might be killing the bears for many reasons some because of supposed attacks on them and their property. Some natives hunt polar bears for food and clothing.
<3 A-O <3

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/PolarBears/pblongevity.html
^ the link ^
 

I have to disagree with Miss lechase because hunters only just started to hunt polar bears because they have been seen more and more on land. This makes me think that global warming is the main reason why the polar bears are dying. Polar bears live on ice sheets and as the world heats up they need to swim to new ice sheets that are farther and farther away so some dont make it and they drown.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2642773.stm
 

Well, I believe that both hunting and global warming contribute to the decline of the polar bear population. I think that there is nothing we can do to help stop global warming now. People say we can do things to help slow down the effect of it. I do not think that is true. The way we lived our lives is now coming back to haunt us. I think the decline of the population is partly everyones fault because we did not take care of our planet when we had the chance. As far as hunters go, that is just wrong. How dare people try to hurt animals that are fighting to survive as it is? It is not fare to the bears. They have evolved to white coats and can with stand the cold which is now being taking away from them. I honestly think the global warming is out of our hands now, but the hunters will have to learn how they are endangering these poor animals.
This site is showing how people think that they should be put on the endangered speices list. I agree and I think that will finally wake people up to the problem that is now silent.

http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Polar+bears+must+be+listed+endangered%3A+US&id=98648
 

Jessica Woeckener
period 3

I htink that the main reason for polar bear population declining is global warming. I think this because the polar bears depend on the ice survive, and through out the past years the ice has been melting. Becuase they don't have as cold whether, they have been moving south because there is no more land where they are. I think this is where the hunters take over. Because the polar bears have been moving south, the hunters now see them more often and have a better chance of killing them because they are so close. I think the main reason is glbal warming but also hunters due to the ice melting.


http://www.valdosta.edu/news/releases/lunn.011707/
that is the link i used, it is local news at auniversity on their thoughts of polar bears vs. glbal warming.
 

I agree with basicly everyone that Polar Bears are dying because of Global Warming. Their population is decreasing slowly because their home is melting. Its not right that hunters are starting to kill them though. Polar Bears will be extinct and then that will be just one less animal on the earth but they keep the otter population down. They are needed on this earth but because of hunters and Global Warming they wont be here for much longer so what can we do to help???

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/gsteps.asp
 

Polar Bear population is declining. Their are many opinions as to why Polar Bear numbers have dropped. The two major opinions would have to be hunters vs. global warming. Now if you ask me, i would say global warming plays a bigger part in this decreasing population. I say global warming because the weather has changed drastically and in this case for the worse. All of the ice is melting. Now even i know that Polar Bears spend most of their time on the ice, and without thick ice, their is nowhere for this animal to go. This is their habitat, and mother nature is slowly destroying it.

Now hunters also play a role in this debate. But this type of hunting just started. Hunters are killing these innocent animals, but i dont think that their are killing them as much as global warming.

Here is a link that shows a little more on this Polar Bear topic:

http://www.valdosta.edu/news/releases/lunn.011707/
 

I think that both global warning and hunting are major reasons why the polar bear population is declining. Like mr.north and Holly Banana, I think global warming is the main issue.

Global warming has been causing so many environmental issues over the past decades that it's no surprise to me that this is happening. Polar bears need the cold climate and ice, its what they've depended on for millions of years. Its kind of too late to start adaptations to the constantly changing terrain and climate. Like Holly Banana said, this is just our disregard for the environment and our lifesytles coming back to haunt us. If people only listened to these ads you see on TV, this probably wouldn't be happening or this could end. As a commercial says " Lower your daily impact."

Hunting is an issue that is not helping the situation. Just because people see an increasing number of polar bears in their area, it doesn't mean the population is on the rise. For all we know, these bears could be moving to these areas for food and cooler weather that they can survive in. The only excuse for killing a polar bear is for food and clothing, NOT for sport.

