Can We Keep Him?

It sickens me when I see pictures of people on the internet, bragging about their lives living with eleven big cats (for example). There are cute pictures of the cheetah standing on the counter, or the tigers sitting on the table that most people would adore. And while I'm sure the lady or man who "owns" them is as capable as any to care for them, it's people like these who think these animals are pets that are responsible for their diminishing population.



We run the earth with a population that is twice as great as almost any other species on earth. By failing to change this, and accepting the fact that we will rule not by strength but by quantity, we have agreed to the responsibility of caring for the smaller populations. When someone walks into a house and sees two house cats sitting on the couch, "cruelty" is not usually the word to come to mind. This is because we have bred and forced every ounce of instinct and independence out of these animals. Dogs are the same, and animals such as reptiles and birds are close behind. I'm not saying we should all release our house pets to the life of freedom they long for, because where would they go? Out to the open plains where the wind blows through the trees and the circle of life is restored? I don't think such a place exists anymore. And whatever ones do exist will soon be demolished as more families expand and have more kids they can't afford and continue to overwhelm and modernize the planet, replacing all traces of wildlife with urban landscapes.

We have an abundance of cats and dogs that live on the streets because no one wants them. We have people who take their anger out on smaller species that would never lose their faith or loyalty to us. We neglect them. How can we introduce more species, species that are harder to control, species that are larger and stronger than we could ever hope to be, as being our pets when we have such big problems to deal with surrounding the domesticated animals we have now? These big cats, and wild animals are struggling to survive in their consistently diminishing habitats as we speak. How can we possibly think that domesticating them, and taking away their instincts will help them?

I'm not sure if anyone else agrees with me, or if this is just a cute way of enjoying wildlife literally from your own home, but I fail to see the up side to this. I'm sure the cats don't find anything wrong with it, I'm sure they're not unhappy simply because they've never experienced anything better. It breaks my heart to think that when the animal chews something up, or attacks someone, it will be put down when it is only doing what the small amount of instinct that remains, is telling him.

A good example of this is the woman who owned a chimpanzee. Her friend came over to the house because the chimp got out of its cage (God forbid) and the owner needed help getting him back in. When the friend arrived the chimp became territorial, just like he would in the wild, and attacked her. He ripped her face to pieces and even ate parts of it. It completely ruined this lady's life, leaving her blind and with a disfigured face. In the wild, another chimp would have been able to defend himself better. No one would have died, because they would know each other's boundaries. If this is not a prime example of why these animals do not belong in houses, why they are not meant to be lawn ornaments, I don't know what is. Society refuses to believe that we are weaker than any other species, when reality and facts show us that we are weaker than almost every species. We survive simply because we have weapons, and other animals suffer when they don't please us when they're acting in the only way they know how.

Need more evidence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uda-Va41ww&feature=player_embedded

Endangered Whales

Whales are one of the most absolutely amazing species on earth. Besides the lack of both interest or care for them, they hold characteristics that have never been seen in any other animal, and they are the largest mammal the earth has ever seen. Not only do they hold the largest size record, but they have the longest life span with an average of 200 years. You would think that this species would deserve the protection it needs. But even though the whaling industry, which drove this large animal towards extinction, ceased to operate decades ago—It didn't stop before the blue whale’s population had fallen by more than 90 percent. About 1% of the total whales exist today than in the past. These creatures obviously facinate us, and their size must threaten our egos, because it is apparently highly looked upon for a man to kill a whale, and sell their body parts like lifeless objects around the world. To think that many years (many, many years) back, we could have swam fin-to-fin with these creatures, but now have turned our backs and are using them for income is horrid.

Only one population, the East Pacific grey whale, is thought to have recovered to its original abundance, but the closely related West Pacific grey whale population is the most endangered in the world. It hovers on the edge of extinction with just over 100 remaining.
Known environmental threats to whales include global warming, pollution, overfishing, ozone depletion, noise such as sonar weaponry, and ship strikes. Industrial fishing threatens the food supply of whales and also puts whales at risk of entanglement in fishing gear. The pollution in the oceans seriously impacts not only whales but all other marine life as well. This not only affects the whales directly, but their generations after, as toxicated milk is fed to their calves and the chemicals are carried through the family. There are many cases where, after review of percentages in a whales body, they are technically considered "toxit waste" because of the amazingly high levels of PBC's and pollutants. These are floating, breathing, feeling waste that we have created from such beautiful creatures. More than half of the whale sub-species are in critical danger.

