233
Rare polar bear shot dead by police in Iceland after being thought a threat
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
233 points (100.0% liked)
News
29495 readers
3489 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As unfortunate as this is, afaik, polar bears are one of the most aggressive animals around, intent on eating pretty much anything that moves. I don't doubt that it did pose a threat.
Or, you know, just the ones that are actively posing a threat. Like in all such animal situations.
So what about humans posing a threat to them? If it's so rare to have them show up in Iceland, what drove a polar bear to do this? From what I understand, with less ice at the poles it has made it harder for polar bears to hunt seals, leaving many of them starving. As we head towards winter, polar bears have to put on fat stores to survive and feed newborn cubs. It's really a shame that so many people talk about "animals" as if we aren't animals too. By your logic, there would be nothing wrong with polar bears rolling into town and eating the species threatening their survival.
I agree. We should just shoot all fossil fuel company CEOs until they appoint one that agrees to stop polluting the earth so that polar bears have more space to live in 👍🏻
Just feed them to the polar bears.
How on Earth is that my logic?
If a specific animal poses a direct threat to humans pretty much anywhere on the planet, that animal is killed. That's just how things work. I'm sorry polar bears are getting desperate for food due to our causing climate change, but that doesn't mean we should put people's lives at risk too.
The difference between the two of us is that you think humans are more important than other animals and I don't. If this polar bear killed a few humans in Iceland, I'm not saying those particular humans would deserve it, but we as a species do. This polar bear didn't do anything wrong. It has no capacity to, it was just trying to survive. Maybe instead of destroying anything that may potentially be a threat to humans, we should protect the planet we live on and the habitats of our fellow plants and animals. It's in our own best interests too. No sense arguing about it though, I doubt either of us will change our minds.
You would not care if a polar bear mauled a playground full of toddlers. Noted.
Good luck getting pretty much anyone who has any say in these matters to agree with you on that.
I never said I didn't care.
Really? Is this you? Because this sure sounds like you saying that the children's lives matter less than the bear's since this is your argument to not kill the bear:
It's either the bear or the people in a case like this. You don't wait for it to go on a killing spree at a school and then go, "oopsies!"
Do you seriously lack reading comprehension skills? The section of my comment you've pointed out says that I value them equally, not that polar bears are more valuable than humans, and not that humans are more valuable than polar bears. This is why I knew it was pointless to argue with you, because you aren't doing it in good faith. Go protect your imaginary school from the polar bears massing an imminent attack if you want to act like this.
I'm arguing in good faith. This is one polar bear vs. a lot of humans. And you are arguing not to kill the bear. So you obviously put the bear at a higher level than humans.
A rare polar bear that was spotted in a remote village in Iceland was shot by police after being considered a threat, authorities have said.
The bear was killed in the north-west tip of the country after police consulted the national environment agency, which declined to have the animal relocated, according to the Westfjords police chief, Helgi Jensson.
“It’s not something we like to do,” Jensson said. “In this case … the bear was very close to a summer house. There was an old woman in there.”
The owner, who was alone, was frightened and locked herself upstairs as the bear rummaged through her garbage, Jensson said. She contacted her daughter in Reykjavik, the capital, by satellite link, and called for help.
“She stayed there,” Jensson said, adding that other summer residents in the area had gone home. “She knew the danger.”
What's your point, that they should have waited until the bear wandered into a town?
This one was not actively posing a threat.
So it has to actually be bearing down on a group of people before it needs to be euthanized? Really?
There was no hurry. It could have been captured and released back in Greenland, but Iceland won't do that because of the cost, so they just kill it. How much would you be willing to contribute to prevent a polar bear from being killed?
How do you know? Please show me a map of where it was found in relation to places where people live.
How do you know this was actually doable? Why do you think the polar bear would survive being dropped off in a random place?
And they should be forced to bear a cost burden they can't afford?
The articles I have read only say that the woman saw it outside her house. There was no indication that it had attempted anything other than rummage through garbage. And the police had to travel about 30 km by boat to get there, so the response time couldn't have been quick
Well, another article says it was in Höfðaströnd There are only a few buildings there and spread far apart, so the only relevant person is the one woman.
They attempted it before so they thought it was doable. There was a commission to decide how to handle polar bears in the future and all they said was that it cost too much.
It didn't say that they couldn't afford it, just that they wouldn't pay for it. (You keep rephrasing things in a way that was not intended to try to make your position stronger. That's called a strawman argument. You should stop that.) And they seem to be getting a lot of complaints from Icelanders that are upset that they killed the bear, so it probably wouldn't be forced, but something that many Icelanders would be willing to pay.
You still haven’t explained how they were supposed to get it to Greenland without Greenland’s or Denmark’s permission. Just drop it out of a plane with a parachute?
You do understand that Greenland is under no obligation to let a polar bear that might be carrying deadly pathogens into their country, right?
That would require an effort by conservation groups, the various governments, and polar bear experts. If you really wanted to know you could check the plans they made in previous attempts.
I certainly would not be involved so I don't know why you think I should be the one that comes up with any plan. I don't have to be a subject matter expert to advocate for a cause. I don't have to be an OB-GYN to advocate for abortion rights. I don't have to be an environmental scientist to advocate for action on climate change. And I don't have to be an expert on polar bears to be able to say "Maybe we shouldn't kill polar bears."
That's exactly the problem that both the article and I have brought up. Greenland has no obligation to take the polar bear and has good reasons not to.
Do you expect me to personally negotiate with Greenland?
No, I expect you to explain to me why Greenland would accept such negotiations with Iceland when it would put their own polar bear population at risk.
That's something you should ask Greenland, something one might do in some sort of negotiation.
Why am I the one that has to come up with a plausible way for your idea to work?
You seem to want to know the answer to the question and I have already given you all I can. so I will just repeat:
Except you have not given a viable alternative to killing the polar bear.
I have given an alternative. It is just not perfectly detailed enough for some random person on the internet that has no say in anything related to the subject.
You have not given a viable alternative. Your alternative is "negotiate with Greenland." That is not viable and I explained why. It risks their entire polar bear population. It would have the potential to kill far more than just one polar bear and much more slowly and painfully.
But I guess that's your preferred solution to shooting a single bear in Iceland, the first since 2016.
Who do you think is qualified to make such a plan?
The Icelandic government, what with it being in their purview. And they decided the best course of action was to kill the bear.
You saying "maybe they shouldn't have killed it" is not a solution to the issue.
Don't forget to downvote this post. It's vital that you downvote all of my posts for some reason.
No hurry? The woman in the cabin that spotted the bear was just a wooden door or a glass window away from the animal.
Also, Greenland doesn't want them back, they even shoot the bears on sight if they are too close to human settlements. They do however have a quota and each bear that is killed in Iceland contributes to this quota.
Most murders are committed by people. I say we reduce the number of people, perhaps through allowing them to destroy the environment so that they cannot survive. This will make the world safer in the long run, and it will also teach humans that their actions have consequences.
As a side effect, polar bears will also die, so everyone will be happy (and dead)!
Since my comment was removed for trolling (I wasn't trolling, it was just sarcasm), I will rephrase it. If we accept the premises that any polar bear that is a threat should be killed and every polar bear is inherently a threat, then the conclusion is that every polar bear should be killed. I reject the first premise and conclusion.
There are only two species that are still predators of humans and will actively hunt us: polar bears and bangal tigers.