This issue is only the beginning. If we keep using up our natural resources and polluting our environment, lets just say we'll be in some deep poo. :D
----------------------------------------------------
Here's a link concerning polar bears and the issue now

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

Here's another talking about the Bush administration putting polar bears on the 'threatened' list

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,239697,00
.html
 

Like many others, I think that both hunting and global warming have their fair share in the decline of the polar bear population. In my opinion, "game" hunting is really wrong. I also think that the global warming problem could have been much smaller if humans weren't so selfish and liberal with our resources. I understand that new technologies contribute to pollution. However, many people do not do simple things like recycle to help take care of the earth.

This web site has a good picture that shows how much ice has melted in different regions.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/polar_bears.html
 

The declination of the polar bear population is definitely a major problem that is being aroused in the world today. Global warming and Hunters play the biggest role in the decrease of the polar bears. I believe that the major threat to the bears of the Arctic is global warming. The melting of the ice caps has caused the drowning of numerous polar bears. The melting forces the bears to have to swim farther in order to reach land to rest. Not many polar bears make it safely back to land due to the strong winds and waves of the oceans.

Global warming has also increased the activity of the polar bears making it seem that the polar bear population has risen. This idea being way off course only made matters worse. In addition to the deaths of polar bears by global warming, now the already declining species is being decreased ever more. This just backs up my point that global warming started this all. Without global warming, the idea of an increased polar bear population never would have surfaced which led to the creation of the "sport." We the people, should be at fault for this rapid declination. We caused global warming resulting in this serious problem. Well I'm done for now.

Here is my link:

Warming Climate May Put Chill On Arctic Polar Bear Population

This site talks about the retreat of the polar ice caps and the decline in birth rate of female polar bears due to their weightloss. The site has a video that shows the retreat of the ice caps.
 

Ok..well, yes, global warming and hunters both were reasons for the decrease of the polar bear population. I really don't think the hunters are the main problem. They're doing what all hunters do, to all animals, killing them for sport. They probably killed polar bears before all this, but since polar bears stayed in more desolate places, they were harder to find and kill. But now, since polar bears moved further south due to the shrinking of the ice caps, hunters have spotted more, and therefore hunting more. So I have to agree with Alex that global warming was a major cause to the decline of the polar bear population..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138346,00.html
this tells a bit about how it started..and what governments are doing about it.
 

I'll write an essay on global warming. This, I don't feel like dignifying either "side" of the argument with a response, but I suppose I'll do my best without getting passionate and writing a book.

1. Is global warming killing bears?

Maybe. I certainly won't base an educated opinion off anything from those websites. Journalists don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about when it comes to science, and they can distort the importance of any issue they want, almost invariably in accord with their predisposed opinion. For example, I could make you think that polar bears on ice floes was the most pressing issue currently pertinent to the United States if I, for example, put a picture of one with the caption, "Be Worried. Be Very Worried." Or has that been done before?

Whatever. I don't believe in Global Warming (intentionally capitalized), a catastrophe of epic proportions popularized by the aforementioned bobblehead journalists. One could jump to all sorts of conclusions about what temperature increase causes or doesn't cause.

For example:

The average temperature in China has increased since 1975.

The population in China has increased since 1975.

Ergo, Chinese population growth is indubitably in a direct relationship with average temperature.

Sure, it seems ridiculous, but most people would readily gobble that up if it was, say, overblown as the most pressing issue of our time on the front page of the New York Times.

Before I lose sleep over this, I'll address the second possibility. Hunters cause population decline. Duh. I'm undecided on what should be done about it, and that's all I'll say. God forbid I should spew opinions without researching. What do you take me for, a journalist?
 

Glycolosis, I am enraged by your comments. Specifically:

"Global warming has been causing so many environmental issues over the past decades that it's no surprise to me that this is happening."

Name one, and prove to me that it's an issue.

"Polar bears need the cold climate and ice, its what they've depended on for millions of years."

Wrong.

"If people only listened to these ads you see on TV . . ."

*vomit* See previous post.

"If we keep using up our natural resources and polluting our environment, lets just say we'll be in some deep poo. :D"

Prove it.

Read this, if your attention can be held for longer than the length of a television commercial.