Whale hunting is a main reason for the whales dwindling numbers, but a few years ago a good solution was started. Whale watching has been a good substitute to whale hunting. In 2000 it attracted some nine million enthusiasts in 87 countries, and generated a record-breaking $1billion in revenue. But this solution, unfortunately is not great. Yes, the whales are living. But tracking, and following whales not only adds stress to them, but there are some companies that allow "swimming with the whales". If timed right, the calves and their mothers rest at the top of the waters, as the calf cannot hold it's breath for long periods of time, therefore making them easy prey for the tourists who wish the get the ultimate experience. These animals are not bothering us, we need to let them live their lives, and rely on photographs or watching from afar.

The WWF report also calls for a number of actions to be taken to protect whales. These measures should include:

·         reducing marine pollution, establishing international control over the management of whaling

• ending the abuse of scientific whaling and whaling with factory ships on the high seas
• maintaining the ban on the international trade in whale meat
• and creating more whale sanctuaries and marine protected areas

Sign the petition to get more marine protected areas here!

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/marine-reserves/marine-reserves-pledge/ 

Aerial Shooting of Alaskan Wolves

Hunting in itself I find to be a horrible sport. I may be able to understand the strategic appeal to it, the "hunting" part of the hunt. But I always thought it was wrong. The aerial killing of wolves makes hunting seem old fashioned. This takes away almost everything "skill-involved" about hunting, leaving only the kill. Animals stand no chance when being pursued from above, as the hunters may cover more ground and it gives the wolves no chance to get out of sight. More than 400 wolves have been killed in previous seasons using this method, and hundreds more will die this season as the sport gets more popular. If this isn't enough, hunters will be allowed to kill 60 percent of grizzly bears in an area along the Canadian border using bait—a practice not formerly allowed for grizzlies. And, the Board of Game has authorized the possibility of using aerial land-and-shoot killing methods on grizzly bears. This makes a mockery of these once beast-like animals who were known for their strength. It takes next to no time to find the animal and shoot when coming in from the air. As well, the hunters almost never get a clean shot, since they are shooting from so far up, so the first shot usually injures the animal, and several other shots are required to kill him. This is not only going to severely impact the wolf and bear populations, but it is also extremely inhumane. 



"Alaska's populations of wolves and bears are an integral part of the few natural ecosystems that remain in America," says Karen Deatherage, Alaska representative for Defenders of Wildlife. "We need to protect these animals as part of our national heritage."

According to the state Board of Game, the goal of aerial gunning is to increase the population of moose and other big game for hunters. But in a letter to Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) this past year, more than 100 scientists countered that the effort has no ecological justification, and is an artificial and arbitrary way to control the balance of nature. Under the aerial programs, hunters are allowed to shoot wolves from airplanes, or chase the animals with aircraft to the point of exhaustion, and then land and kill them on the ground. The permits cover millions of acres in central and southern Alaska. Alaskans have twice before, and by significant majorities, passed ballot measures to stop the practice. They have been thwarted by Gov. Murkowski and the state legislature, who in 2003 overturned the will of the state's citizens and resumed the aerial killing.



A local group of Alaskans is spearheading a new effort to pass another initiative to ban aerial gunning by the public. The group, Alaskans for Wildlife, at press time was gathering signatures to get the initiative on the state ballot next November. At least 31,000 signatures from state voters are necessary for ballot initiatives in Alaska.

"The voters of Alaska should not have to go through this again," says Joel Bennett of Alaskans for Wildlife. "But the state legislature has ignored the clear will of the people and is encouraging excessive wolf control using aircraft."



If people took a step back and really looked at what they are doing, they would see this act for what it really is. It is insulting to the animals and it is acts like these that define us as the monsters that we are. The fact that Alaskans have been trying to stop the aerial killing for more than 30 years is despicable, and the government should be ashamed for allowing such a slaughter to occur.

More Isn't Better

Our species is too sensitive. We have accustomed ourselves to this lifestyle, which is to be expected, but we have completely lost any ounce of natural instinct that we once possessed. We must hope that one day the worlds' electricity does not run out, that some worldwide disaster does not occur that leaves us in nothing. Of course, we're smart, so we might go hunting, catch an animal to eat- oh yeah. That's right. What animals? Do we really think that all the animals in the world would feed us? I mean seeing as we are the most populated species in the world. We should all just pray it never comes to that.

The human population of the world is over a staggering 7 billion. In the States alone, one person is born every sixteen seconds. Our population is increasing in the mere minutes that you are reading this. That blows my mind. It also concerns me how much faster we are growing than the other species in the world.




