WASHINGTON — Polar bear cubs forced to swim long distances with their mothers as their icy Arctic habitat melts appear to have a higher mortality rate than cubs that didn't have to swim as far, a new study reports.
Polar bears hunt, feed and give birth on ice or on land, and are not naturally aquatic creatures. Previous reports have noted individual animals swimming hundreds of miles to reach ice platforms or land, but this is one of the first to show these swims pose a greater risk to polar bear young.
"Climate change is pulling the sea ice out from under polar bears' feet, forcing some to swim longer distances to find food and habitat," said Geoff York of World Wildlife Fund, a co-author of the study.
York said this was the first time these long swims had been quantitatively measured, filling a gap in the historical background on this iconic Arctic species.
To gather data, researchers used satellites and tracked 68 polar bear females equipped with GPS collars over six years, from 2004 through 2009, to find occasions when these bears swam more than 30 miles at a time.
There were 50 long-distance swims over those six years, involving 20 polar bears, ranging in distance up to 426 miles and in duration up to 12.7 days, according to the scientific paper.
At the time the collars were put on, 11 of the polar bears that swam long distances had young cubs; five of those polar bear mothers lost their cubs during the swim, representing a 45 percent mortality rate, the study found.
Cubs that didn't have to swim long distances with their mothers had an 18 percent mortality rate, the study said.
"They're a lot like us," York said. "They can't close off their nasal passages in rough waters. So for old bears or young bears alike, if they're out in open water and a storm hits, they're going to have a tough time surviving."
Two factors make it even harder for polar bear cubs to weather long periods in Arctic waters, said Steve Amstrup, a former scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey and now chief scientist at Polar Bears International, a conservation group.
"Young bears don't have very much fat and therefore they aren't very well insulated and cannot cope with being in cold water for very long," Amstrup said.
Because they are leaner than their parents, Amstrup said, "they probably aren't as buoyant (as adult polar bears) so in rough water they'll have more difficulty keeping their heads above water.
The Bush administration listed polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because of the decrease in their Arctic ice habitat. That decision survived a legal challenge last month, and this month, Canada listed polar bears as a species at risk.
The Arctic is warming faster than lower latitudes due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the melting of sea ice in summer accelerates the warming effect.
Arctic sea ice extent — the area covered by sea ice — in June was the second lowest in the satellite record since 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Lead author Anthony Pagano of the U.S. Geological Society was presenting the study on Tuesday at the International Bear Association Conference in Ottawa, Canada.
The study is being published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology.
There were 50 long-distance swims over those six years, involving 20 polar bears, ranging in distance up to 426 miles and in duration up to 12.7 days, according to the scientific paper.
I find it suspect that they didn't specify in which of those six years those long distance swims took place. Makes it hard to establish a pattern if, indeed, there is one.
IP: Logged
08:17 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 32134 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Assuming there is some credability to this report, then I guess the only thing I can say is the bears are gonna have to adapt. Not much any of us can do except throw ice cubes into the water. Wait, no, scratch that idea, someone will take me serious and want to the US taxpayer fund such a project.
Looks like those concerned need to dig deep and go out there and start fattening up the cubs. Of course, if they are relly concerned and buy into that whole global warming/climate change thing, it might help as well if everyone would curb their driving habits--you know, like driving 200 miles just for a fresh peach.
IP: Logged
08:39 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Looks like those concerned need to dig deep and go out there and start fattening up the cubs. Of course, if they are relly concerned and buy into that whole global warming/climate change thing, it might help as well if everyone would curb their driving habits--you know, like driving 200 miles just for a fresh peach.
Good thing I didn't state I was concerned. But the "driving 200 miles just for a fresh peach" was a classy touch.
It's a shame you couldn't have just said you didn't believe it, without taking the jab at me.
IP: Logged
08:56 PM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
Good thing I didn't state I was concerned. But the "driving 200 miles just for a fresh peach" was a classy touch.
It's a shame you couldn't have just said you didn't believe it, without taking the jab at me.