From janegalt.net:

There are I think 3 main lines of evidence that bear on whether
global warming is occurring.

First there are proxies like say the varying quantities of
certain isotypes in layers of sediment at the bottom of the
north atlantic which are believed to vary in proportion to
the percentage of the year the surface above is covered
by ice. I read a paper on such a proxy in Science somewhile
back and from this it was deduced that ice pack cover in
the north atlantic has varied substantially in the last
ten thousand years and even in the last thousand.

Proxies say nothing directly about whether global warming is
occurring today but instead define what is "normal." The
proxy record reveals that for much of the earth the normal
pattern is considerable climatic variation. Within the
confines of the areas that the known proxies cover the typical
pattern is change. An area may maintain the same climate for
centuries but then it will abruptly change to something else,
or the oscillations occur even faster.

Now this might not seem like saying much, but what the
proxies could have revealed was that the climate (temperature
and moisture) stays pretty constant in a given area
for millenia at a time. That is not what they show.

Because of this it is difficult to deduce that any climatic
swings we are seeing today is evidence of global warming. As
far as I know every change observed is within the bounds
of the kinds of swings that the proxies reveal.

At this point I'm talking about the second line of evidence,
not proxies, but temperature and moisture levels recorded
by man. That record is very short and most of the world is
not covered. There are only a few areas where sampling has
been dense enough to infer that there might be something wrong
with a neighboring station's technique. The largest such area
is in the united states and it also has the longest duration,
about a hundred years.

Measurement in the united states has been dense enough that
for large areas one can exclude stations in cities and airports
and still redundantly chart the climate. When this is done
there have been definite oscillations but the trend over the
last hundred years is close to flat. Something similar can
I believe be said for the short list of other regions around
the world where measurements are dense enough to construct
such redundant rural networks.

If fact rural stations everywhere around the world whether
isolated or part of a network show not much change. Certainly
not one of the them looks like the famous "hockey stick puck"
graph that so many seem to believe in.

None of this though proves that global warming is not occurring.
Given what the proxies show it could be that in the absence of
human activity global temperatures would be dropping and in fact
a near flat trend is really evidence of warming. But we don't
know what would be happening in our absence and so we can't deduce
that.

Climatic models are the third line of evidence. The models are
mathematical/programming constructs that plug in what we think
we know about how the climate works and try to project the impact
of rising carbon dioxide levels. All of the models predict
rising global temperatures with rising carbon dioxide -- they
vary considerably though in the level of predicted rise.

There are two obvious reasons to doubt the models. First not
one can successfully "predict" the past. In most fields of
science, maybe that's every other, modelling like this isn't
going to be taken seriously until it can least purport to
explain something that has already occurred.

The second obvious problem is that carbon dioxide in the
quantities we are talking about, isn't, by itself, much of
a greenhouse gas. All the models that predict global warming are
assuming that the tiny direct rise in temperature induced by
carbon dioxide will be enormously amplified by the presence
of water.

Why this is a reasonable assumption is not clear to me. If the
atmosphere is dynamically unstable like this then why didn't it
oscillate out the band of temperatures in which life could be
sustained long ago?

Whatever, the assumption that it will induce a large increase
in the greenhouse effect of water, is not based on our understanding
of the behavior of water in its different phases in our atmosphere.
How water behaves is in considerable part a mystery. What we
do know about it is for the most part beyond the computational
capacity of the computers we currently have to plug in to the
climatic models.

A fourth line of evidence bears not on whether global warming
is occurring but on whether raising carbon dioxide levels
is an obvious logical risk. After all if the atmosphere had
maintained a certain percentage of carbon dioxide for the
last billion years and we raised it 33% in the last century
then regardless of whether we could predict what the impact
might be it would seem reasonable to anticipate that something
bad might happen.