I used to be absolutely, close mindedly against abortion. But I have to say, I've changed my mind. When an animal gives birth, no matter what the species, it is extremely rare that all of its babies survive. Taking sea turtles as an example, only about 1 in 4000 sea turtles survive to adulthood!
So don't you think that we are being over ambitious, or going against nature in thinking that each child we have will live? I understand that we invest allot more money into our children before they are born than the average wolf, for say, does. But we need to reroute ourselves back to our natural way of doing things. Yes it is absolutely heart-wrenching when your child dies, before or after birth. But this is not the end of the world, and may even extend the life of the world in a sense. I'm simply saying that if you are a 16 year old girl, who doesn't have the money to take care of a child, doesn't have the recommended support, cannot finish her education, is dependent on drugs, etc. abortion may not be the wrong choice. Our world is way overpopulated, so I would steer anyone I could away from giving birth to children they can't care for and from having "19 kids and counting". This is ruining the world as we know it.




Yes, we have lots of problems (air pollution, water contamination, habitat loss, infection, disease, poverty, famine, species loss, etc), but this would be significantly decreased if we didn't have so many people! 102 people die around the world each minute, but 255 babies are born per minute. That is more than twice the rate that people die. Our world is expanding faster than we can manage.



More people = more housing = more wood = less trees = more greenhouse gases = faster depletion of the ozone layer = increased speed of global warming = more habitat loss = more species extinct = less plants for animals to eat = decreased population of animals = less food for us to eat = loss of the human race.

If we could use more condoms, and have less kids, not only would allot of people have more money, but the world might slowly be able to get back on its feet. We need to stop this as soon as possible. Somehow we can accept cruel acts towards animals for entertainment, but all hell breaks loose when a baby dies. And yes, it's sad, but the results of overpopulation will be even worse.

Bullfighting

It is odd that in this day and age people can still visit places like Spain and sit in the stands, watching this cruel "sport". This cruel act makes me absolutely disgusted to be human. Bullfighting is barbaric and should have been banned long ago, as bear-baiting was. It is difficult to understand how crowds of people will pay money and take pleasure in watching one lone creature, who has never done them any harm, getting hacked to death. How can anyone with an ounce of compassion cheer as a banderilla or lance is thrust into the animal’s pain-racked body? Many tourists who visit Spain feel the need to see this bullfighting, as is it supposedly a large spectacle there that has been going on for decades. However, after witnessing the sheer horror of this sickening slaughter, only the most hardened people would consider a second visit to the bullring.

Besides the obvious cruelty of this show, there are several days of torture that many views don't know about. This is to get the bull ready for his death. So while people may thing that the matador is very brave by getting in the ring with a bull, I would argue that almost anyone can survive in a ring with an exhausted, disoriented, and pain-stricken bull. This is not an act of bravery but one of a coward. The bull is not an aggressive animal, and the reason he is angry and attempts to charge at the matador in the bullring is because he has been horrendously abused for the previous two days. What spectators see is not a normal, healthy bull, but a weakened, half-blinded and mentally destroyed version, whose chances of harming his tormentors is extremely low.




The bull has wet newspapers stuffed into his ears; vaseline is rubbed into his eyes to blur his vision; cotton is stuffed up his nostrils to cut off his respiration and a needle is stuck into his genitals. Also, a strong caustic solution is rubbed onto his legs which throws him off balance. This also keeps him from lying down on the ground. In addition to this, drugs are administered to pep him up or slow him down, and strong laxatives are added to his feed to further incapacitate him. He is kept in a dark box for a couple of days before he faces the ring: the purpose of this is to disorientate him. When he is let out of the box, he runs desperately towards the light at the end of the tunnel. He thinks that at last his suffering is over and he is being set free — instead, he runs into the bullring to face his killers and a jeering mob. Upon entering the ring, bulls have been known to collapse from exhaustion from their pre-fight ordeal, and in turn have been dragged to their feet by the bullfighter’s assistants.