Boonie, Based on your internet personna that you have established and the fact that you posted the original topic, it's a fair assumption that you are bringing this to our attention based on your concerns. It's not even a stretch. Regardless. Don's point is still valid.
No, this is not meant as a post to flame anyone but, Don's post was accurate and you know it as well as I do.
------------------ Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 07-18-2011).]
Originally posted by blackrams: Boonie, Based on your internet personna that you have established and the fact that you posted the original topic, it's a fair assumption that you are bringing this to our attention based on your concerns. It's not even a stretch. Regardless. Don's point is still valid.
No, this is not meant as a post to flame anyone but, Don's post was accurate and you know it as well as I do.
Wrong. I post alot of stuff. That does not automaticlly mean I agree with it. Or disagree.
Hears an idea; Ask. I mean, INSTEAD of just assuming.
And the "peach" comment had nothing to do with this post. It was just being mean.
Of ALL the comments you can make about the ARTICLE I posted, why would someone find the need to make it personal? Is that the point you find valid? Not the fuel I use driving to work, or the fuel that the ferry or aircraft used to get me here, but the fuel I used to go buy peaches? Is THAT the point that was valid?
Yeah, nothing to see in that statement....
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-18-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:12 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Wrong. I post alot of stuff. That does not automaticlly mean I agree with it. Or disagree.
Hears an idea; Ask. I mean, INSTEAD of just assuming.
And the "peach" comment had nothing to do with this post. It was just being mean.
Of ALL the comments you can make about the ARTICLE I posted, why would someone find the need to make it personal? Is that the point you find valid? Not the fuel I use driving to work, or the fuel that the ferry or aircraft used to get me here, but the fuel I used to go buy peaches? Is THAT the point that was valid?
Yeah, nothing to see in that statement....
Ok, if you say so.
Edited: OK, I'll ask, what's your position on this topic and why did you post the article?
------------------ Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 07-18-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:40 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Well, when I don't say anything at all, some people here seem to think they have the right to put words in my mouth. When I post an article, that's all it is at that point, an article.
When I comment on the article, that means I have added my opinion. But when I don't comment, that don't give someone the right to add my opinion for me.
It would seem to be a simple concept.
And turning an article I post into something personal is just wrong. MJ has done it to me many times.
Have I ever made any subject here personal to him or anyone else, ever? So why am I not afforded the same basic respect?
The question is simple; Why would someone turn a story on the internet about polar bears into something personal against another person? What was the intent?
IP: Logged
10:01 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 32134 From: Covington, TN, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Well, when I don't say anything at all, some people here seem to think they have the right to put words in my mouth. When I post an article, that's all it is at that point, an article.
When I comment on the article, that means I have added my opinion. But when I don't comment, that don't give someone the right to add my opinion for me.
It would seem to be a simple concept.
And turning an article I post into something personal is just wrong. MJ has done it to me many times.
Have I ever made any subject here personal to him or anyone else, ever? So why am I not afforded the same basic respect?
The question is simple; Why would someone turn a story on the internet about polar bears into something personal against another person? What was the intent?
You still haven't answered my question.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Ok, if you say so.
Edited: OK, I'll ask, what's your position on this topic and why did you post the article?
------------------ Ron
IP: Logged
10:08 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Edited: OK, I'll ask, what's your position on this topic and why did you post the article?
But you said you already made up your mind about why I posted it; you agree with MJ's conjecture that I am concerned about it.
However, I will favor you; I posted it becouse I found the article interesting. Absolutly nothing more. Wow, how anticlimatic. Very much ado about nothing.
As is ALWAYS the case when MJ see's ghosts where there are none.
IP: Logged
10:09 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
But you said you already made up your mind about why I posted it; you agree with MJ's conjecture that I am concerned about it.
However, I will favor you; I posted it becouse I found the article interesting. Absolutly nothing more. Wow, how anticlimatic. Very much ado about nothing.
As is ALWAYS the case when MJ see's ghosts where there are none.
Maybe, just maybe there's something we can all take for this, ya think?