Fortunately this is not the situation. Even with the recent
rise atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are about the lowest the
earth has ever seen. Geologically carbon dioxide levels have been
dropping for a long time. Carbon dioxide is a limiting nutrient
for many plants and most contemporous plants originally evolved
at much higher levels. There's a paper in a recent issue of
Science reporting, based on satellite data, that in the last
twenty some years living land biomass has increased six percent.
There could be other explanations for that but it's had to not
suspect that the increase of nine percent of carbon dioxide in
the same time period hasn't had something to do with it.
 

Ok, so my personal opinion on this issue is that Global Warming is the more prominent cause when it comes to the declination of the polar bear population. I feel that the fact that polar bears are drowning, in the same waters that they have been thriving in for millions of years, gives the sense that the real cause of the near-extinction lies in climatic matters. Global warming is a serious issue, and it if effecting these animals in ways it has never before. Although I do feel that hunters contribute to the declination, I strongly believe that global warming is the larger issue at hand.

An example site which I used to gather information is:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/gsteps.asp
 

I'm sorry elias, but i have to say that i believe most definitely that global warming is a massive contributor to the polar bear population declining. and you say you want proof? heres something i found very cool to watch: An Inconvenient Truth. i may not be able to explain everything word for word but it can! and one thing that i do remember is this, polar ice caps were receding slowly and melting and then recently (last 3-4 yrs.) they melted a massive amount in a very short span of time (less than a yr.)that massive amount. how much was it you might ask? well it was just over 100miles of ice! if thats not proof of global warming then i dont know what is. and somebody else must believe that global warming is a major contributor to this (namely the U.S. gov.) which you can see in this article

http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/12/29/10092778.html

that may not have worked as a hyperlink but youll get the point. I have been keeping tabs for the last 3 yrs. on global warming, mainly because i had read an article in the newspaper about the declinig population of poison dart frogs in south america. global warming has triggered the growth of a type of fungus that releases certain things into the air when it reaches maturity and the stuff it releases is lethal to all members of the amphibian family. it has recently been found in the lower u.s. and is killing many amphibians every day and that means not just frogs, salamanders and newts are in this count too. i just happen to like frogs more. also if you were to take the percents of who was contributing most to global warming, you can see that we are in the lead by a long shot, we contribute almost 30%. and the other 70% is squabbled over between other countries. even china does not compare. i dont remember all the percents for all of the other countries around the world, just the u.s. because it really stuck out against the rest when it was put into a pie chart. and im sure now that polar bears are moving inland more hunters have become a contributor to their decline, but the initial cause of it all was global warming, because otherwise they never would have moved inland in the first place. my example doesn't use the world just dominoes. the first domino is the one that knocks down all of the others.

and by the way an inconvenient truth isnt just for publicity. al gore may be the face of it, but there are a lot of brains behind that movie. just watch the credits if you don't believe me.

and also, sadly enough George Bush had the chance to up the amount of miles per gallon that a car had to have as a minimum and the car industry was going to be given just over 10 yrs. to research this, and guess what his answer was. No. he didnt want to because the oil industry would become less profitable. i know you probably think this has nothing to do with th polar bears but wait. scientists say now that in 10 yrs. the polar ice aps will be malted enough to raise the oceans water level by 25 ft. had bush implemented on the bill that was run by him, they estimate we would have a little over 20 yrs. and in that 20 yrs. (scientists believe that if they have the time they could come up with ways to reverse the current effects of global warming) now i wont make this involve politics, but i wish the decision had been made differently.

any ways in my opinion global warming is the top factor of the polar bears population decline.

P.s. i agree with morning girl completely
 

I think it is evident that polar bears are dying. But that doesn't prove that global warming is the cause. We don't even know if there is such a thing as global warming. We don't have enough data to prove it either true or false. And even if it is true, how do we know that it is even bad? we had several glacial ice ages, and then the earth warmed up. Noone has ever suggested that we humans are the cause of the end of the ice age and yet people say that we are the cause of this one. You've heard of the extinction of mammoth's maybe this is along the same line. There have been many shifts in global climate temperatures. Maybe this is just another one. Noone truly can say that a specific thing is the cause of the bears' decline. Therefore, I won't offer up a suggestion either. It could be hunters, it could be global warming, it could even be a factor we don't even know about. All I know is that no one adn I mean no one should pretend that they know the answer to this puzzle. Only one being knows the answer and that's GOD!!!
 

