227
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
227 points (97.1% liked)
News
23376 readers
2877 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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
For the easy solution, all you have to do is ask the people with the gun. Congratulations the easy solution won.
Yet again, you have not provided a viable alternative.
All you've said is that maybe they shouldn't shoot the polar bear. That's it.
You don't have an alternative. You don't like what the people who are in any position to do anything about it came up with.
You have nothing but repeating that they shouldn't have shot the bear and your silly attempt to give me negative internet points.
I asked you who was qualified to come up with a plan and you did not say me, so I didn't come up with one. Are you changing your answer now?
I am an advocate for a solution other than killing.
I downvote trolls. It probably does nothing, but I try.
Why are you telling such a silly lie?
Weird how you're calling me the troll when you told such an obviously refuted lie.
Okay, let's have them reverse time and unshoot the bear. How would they do that? It's not my job to come up with such things!
And if I'm a troll, why are you indulging me? Do you enjoy being trolled? Shouldn't you stop engaging?
Your reading comprehension failed you there. "You did not say me" as in you did not say that I was qualified.
Do you really think that I am advocating for changing past actions? Are you so ignorant for what advocation is for.
Meh. Better me than anybody else.
I already said what I think and it's ironic that you told me that I failed reading comprehension in the same post. Here's a refresher:
I came up with an alternative: unshoot the bear.
Do you really think that it is as impossible to reintegrate a lost bear into a population as time travel is? It's just an absurd comparison.
I think, again, that if you introduce a deadly pathogen to a bear population from a foreign bear, you kill a lot more bears in much more painful ways than shooting them. The article discusses the pathogen issue.
But if you like, I accept your concept for "don't shoot one bear when you can potentially kill many bears much more painfully" even if I don't agree with it.
Also, if I'm a troll, you should be flagging me for the moderators. I doubt you will because a brief glance at my comment history would show that I was not a troll.
Releasing captured diseased animals has been done before. You are welcome to ask those that have done that what considerations were made for preventing the spread of disease, but as I have said repeatedly, I am not an expert in the relevant field, so I won't speculate.
They removed my sarcastic comment calling it a troll. I have no expectation that they would recognize sea-lioning.
Evidence please.
In other words: "I don't care if you say you aren't a troll, I don't care if the mods say you aren't a troll, I don't care if your post history shows you clearly aren't a troll. You disagree with me, therefore, you are a troll."
Wildlife veterinarians job is to treat captured animals and release them back into the wild. If you want any specifics you would have one of them
In Churchill, Canada they have a polar bear jail, where they place captured polar bears that wander into town. I would guess that some veterinary care is provided since they stay there for up to 30 days, but you'd have to ask them for any specifics if you want it.
https://www.backpacker.com/stories/nature/churchill-polar-bears-be/
This was your claim:
Evidence please that animals with diseases have been released in the wild.
Also, why would Iceland build a polar bear jail when there hasn't been another polar bear since 2016?
I thought you would prefer something more polar bear oriented, but OK. And to be clear since I think your reading comprehension might be failing you again, they treat the diseases before releasing the animals.
Here is an organization that does that.
https://www.wildlife-rescue.org/
And a youtube channel that does it as well.
https://www.youtube.com/@WacoWildlifeRescue
Now, I haven't vetted them to see if they are perfect at their jobs, but it is certainly an example of what I suggested.
So they don't have to shoot the bears obviously.
I did.
My initial comment did not explicitly say they would be treated because I thought that would be obvious. I guess I gave you too much credit. But you still should have figured it out when I mention veterinarians.
Again that's not something I am qualified to to work out. You would have to ask someone else for that.
Cool. Similarly, I'm not qualified to work out the unshoot the bear solution. Someone else can work that out. Seems like a better solution than a bear jail.