------------------ Ron
IP: Logged
10:12 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Maybe, just maybe there's something we can all take for this, ya think?
I'm going to; I think I am not going to care what someone thinks i'm saying when I say nothing at all. I think I will just say, "I didn't say that".
Becouse when I explane it, it seems as if the concept is just far too complicated to comprehend.
Or maybe it's just someone wanting me to put my foot in my mouth so bad that they can't help but do it for me when I won't oblige them. Maybe that's where the whole accusation of 'not taking a stand' comes from...... frustration at being unable to aquire a foothold for an attack at what they want me to stand for.
Naw, that's would just be plain crazy.....
IP: Logged
10:24 PM
Gokart Mozart Member
Posts: 12143 From: Metro Detroit Registered: Mar 2003
Hunter Shoots Rare Grizzly-Polar Bear Cross In Canada by Staff Writers Ottawa (AFP) May 04, 2006
A US hunter in Canada's far north may have killed the first Grizzly-Polar bear cross ever discovered in the wild, officials told AFP Wednesday. Jim Martell, 65, who paid 50,000 Canadian dollars (45,000 US dollars) to hunt Polar bears, shot the animal, described by local media as a "pizzly", a "grolar bear", or Martell's favorite, a "polargrizz" two weeks ago.
The Idaho native told The National Post:"Everybody thought it was a Polar bear, and then they started looking more and more and they seen other features that resembled some of a Grizzly as well."
The bear had thick, creamy white fur, typical of Polar bears, but its long claws, humped back and shallow face, as well as brown patches around its eyes, nose, back and on one foot are Grizzly traits.
Geneticists have linked the two species. They believe Grizzly bears ventured north some 250,000 years ago to hunt seals and that their fur turned white over time. Thus, the Polar bear was born.
Odd couples have produced mixed offspring in captivity. But, this is the first apparent discovery of a mixed breed in the wild, officials said.
The two species mate at different times of the year and inhabit vastly different regions -- one lives on Arctic ice floes, the other in forests.
But hunters have reported seeing grizzlies further north in recent years as the Arctic warms, said Andy Carpenter, mayor of Sachs Harbour, a tiny hamlet on Banks Island where the bear was shot.
"The only way they could get here is by walking across the ice," he said.
A laboratory in western Canada is expected to solve the mystery in a few weeks after examining a sample of the bear's DNA, said Judy McLinton, a spokeswoman for the Northwest Territories' environment and natural resources department in Yellowknife.
If it is found to be a Grizzly bear, Martell, whose hunting license only allowed him to shoot Polar bears, may be charged with shooting the wrong animal, officials said.
*************************************************
With Climate Changes, Polar Bear and Brown Bear Lineages Intertwine
ScienceDaily (July 7, 2011) — Polar bears' unique characteristics allow them to survive in one of the most extreme environments on Earth, but that survival is now threatened as rising temperatures and melting ice reshape the Arctic landscape. Now it appears that the stress of climate change, occurring both long ago and today, may be responsible for surprising twists in the bears' history and future as well.
According to DNA evidence reported in the July 7th Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, polar bears and brown bears have mated successfully many times in the last 100,000 years. As a result of some of those pairings, the polar bears of today also have unexpected Irish roots.
"We found that brown bears and polar bears, which are hybridizing today in the wild, have been hybridizing opportunistically throughout the last 100,000 years and probably longer," said Beth Shapiro of The Pennsylvania State University, noting recent sightings of hybrid adults in Canada. "Generally, this seems to happen when climate changes force the bears to move into each others' habitat. When they come into contact, there seems to be little barrier to them mating."
The researchers used patterns in mitochondrial DNA sequence to trace the bears' evolutionary history. Mitochondria are cellular components with their own DNA and are passed on from mother to child. By extracting and sequencing those mitochondrial genomes from fossils collected from all over the world, the researchers were able to observe how the bears' maternal lineages have shifted in space and over time. They then correlated those patterns with changes in the environment and in the bears' habitats.
"This approach provides a means to go back in time and directly measure the movement of species in response to past climate change," said study author Daniel Bradley of Trinity College Dublin.