The polar bear population is declining mostly because of global warming and the fact that people are hunting them now. These bears are now forced to learn how to adapt to this climate change and it isn't easy. They are trying to survive this and now people are hunting them? Its just wrong. There are so few polar bears and they think hunting is gonna solve this. I don't think so. They should be finding more reasons and methods of helping this poor bears. There is no reason for anyone to be hunting these creatures. If anything they should be helping.

here is a site on polar
bear conservation :
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/
 

There are a few reasons that the polar bear population has been declining. I believe that global warming is definitely a big part of this. Arctic sea ice is melting away, drowning the polar bears. It is estimated that by 2060 there will be no polar ice on the earth, meaning somewhere between now and then, the polar bear population will die out. Pollution and hunting are also other factors of their decrease in population. Here’s a link for an article on polar bears and their reasons for population decline:

Click =]

For anyone else who’s interested in global warming, heres a link to the main page for the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" which is all about global warming, and the dangers that we face in the near future.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

-jq =]
 

Global warming and hunting both have a major impact on polar bears. Agreed? Agreed.

First: Global Warming.
Global warming is causing polar bears to a) lose the ice they call home, even if it isn't much to you and I, and b) reach higher body temperatures than they are used to. In reference to letter a, polar bears can swim roughly a mile before they suffer from muscle fatigue and need to rest. The farther away they need to swim, the more suceptable they are to drowning or being attacked by a whale. For letter b, polar bears have several inches of fat to keep them warm. In fact, they are more likely to die of overheating than freezing.
Also, the warming is affecting force sources of polar bears (generally seals and penguins), not just the bears or their environment specifically.

Second: Hunting
How someone can wear an animal pelt with a clear consience is beyond me. It is one thing if you kill the animal as a necessity and use all parts of it that you possibly can, but the act of murdering a living, breathing creature as a sport?! That's outrageous! If you're that bored, find a hobby. If you have to shoot something, practice with the little bullseye things at a local rifle club. Take up another sport that DOES NOT INCLUDE KILLING ANIMALS FOR FUN. Some may say that we help to keep populations down, but what about before us? Nature took it's course.
----------------
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_schliebe.

^^^
That site shows a lot about how the polar bear population is declining, mostly focusing on global warming.
----------------
Useless bit of info, in case you are extremely bored:
-Polar bears actually have black skin and transparent/translucent fur. Light is reflected from their fur, giving them what looks to be a white coloring.
-Polar bears tunnel underground to avoid wind and to protect newborn polar bears, which are small enough to be held in the palm of your hand! Awwww.
 

Ok, let's see. Well, first I have to disagree with glycolysis: you can't only have to kill a polar bear for food and clothing, but protection also. What a lot of people don't seem to see is that polar bears are a big threat to humans. Sure, they look all cuddly in the photos, but they are dangerous. People look at the cute polar bear babies, and the cute coca-cola commercials, and think "aww, poor polar bears." I'm not saying that I don't like polar bears (I believe that every living thing deserves to live), but then suddenly, global warming and hunting become huge issues. My personal belief that if you're so worried about global warming, worry about its effect on humans, not polar bears.
 

Ok, I have a few links.
First is a lovely photo of a polar bear. I call it "Red, White, and Blue."
http://www.igpp.ucsd.edu/ne/2005/11/images/henkart_4.jpg

And if you're so want to save the polar bears, try to do some of the things on this list:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/071906climatecrisis.shtml
 