Bullfighting consists of three acts. It begins with the bull facing the picadors (men on horseback, whose purpose it is to exhaust the bull. They cut into his neck muscles with a  weapon about 6-8 inches long, and 2 inches thick. Once it is thrust into the bull it is twisted round and a large, gaping wound appears.) The bull then starts bleeding to death. Following the picadors are the assistant matadors that get to work with the banderillas (sharp, harpoon-like barbed instruments). These are plunged into the bull’s body, and he may also be taunted by capes. The final act (and perhaps the most gruesome) is performed by the matador himself and lasts about six minutes. The matador is supposed to sever the artery near the heart with his sword. By this time, the bull’s lungs and heart will be punctured and he always vomits blood. Miraculously, he sometimes attempts to rise again, and gets up on his knees, only to receive further mutilation at the hands of his tormentors. Even then, he is not allowed a little dignity to leave this world in peace; his ears and tail are cut off (often when he is fully conscious), and his broken, bleeding body is dragged around the ring by mules. Not content with his suffering, which must be too horrible to describe by words, the crowds boo and jeer him. They even throw empty beer cans at him. His body is then taken away to be skinned, and even then he may not be dead when this happens.



This is a revolting act that should put anyone who knowingly puts up with it (including anyone who is aware but not doing anything about it) to shame. I can't believe something like this exists, and is allowed to continue by so many people. This is merciless torture of an innocent animal for enjoyment, and if that weren't enough, it is a hoax as the bull is not given a fighting chance. The world can imagine what would happen to a man if he were really left alone in the ring with an animal of this size, defenceless like the bull is. This would be a completely different story. Our weapons give us strength. If we were half as strong as the animals we slaughter we would not be facing the immoral and disgusting problems we face today. Man simply cannot accept defeat.

Got Beef?

We all do it. We all indulge in a nice steak, pork ribs or chicken a few times a week. The truth is, we consume way more meat than we need to survive. Domestic hog production in Canada reached 23.8 million head, compared to the 14 million it was in 1990 and it's rising. This is not only leading to an extremely unhealthy lifestyle, but also pushing the demand for meat higher than it's ever been, and in turn, pressuring the meat industry to focus more on quantity rather than quality. 

Factory farming should be something that each of us think of when taking a bite out of that steak, but the reality is that most people are buying their meat without really knowing where it came from or what happened to it before it was slaughtered, packaged and placed on our dinner tables. The disgusting treatment of animals is sure to abolish your appetite at first glance at a documentary on any of these factories. People rarely think of cows or pigs as anything but beef and pork. We treat them as if they're already dead and being served. And if it is so hard for you to feel anything for your food before it is killed, then ask yourself this: wouldn't the meat taste better if it was treated better? Wouldn't you enjoy it more if it enjoyed its life more? I'm not talking luxury, but I think that "acceptable living conditions" should be at least what we provide. We domesticated these animals, thereby fully accepting the responsibility of having them depend on us. It`s about time we return to our values and treat these animals with a bit of decency before we slaughter them for food that we don`t really even need.

the purpose of power is to protect

- Sant Darshan Singh

Let`s start with pigs. The state that pigs are kept in require them to be left in almost complete darkness simply to keep them calm. They are kept in extremely small pens (see above) that have slits in the floor to allow the waste to fall through, therefore leaving them to lay in the smell, bacteria, and whatever doesn't fall through. When they are standing up for long periods of time, they suffer from foot injuries due to the uneven floor. They spend long periods of time in their pens (form the time that they get to the farm to the time they leave; usually 3-6 months) so because they are kept in complete darkness while they are there, factors like leaving their pens for the first time and being exposed to light causes them to suffer severe panic attacks when being transported to the slaughter houses. Pigs are bad travelers that are very sensitive to stress and can get sick very easily on the road (impacting the quality of your meat).



When they have youngsters, sows (females) are jammed between two rails, so that they cannot turn around and take care of the piglets, only feed them. This is done to prevent the sow from crushing a piglet to death, because of the lack of space. The piglets are brought to the weaning section after the nursing period of 3 to 4 weeks (instead of the natural 14 weeks). At the age of about 72 days they go to the fattening farm, where 14 of them are put in a pen usually on a grid floor without straw.

The males are castrated without anesthetics to satisfy the foreign market, because of the alleged influence of male hormones on the scent of the meat. Sows suffer from severe stress (e.g. heart- and stomach symptoms) because of the limitation of freedom of movement. Out of frustration, the boars usually chew the rails of their cage for long periods of time leading to even more health problems. Pigs are said to have intelligence equal to dogs, I wonder why we don`t appreciate this. Or maybe we superficially classify their value by how physically attractive they are.

These are only a few of the many problems and poor conditions of farming pigs. To read more, visit:

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/

Now on to cows. Dairy cows are not used for their meat, which leaves their living conditions almost worse than cows that are sent to slaughter houses because they live longer. Even so, dairy cows only live an average of 6 years in farms, compared to their natural life span which is 30. Dairy cows are over-bred because they only produce milk after they have given birth. This leaves to 1 or 2 babies a year. This is one of the factors that severely shorten their life spans. The calf is taken away immediately or after a week at the most, to prevent bonding between mother and child. They are kept in hutches (small, white, igloo-looking crates used as outdoor nurseries like dog kennels). This is where they stay for up to four months until they are sent to the slaughter house. Cattle at feedlots gets a very unnatural diet (to fatten them up). But this diet causes chronic digestive pain. According to the Journal of Animal Science, this diet also causes potentially fatal liver abscesses in more than 30% of the cattle raised for beef. By boredom, ill nutrition and lack of space calves get ill and frequently suffer from anemia, diarrhea and pneumonia.

 

About 2,000 pounds of grains must be supplied to livestock in order to produce enough meat and other livestock products to support a person for a year, whereas 400 pounds of grain eaten directly will support a person for a year. Thus, a given quantity of grain eaten directly will feed 5 times as many people as it will if it is eaten indirectly by humans in the form of livestock products.



I am no one to say that eating meat is wrong. The natives used to hunt to provide for their families and their communities. It was an important part of their culture. They lived off the land and made sure no part of the animal went ot waste. But what we have done to `hunting` and meat consumption is anything but natural. We have made a mockery out of what used to be acceptable. This is something that needs to change both for the rights of these animals and for the sake of our pride.


Learn the truth about the meat industries. Don`t eat blindly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFXi6MjKw-0

Warning: very graphic 

Seal Hunting

I am very proud to be a Canadian. We are home to some of the most beautiful sights, the most natural places and have some of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. We have a direct pathway to the arctic- where we can find thousands of unique species. So what do we do? Well, with this beautiful land and different landscape, we should use the land for sight seeing, for getting a change of scenery, we should work hard to preserve the rare wildlife that lives here!

No.

Instead, we've decided that this would be a great place to hunt! 325,000 seals are killed each spring with an additional 10,000 harp seal quota for an aboriginal allowance. During the 3-year period of 2003-2005, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) allowed a kill quota of 975,000 baby and adult harp seals and 30,000 adult hood seals. Often times sealers exceed the quota by up 75,000. When the first European explorers landed on the East coast of Canada, there were an estimated 30 million harp, hood, and gray seals. Because of the reckless management of the hunt in the past, Canada allowed the number of harp seals to drop to 1.8 million in the early 1970s. Now they claim that a "healthy" population of 5.2 million exists but in the same breath admit that they have not had a peer-reviewed population survey since 1999.

Scientists and environmentalists endlessly dispute the Canadian governments' seal population claims, and suggest that the seal hunt is severely impairing the population, and will continue to harm their numbers, as the number of seals killed each year is significantly different than the number of seals born. The government plans to have a new population survey done, but while we all wait, thousands of seals are wantonly killed.

Are we willing to sacrifice everything, including our national reputation, to continue this hunt, which is nothing but a "make-work project for out-of-work fishermen"?

After the collapse of the East coast cod industry, the Canadian DFO has declared war on the seals in hopes that massive seal kills will bring back the cod and keep their fishermen working. But, cod is not a major food source of the harp or hood seal diet. Recent evidence suggests that killing seals contributes to bacterial infestation on the ocean floor which leads to hypoxia, where patches of ocean lose all the dissolved oxygen and are unable to sustain marine life of any kind, including cod. However, these facts seem to have been brushed aside by the DFO in their efforts to justify and continue the slaughter.

Unfortunately, due to a revived fashion trend, the demand for seal pelts has sky-rocketed, especially in Europe. Harpseals.org reports that high fashion designers such as Prada and Dolce & Gabbana are selling sealskin apparel. Seal meat is generally considered to be inedible and unfit for human consumption. While there is a small market in Newfoundland for the seal flippers (for seal flipper pie), most of the rest of the very small amount of meat found in the slaughtered seal, if utilized at all, would be purchased by pet food and fur farm industries. So countless seals are killed, and only a fraction of their remains are used.

The government of Canada and the seal industries are not happy about the amount of meat they are able to sell each year. What they are happy about though, is the revenue received from selling seal oil. The way they are doing this is by falsely promoting seal oil capsules as a healthy source of Omega-3, when they actually contain high levels of PCBs- a known animal carcinogen that produce health effects such as skin ailments called chloracne, reproductive disorders, liver disease, and other problems. According to their own website, "The industry is positive about this new development but is aware that more R&D is required to expand the range of products derived from seal oil."

"R&D" (Research and Development) means more Canadian tax dollars going to the cause of killing seals.

Many are under the impression that this cruel and inhumane slaughter was stopped for good. Anti-seal hunt campaigns by Sea Shepherd and other organizations together with pressure from Europe to boycott Canadian products brought the industry to a halt. In 1984, after the European Parliament banned the import of baby harp seal pelts, the Canadian seal hunt was reduced to a limited landsmen hunt

This has all changed as the heavily-subsidized seal hunt is being promoted by the Canadian government as necessary to bring back fish stocks. We know the cod fisheries were closed down because of years of fisheries mismanagement, and now they have to take the harp and hood seals too. The slaughtering of these animals is not only a seriously shameful and cruel source of income, but it, ironically, worsens their problem of the decreasing cod population. I don't see any reason at all for this contemptible act to continue, not to mention the impact it has on our reputation. We're known to be a natural country, full of forestry, vegetation and biodiversity that we respect and protect. We're supposed to be "tree huggers". So why are Canadians the only people who don't believe that?

Climate Change in the Arctic- A Hot Subject

The Arctic regions have amazed scientists and researchers for decades for their resilience to things like harsh climate conditions and seasonal darkness. One might assume that living in below freezing weather where there is little vegetation and few land animals would be hard, but what is harder for the wildlife than these extreme living conditions is when their climate changes and their ice starts to melt.



The Arctic is not an easy place to live without climate change problems. Some of the factors that promote survival in the North also make its inhabitants more susceptible to chemical contaminants. For example, the fat that animals use for protection make them more likely to accumulate organ chlorines and other water insoluble chemicals. Due to the atmospheric (and riverine) transport of chemicals, the North is the reservoir of chemicals that have never been locally used; these chemicals often increase in concentration up the food chain - resulting in concern for local wildlife. This also poses a threat for natives in the arctic who eat the animals that contain these chemicals.

For every degree that the world climate changes, the Arctic climate changes at twice that rate. People in the Northern regions are heavily dependent on their regions' biodiversity both for food and for social and cultural reasons. According to the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, “biodiversity benefits people through more than just its contribution to material welfare and livelihoods. Biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency, social relations, health, and freedom of choices and actions.” With the Arctic sea ice retreating, more marine life is exposed to land, making it easier for people to catch them in large numbers. Biodiversity is changing dramatically in the North, the result of overharvesting, global habitat loss in wintering and staging grounds used by migratory species, and, most significantly, climate change. These species will either die or migrate, most likely impose on other species, therefore hindering their survival as well.



And it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone to hear that in the future, if we don't do anything about the problem and the ice continues to melt, vegetation will be severely impacted. For example, the Arctic tree line, the furthest north that trees can grow, will likely move northward, converting the Arctic into tundra forest under more permissible climate conditions. Also, the thawing of permafrost could convert large areas of well-drained lands into wetlands, and species native to the Arctic would begin to die as their main food sources disappear and are replaced by plants and animals more relevant to the new climate. Animals that inhabit the Northern regions such as caribou or the Arctic fox will either become extinct thanks to the lack of available forage as the land adapts and changes, or they will attempt to migrate, imposing on the habitats of other species and thereby hindering their survival as well.

Land animals in the Arctic won't be the only ones to suffer if climate change continues. The timing of the climate change and melting of sea ice in the spring and summer severely impairs the growth of algae at the ice edge. The loss of this seemingly insignificant species would devastate the rest of the Arctic food chain, as this is the main food source for krill, which needs to feed the Arctic cod, which is prey for belugas, narwhals, and seals. The food chain is all connected, so the loss of one of the small species at the bottom would destroy the food chain with each level starving to extinction in a domino effect. While the wildlife attempts to overcome this problem, large fishing companies are given extremely easy access to almost all marine life with all the ice melting. This will result in a grotesque number of fish and mammals being caught and hunted; a number much larger than it would have been had their habitats been protected by the glaciers.



The reduced ice cover and access to seals would limit hunting success by polar bears, with resulting reductions in bear populations. Many species of seals, sea lions, and walruses, especially those inhabiting regions covered by seasonal sea ice, are directly reliant on suitable ice for resting, foraging, reproducing, and moulting. Indirectly, the timing of the formation and melting of sea ice will affect the migration patterns and nutritional status of these animals. A greater volume of shipping through Arctic waters, because of less sea ice and more ice-free navigation channels, may also negatively affect some populations and further pollute the Arctic waters.