The study shows that the modern polar bears' maternal line (from female ancestor to their descendants of either sex) descends from a recent hybridization with an extinct population of brown bears that lived in the vicinity of modern-day Britain and Ireland, not from bears living off the coast of Alaska as many believed. That hybridization event most likely occurred just prior to or during the last ice age, they report.
They say that future conservation strategies can benefit from the new understanding of bears' evolutionary history. But that's not to say that their status should change based on the findings.
"There is no reason that past hybridization and genetic introgression with brown bears should affect at all the conservation status of polar bears," Shapiro said. "The two species are very different, each adapted to a particular lifestyle, and each playing a crucial role in their ecosystem."
In light of the new evidence, it may be prudent to afford protection to brown/polar bear hybrids, including those recently sighted in Canada.
"While vulnerable populations of both bear species are currently protected, the protection status of hybrids is less clear, with a 1996 proposed U.S. policy to protect hybrids yet to be finalized," the researchers write. "Although the extent of any fitness differential between hybrid brown/polar bears and their parents remains unclear, given the increasing evidence of hybridization among many threatened arctic taxa, it may be appropriate to reconsider protection of hybrids as they may play an underappreciated role in the survival of species."
[This message has been edited by Gokart Mozart (edited 07-18-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:28 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Hunter Shoots Rare Grizzly-Polar Bear Cross In Canada by Staff Writers Ottawa (AFP) May 04, 2006
A US hunter in Canada's far north may have killed the first Grizzly-Polar bear cross ever discovered in the wild, officials told AFP Wednesday. Jim Martell, 65, who paid 50,000 Canadian dollars (45,000 US dollars) to hunt Polar bears, shot the animal, described by local media as a "pizzly", a "grolar bear", or Martell's favorite, a "polargrizz" two weeks ago.
The Idaho native told The National Post:"Everybody thought it was a Polar bear, and then they started looking more and more and they seen other features that resembled some of a Grizzly as well."
The bear had thick, creamy white fur, typical of Polar bears, but its long claws, humped back and shallow face, as well as brown patches around its eyes, nose, back and on one foot are Grizzly traits.
Geneticists have linked the two species. They believe Grizzly bears ventured north some 250,000 years ago to hunt seals and that their fur turned white over time. Thus, the Polar bear was born.
Odd couples have produced mixed offspring in captivity. But, this is the first apparent discovery of a mixed breed in the wild, officials said.
The two species mate at different times of the year and inhabit vastly different regions -- one lives on Arctic ice floes, the other in forests.
But hunters have reported seeing grizzlies further north in recent years as the Arctic warms, said Andy Carpenter, mayor of Sachs Harbour, a tiny hamlet on Banks Island where the bear was shot.
"The only way they could get here is by walking across the ice," he said.
A laboratory in western Canada is expected to solve the mystery in a few weeks after examining a sample of the bear's DNA, said Judy McLinton, a spokeswoman for the Northwest Territories' environment and natural resources department in Yellowknife.
If it is found to be a Grizzly bear, Martell, whose hunting license only allowed him to shoot Polar bears, may be charged with shooting the wrong animal, officials said.
*************************************************
With Climate Changes, Polar Bear and Brown Bear Lineages Intertwine
ScienceDaily (July 7, 2011) — Polar bears' unique characteristics allow them to survive in one of the most extreme environments on Earth, but that survival is now threatened as rising temperatures and melting ice reshape the Arctic landscape. Now it appears that the stress of climate change, occurring both long ago and today, may be responsible for surprising twists in the bears' history and future as well.
According to DNA evidence reported in the July 7th Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, polar bears and brown bears have mated successfully many times in the last 100,000 years. As a result of some of those pairings, the polar bears of today also have unexpected Irish roots.
"We found that brown bears and polar bears, which are hybridizing today in the wild, have been hybridizing opportunistically throughout the last 100,000 years and probably longer," said Beth Shapiro of The Pennsylvania State University, noting recent sightings of hybrid adults in Canada. "Generally, this seems to happen when climate changes force the bears to move into each others' habitat. When they come into contact, there seems to be little barrier to them mating."
