Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Save the Polar Bears

Have you ever wanted to shoot a polar bear? Well, if you have a desire to take down the largest, most powerful member of the genus "Ursa," then you not only better pack a pretty powerful rifle, but you'd better be an Intuit (a.k.a. Eskimo) as well. That's because the sport hunting of the most lovable bear on earth (what other bear lets out an agreeable moan when sipping Coca-Cola and prefers cola to fresh, available penguin?) has become increasingly illegal across the globe (especially in Southern California for some strange reason.)

The only people allowed to kill the lovable, pristine, cuddly mammals are the Arctic indigenous populations who live in the region extending all the way from eastern Siberia to Greenland (the "ICY" nation, not to be confused, though originally intended to be so, with Iceland, the "Green" nation) and anyone who inadvertently (or preposterously by insane forethought) finds himself mercilessly facing the ravenous jaws of such a beast who is dying of thirst and craving a sip of your Coke.

Recently, the Economic Union, know more appropriately as simply the EU in lazy, erudite circles, has joined the US in its support of the ban of walking in the front door of your house with a polar bear pelt (though they have yet to support the banning of "prancing" or "skipping" through the front door with the same pelt.)

This means that rich people with a penchant for killing defenseless animals (and by defenseless I mean someone who can shoot you out of a helicopter while you are quietly enjoying a sip of your favorite carbonated beverage) are no longer required to take out their expensive murderous inclinations on Ursa Maritimus. That means that the people who enjoy the look of an expensive white rug in the shape of a "spread eagle" bear and who can afford to pay someone else to take the "all too easy to show" stains out of it must now resort to sewing together the flattened tails of White-Tail Deer together to simulate the effect--that or risk imprisonment and a glass of that inferior Pepsi product.

The ban is having a noticeable, immediate, and possibly unforeseen backlash on the Eskimo community, who make a pretty penny of up to $50,000 for leading American hunters on hunting expeditions to hunt the hunted polar bear. The price includes tracking, spotting, and a free Coca-Cola (assuming the slain animal doesn't spill it all upon falling to the ground.) As a result, sport hunting is down, but just as many bears, who are apparently in danger of being put on the "almost close to being soon to be named 'Nearly close to almost endangered list' " are being killed.

What gives?

At currently estimated at more than 30,000 ("give or take a few thousand," as quoted by the official polar bear counting guy, who also admitted, "they all look the same!"), the population of white bears is substantially lower than the current population of "Rice Rats," which total only 2500 or so, sprinkled throughout Rio de Janeiro.

Well, it turns out that there is no law or rule that cannot be cleverly be circumvented. We should have suspected such a thing from a group of people that can take lemons and make lemonade (or less metaphorically: a warm ice shelter called an Igloo from nothing but ice.)

What is actually happening now is that the Intuits, who are legally allowed to kill the animal, are now offering "full service" hunting expeditions, whereby the benefactor of the hunt simply follows along and simply allows the hunting guide to pull the trigger. The result: less ammo used as natives hit the mark on the first try, and just as many bears dying.

This is still very bad for the bear and possibly even better for the aborigines as they can charge more money under the mandate.

So why all the protection? Are polar bears really endangered??

I suspect is has much less to do with the fact that there are actually a dangerously low number of the species left, but rather that political activists and reactionary groups like PETA (who are in favor of supplying all remaining living polar bears with synthetically white winter coats made from the bleached hides of the thousands of euthanized cats and dogs) and the up-and-coming activist group know as LSTPBETWSBSMI (Let's Save The Polar Bears Even Though We Should Be Saving Money Instead) think that they are "cute" animals that shouldn't be hunted. Other animals such as Panda bears (there's too much bamboo to kill them anyway), Koala bears (I think the overgrowing plethora of Eucalyptus can only be curtailed by their hunger), Killer Whales (don't they have it coming anyway?), Eagles (they might win the Super Bowl), and Reindeer (Don't shoot Rudolph!!) fall into the photogenic category. Now Polar Bears are falling into this category.

Will we ever hear about the need to stop the needless slaughter of the hideous Hyena (their mothers even think they're ugly.)

Currently, polar bear populations are robust, thriving, and at an all-time high, according to Inuit reports. The data backing up the legislative mandates are based on two different sets of computer models: one set predicts how much Arctic sea ice will melt as a result of global warming and polar bear flatulence, and the other predicts how polar bear populations will respond (move North, eat less Mexican food.) However, computer models of climate change are characteristicaly replete with errors, problems, and drastic prognostications. The case of diminishing polar bear populations are no exception.

Let's just now agree that polar bears are as equally "cute" as they are tough and ferocious. They won't think twice about tearing you apart if they want your Coca-Cola.

The current situation is a classic case of myopic legislation aimed at addressing a problem that doesn't exist brought about by interest groups with selfish, hidden agendas in order to make the world a more miserable, regulated, less-carbonated place to live.

No comments: