Polar Bears All Over The Place Now, Native Alaskans Say

American Thinker
December 7, 2017
By Monica Showalter

[Ed; How many people are out of the vehicle, petting the bears?]

To climate change fanatics, polar bears are the eye candy for the worldwide call for action on global warming. There have been news reports about the sad shape they are in, with their coats going brown, their food supplies drying up, and their ice floes melting. Conclusion: The bears are set to starve.

Welp, turns out there are too many of them now.

According to Marc Morano's Climate Depot:

2 New Papers: 92% Of Polar Bear Subpopulations Stable, Increasing – Inuit Observe 'Too Many Polar Bears Now'

...and...

Inuit observations of polar bear ecology: "Last year he said that there's more bears that are more fat … they rarely see unhealthy bears… back in early 80s, and mid 90s, there were hardly any bears … there's too many polar bears now."

So, instead of furtive bears withering away on ice floes and starving due to loss of habitat, rising sea levels or whatever the global warmers claim, what we actually have here is a bear explosion, with bears so well fed that they've gotten fat.

It's more than just anecdotal – the bear populations are exploding everywhere.

In Russia, near its Chukotka peninsula, AFP reports:


MOSCOW: A boatload of tourists in the far eastern Russian Arctic thought they were seeing clumps of ice on the shore, before the jaw-dropping realisation that some 200 polar bears were roaming on the mountain slope.

"It was a completely unique situation," said Alexander Gruzdev, director of the Wrangel Island nature reserve where the encounter in September happened. "We were all gobsmacked, to be honest."

Several years ago, we were warned that bears were starving due to global warming and would be irretrievably lost.

I recall the first interview I did with Alaska's then-governor, Sarah Palin, about the polar bear situation in 2008, before she got famous. I asked her if the news reports were right that polar bears were starving. I only have a reference to the link, unfortunately, but I vividly recall her most memorable quote: "Our bears are healthy bears!"

She added that maybe that could be the situation in Canada, but it certainly wasn't in Alaska.

Now ABC News and NBC News are reporting that bears are flooding Alaska's villages, supposedly because of the loss of their ice floe habitat. The Washington Post is bringing them up as an argument against the GOP tax cut bill.

Problematically to the claim about the missing ice floes (unlikely now that it's winter), the photos prominently feature obese bears who clearly haven't fled any sort of famine.

Fact is, not only are the Alaska natives seeing too many bears proliferating, but so are the scientists who study them. Professor Susan Crockford of the University of Victory has observed the proliferation of bears, and far from saying they are endangered, she concludes they "are not at risk," which, of course, got her attacked by ideological leftists and those for whom global warming is a religion.

Terence Corcoran of Canada's Financial Post notes that this bear issue and the left's shifting story on it is a magic talking point for global warmers, who go after anyone who deviates from their party line:

It's all part of an escalating epic of polar bear junk science. It begins with a paper in which Amstrup, who heads the activist group Polar Bears International, and other climate scientists – including famed temperature hockey-stick maker Michael Mann – produce what must be one of the most pathetic scientific smear jobs in the already sorry history of climate change science smear campaigns. Also along for the hatchet job was Stephan Lewandowsky, an Australian psychologist who asserts that people who have doubts about climate policy are wacky conspiracy theorists who would also tend to believe the 1969 moon landing was faked.

So instead of starving, global warming is now causing bears to proliferate. We are supposed to be upset about it no matter what the truth is. It just goes to show that global warmers can't get their stories straight. And they want to have their bears and starve them, too.


Thank You Ms Showalter and American Thinker. 

Contrary to Loony Tune Anti Hunting, Anti Gun activists, people do not use AK-47s to hunt bears. Aside from being ridiculously under-powered for the job, an AK-47 is built for reliability, pull the trigger and it fires no matter how much river bed sand or mud you dropped it in. This means much looser tolerances and Decreased accuracy. 
 
Alaskan bear guides who hire out to hunters often advise their clients to bring a .338 Winchester Rifle.

This is to prevent the client from 'Short Stroking' the bolt. Bad form in hunting dangerous game. 

The .338 Cartridge is physically shorter than a .375 H&H or .458 Winchester. Pull the bolt handle up, pull it ALL the way back to eject the empty casing and shove it forward to chamber a 2nd.

There probably isn't a word in the English language to adequately describe what you will be feeling in a bear charge in the coastal alders. 

'Short Stroking' the bolt will not eject the empty or chamber a fresh round as you are aging a year per second in a bear charge. You pull the trigger and hear, click, the sound of the firing pin coming down on a spent casing. 

Been nice knowing you.