The researchers used patterns in mitochondrial DNA sequence to trace the bears' evolutionary history. Mitochondria are cellular components with their own DNA and are passed on from mother to child. By extracting and sequencing those mitochondrial genomes from fossils collected from all over the world, the researchers were able to observe how the bears' maternal lineages have shifted in space and over time. They then correlated those patterns with changes in the environment and in the bears' habitats.
"This approach provides a means to go back in time and directly measure the movement of species in response to past climate change," said study author Daniel Bradley of Trinity College Dublin.
The study shows that the modern polar bears' maternal line (from female ancestor to their descendants of either sex) descends from a recent hybridization with an extinct population of brown bears that lived in the vicinity of modern-day Britain and Ireland, not from bears living off the coast of Alaska as many believed. That hybridization event most likely occurred just prior to or during the last ice age, they report.
They say that future conservation strategies can benefit from the new understanding of bears' evolutionary history. But that's not to say that their status should change based on the findings.
"There is no reason that past hybridization and genetic introgression with brown bears should affect at all the conservation status of polar bears," Shapiro said. "The two species are very different, each adapted to a particular lifestyle, and each playing a crucial role in their ecosystem."
In light of the new evidence, it may be prudent to afford protection to brown/polar bear hybrids, including those recently sighted in Canada.
"While vulnerable populations of both bear species are currently protected, the protection status of hybrids is less clear, with a 1996 proposed U.S. policy to protect hybrids yet to be finalized," the researchers write. "Although the extent of any fitness differential between hybrid brown/polar bears and their parents remains unclear, given the increasing evidence of hybridization among many threatened arctic taxa, it may be appropriate to reconsider protection of hybrids as they may play an underappreciated role in the survival of species."
Let's see if MJ tells Gokart Mozart the reason he posted this and what he ment by it. And then use it to make a personal jab against him.
I mean, it's not just me, right?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-18-2011).]
WASHINGTON — Polar bear cubs forced to swim long distances with their mothers as their icy Arctic habitat melts appear to have a higher mortality rate than cubs that didn't have to swim as far, a new study reports.
BUT WHY ARE THERE POLAR BEARS SWIMMING IN WASHINGTON???!!!!
Brad
IP: Logged
09:29 AM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 36751 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
One thing in learned in life, is that nature adapts. Heck, what we are seeing here, is evolution in progress. Rejoice all and count your blessings! Once upon a time, things were so bad for the water fairing creatures, that they had to crawl upon land to survive. Our professional athletes train harder than we pussyfied sheeple and new world records keep getting set. Poor polar bears. What about us ? We have to go further to find a job ... and are becoming poorer because of it. Whaa whaa whaa, . Only the strong survive. As intended.
IP: Logged
09:41 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
so, useing Darwins Theories, the remaining Polar Bears will be better? or, at least, better swimmers?
isnt this how nature works? as far as I know, there are no "nice deaths" in nature. unless popped by a hunter, every animal dies a horrible death. starvation. eatin. slow disease wasting....
maybe the bears should stop trying to do the same failed practices?
IP: Logged
09:41 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36751 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
so, useing Darwins Theories, ... maybe the bears should stop trying to do the same failed practices?
The Darwin of Evolution or the Darwin Award Darwin ? Seems to me, from the topic title, that they are stopping the failed practices, by dieing. Or, are they dieing by not seeking ice ? Let's see, hmmm. Animals are nomadic. Just like the early american indians. Are they dieing looking for ice, or, swimming back ? Polar bears have sex. They will repopulate.
First off, polar bears have been crossing the Bearings Straight for millenia.
Second, as of July 17, 2011, Arctic sea ice is 7.56 million square kilometers (2.92 million square miles)
Now think about it. Why would a bear choose to swim for a distant shore when he has 2.92 million square miles to wander around, plus all the land in the Arctic Circle? Sure it happens, like beached whales. It does not mean that the 25000+ polar bears are in danger of extinction. In fact, there has been net growth in their numbers in the last 2 decades.