First off i completlt agree with Elias. Global warming has little if any affect on polar bears. The world goes through patterns of warm temperture and cold temperature. If we say humans caused the world to get warmer, does that mean that humans are to blame when the iceages ended and all the animals that had adapted to survive the cold weather died because of over heating. I don't think so because we were driving cars and puting enough greenhouse gases into the air to cause the temperature to rise way back when. So it isn't humans fault that thwe world is getting warmer it is just a pattern that the earth goes through. The polar bears are adapting to the climate change and moving to where they can survive and if hunter shoot them that isn't bad unless they kill them and then don't use their body for something like food. And i have to agree with allana becasu epolar bears are carnivores that eat what ever they can sink there teeth into . if that includes a human they don't mind. So if humans need to protect them selves by riddign the world of polar bears so be it. Hitler was a danger to humans and we got rid of him so is he any different then the polar bear that kills humans in a sense. Yes he was more dangerous but we got rid of him to protect the human race from evil so if we have to protect the humans against polar bears that eat us then we shouldn't go out of our way to go shoot thenm down but we shouldn't just let them devour all the eskimos in canada beforew we decided to stop them from killing us. We shouldn't kill them for sport but don't wait for them to kill you jsut because it is a living animal and you don't kill living things. And you can't beleave whatever you here even if it is from a proffeseur at a major college. So here is a site that say that aleins caused global warming which is about the stupidest thing ive ever heard.
Should we beleave what we hear. i say no because journalist and newspapers are out to benifet themselves not you or me so don't beleaev what you hear unless you have the fatcs in your hand to prove it is right.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
 

I believe that global warming is a big cause of the declining population of the polar bear. Polar bears usually eat seals, which live on the ice. Since global warming has been melting the ice in the Artic, polar bears aren't getting a lot of seals in their diet. Polar bears also use the ice to get to their homes, so global warming is a big problem for the polar bear population. Hunters is still a problem, but it's not as big as global warming. People can stop hunting the polar bears if they really wanted to, but nothing can stop global warming. Here's a site that talks about the climate changes and how it's going to affect polar bears.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2642773.stm
 

I believe the polar bear decline had been increasing. Hunters and global warming are two important reasons for polar bear decline. Hunters think that there is an increase in polar bears because they are more on land or they just want there fur for coats. But due to global warming the polar bears are unable to live on the thin ice sheets that they reside on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601899.html
 

My opinion on this issue is that global warming is the main cause for the decline in population of polar bears. As Amanda said, the same arctic climate which has been home to these animals forever is disappearing now, when global warming is reaching a maximum.

Here's a link on polar bears and global warming:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB113452435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214.html

The first sentence in this article is "It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning."
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

I also suggest reading the quote from janegalt.net that I posted earlier.
 

I do think that I am on both sides of this though global warming makes me so mad. The polar bears are being killed by both reasons and the people in Nunavut are clearly ignorant and need to watch the news.

Polar bears and global warming: The ice in the water that the polar bears swim to to get from place to place has melted due to global warming and well, that's not anything they can help so that is why they are on land more and around towns.

Polar bears and hunters: Again, Nunavut and other places way up there are clearly stupid if they think that there has been an increase in polar populations and because they are Canadian, like me, they won't listen to anyone else. (Right Elias? hehe just kidding guys.) I just think that both parts of the discussion is what is causing the fast decline of polar population. Nuff said.
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601899.html


Yeah =\
 

I don't understand why everyone thinks that watching the news is a deterrent for ignorance.

What luck for rulers that men do not think.
 

The decrease in the polar bear population is definitely a major problem. Global warming and hunters play the biggest role in the decrease of the polar bears. I believe that the major threat to the bears of the Arctic is global warming. The melting of the ice caps has caused the drowning of numerous polar bears. The melting forces the bears to have to swim farther in order to reach land to rest. Not many polar bears make it safely back to land due to the strong winds and waves of the oceans. Global warming has also increased the activity of the polar bears on land. This gives the illusion that the polar bear population has risen. This idea being way off course only made matters worse. In addition to the deaths of polar bears by global warming, the already declining species is being decreased ever more. This just proves my point that global warming started this all. Without global warming, the idea of an increased polar bear population never would have surfaced which led to the creation of the "sport." We the people, should be at fault for this rapid declination. We caused global warming resulting in this serious problem.

i used

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Warming_Climate_May_Put_Chill_On_Arctic_Polar_Bear_Population_999.html