Arn
PS did you read my links?
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-19-2011).]
First off, polar bears have been crossing the Bearings Straight for millenia.
Second, as of July 17, 2011, Arctic sea ice is 7.56 million square kilometers (2.92 million square miles)
Now think about it. Why would a bear choose to swim for a distant shore when he has 2.92 million square miles to wander around, plus all the land in the Arctic Circle? Sure it happens, like beached whales. It does not mean that the 25000+ polar bears are in danger of extinction. In fact, there has been net growth in their numbers in the last 2 decades.
Arn
PS did you read my links?
I read both of them. The National post one, well is typical of the national post, short on facts and full of opinion. I did notice they mentioned the alarming rate of sea ice decline that you like to ignore however. Also they mention how troublesome getting accurate numbers is.
The Environment Canada one seems reasonable, not sure what you are commenting about on that one.
Did you read the original posted article and what the report is in fact saying??
Clearly the solution here is to "rescue" the Polar Bears by putting them in Federally subsidized housing and providing them with free healhcare and food stamps.
Lettings polar bears swim is RACIST!!
IP: Logged
04:03 PM
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by JCzzle: Clearly the solution here is to "rescue" the Polar Bears by putting them in Federally subsidized housing and providing them with free healhcare and food stamps.
Lettings polar bears swim is RACIST!!
AKA: Zoo?
IP: Logged
04:06 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9704 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
Polar bears hunt, feed and give birth on ice or on land, and are not naturally aquatic creatures.
Incorrect. Polar bears have partially webbed toes and can close their nostrils. They are naturally aquatic creatures and spend a great deal of their time swimming.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Incorrect. Polar bears have partially webbed toes and can close their nostrils. They are naturally aquatic creatures and spend a great deal of their time swimming.
I guess that certainly depends on your definition of aquatic creatures. I thought "aquatic" animals were those who lived in water for most or all of their lives.
Some dogs have webbed feet and are great at swimming I don't think that means they are aquatic animals though.
Edit, I did find this which supports your claim more than mine (damn it ): "The polar bear spends a large portion of its time in a marine environment, albeit a frozen one. When it does swim in the open sea it is extremely proficient and has been shown to cover 74 km in a day. For reasons like these, some scientists regard it as a marine mammal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_mammal
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-19-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:20 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Incorrect. Polar bears have partially webbed toes and can close their nostrils. They are naturally aquatic creatures and spend a great deal of their time swimming.
The polar bear is the only bear considered to be a marine mammal. Why?
1. They're great swimmers. They've been clocked as fast as 6 miles / 10 km per hour, and have been known to swim more than 60 miles / 100 km without a rest.
2. Their massive forepaws are partially webbed, and propel them through the water dog-paddle style. The hind feet and legs are used as rudders.
3. A thick layer of blubber, 3-4 inches/7-10 cm thick, not only keeps the bear warm in icy cold water, but adds to its bouyancy as well.
4. The bear's fur protects it like a diving-suit. It easily shakes free of water after a swim, and ice doesn't stick to it.
5. They have excellent underwater vision.
6. The bear's nostrils close when under water. (If you've ever had water up your nose, you'll know what an advantage that is.)
IP: Logged
06:17 PM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
Yeah... give 'em a few million years and they'll probably evolve into something resembling a walrus. Right now, they're in the "gawky stage" of evolution. Their swimming skills need to be tested and honed to an art, if they want to stand a chance as an aquatic animal. So making their babies swim a lot is not the tragedy it may seem to be. It's survival of the species.
IP: Logged
11:30 PM
Jul 20th, 2011
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Yeah... give 'em a few million years and they'll probably evolve into something resembling a walrus. Right now, they're in the "gawky stage" of evolution. Their swimming skills need to be tested and honed to an art, if they want to stand a chance as an aquatic animal. So making their babies swim a lot is not the tragedy it may seem to be. It's survival of the species.
Wait, no, scratch that idea, someone will take me serious and want to the US taxpayer fund such a project. 
