Alaska Polar Bears Losing Fur, USGS Scientists Say

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Alaska polar bears are losing their fur and U.S. Geological Survey scientists don't know why.

In the past two weeks, nine of 33 bears checked by scientists in the southern Beaufort Sea region near Barrow were found to have alopecia — loss of fur — and skin lesions, said Tony DeGange, chief of the biology office at the USGS Science Center in Anchorage.

Three of four bears inspected Thursday near Kaktovik showed the symptoms as well.

Scientists have been collecting blood and tissue samples from the afflicted bears, but they do not know the cause or the significance of the outbreak, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

"Our data set suggests that this is unusual but not unprecedented," DeGange said. Ten of 48 bears checked by the team in 1998-99 had a similar condition, he said.

In a long-standing project, the USGS has sent polar bear research teams to the area since 1984. The teams track, sedate and examine the bears to help determine their general health and habits.

This year they saw their first bear with hair loss on March 21. The team will wind up this year's operations in May when the sea ice becomes too treacherous for safe travel.

"We took biopsies in '99 and couldn't establish a causative agent for the hair loss then," DeGange said. "But now we have this unexplained mortality event going on with seals. And they haven't been successful in figuring out what caused the seal deaths. Is it just a matter of coincidence or is it related? We don't know."

In December, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared an "unusual mortality event" based on a number of ringed seals hauled out on beaches on the Arctic coast of Alaska during the summer. Dead and dying seals were found to have hair loss and skin sores.

Affected seals were later observed in Canada and Russia.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[TomDi]

08:56 PM on 04/14/2012

The great climate change hoax presented by the Charlatan In Chief, AL GORE:

This month hasn’t been Al Gore’s month. First he learned that Keith Olbermann was probably the last thing keeping Current TV from becoming Former TV. Now he’s getting some disappointing news about even more fat, unhousebroken beasts with white hair who aren’t doing what he wants.

The Globe and Mail has the headline of the week:

Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers

The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.

The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.

The study shows that “the bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management. “There is no doom and gloom.”

[B2U]

07:14 AM on 04/10/2012

These symptoms sound like radiation poisoning. Tons of that crap entered the currents of the ocean that sweep directly up to Alaska from Japan. Denial is not going to solve our environmental problems, people. WE NEED TO WAKE UP OR DIE!!!

[B2U]

07:06 AM on 04/10/2012

One word: Fukushima.
Alaskan water comes directly from Japan.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, folks!
JUST SAY "NO!" TO NUCLEAR POWER!!!

[Winterseeker]

01:46 AM on 04/10/2012

My guess is the Arctic Ocean, due its relative isolation has (indeed) remained much cleaner and oil/sewage/runoff-free due to the lack of industrial activity, population-related pollution and overall lack of ocean currents moving other ocean water into its basin. In the past few years however, the Arctic may have finally reached a state of pollution (concentration) that is resulting in consequences already seen across the rest of the worlds oceans...disease and death to those who call it home. The arctic is however is unique and perhaps has more vulnerable populations - many species are mixed land/sea dwellers, many are mammals (known to be more susceptible to small, rapid changes in the ecosystem) and all are rapidly facing the effects of climate change (shown to be amplified at the poles)...when all this comes together I am not surprised (but still pained) to see these horrible diseases and causalities in the Arctic...we're well past the canary in the coal mine, now its just trying to save the last edges of our hemisphere from losing yet another healthy ecosystem. I can only imagine how much worse this will get once drilling pushes further into the Arctic~

[afretired1984]

12:18 AM on 04/10/2012

I have tried to tell you before, this is all a NATURAL OCCURANCE, and there is NOTHING we can do to stop it. At the Earth's present angle, thhe southern hemisphere gets more sun than the northern hemisphere. As the earth slowly changes its angle to the sun, we will get more sun here while the southern hemisphere gets less. As a result, the jungle in South America well slowly vanish, but this takes about 20,000 years to complete. In another 20,000 years we will be back to where we are today, and another Al Bore will be telling us about hoow humans have caused it.

[Joe3245]

10:29 PM on 04/10/2012

What evidence do you have to support that claim? Middle school science? When they taught you that the Ice Ages were caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis? If your level of scientific exposure was limited to Earth/Space science in high school, no wonder you are so confused.

The tilt of the Earth's axis is certainly a contributing factor to climate, but it is far from the only, or the most powerful driver of climate changes (that driver tends to vary greatly depending on the climactic event), there are all sorts of positive and negative feedback loops that can cause a greater effect with a minimal initial change. For example snow/ice cover reflects sunlight reducing global temperatures, if we loose too much ice, temperatures will rise because of that lost reflectivity, leading to temperatures that further rise. The same applies to the frozen fields of methane in Siberia, it melts, releases tons of methane, things heat up, melts some more.

It is the initiation of these feedback loops which are the most powerful drivers of drastic climactic shifts. Ecology also plays an important role in maintaining the climate as well. And to be sure the tilt of the Earth's axis plays a significant role as well.

[undsoweiter]

07:34 PM on 04/09/2012

Oh, I don't know, maybe this?

http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/arctic_report___8_pager.pdf

I remember reading about these same symptoms in 2002. Why all the hubbub now?

[tnm1776]

06:15 PM on 04/09/2012

I gotta I deal let's use Donld Turmp's DNA, since he has hug quaff of hair transfer it to the polar bears. Once done, they have a new set of hair

[Deni]

01:09 PM on 04/10/2012

And look a heck of a lot better than Trump!

[tnm1776]

06:13 PM on 04/09/2012

The Polar Bears would make a new members for Hair Club for Men.

[The American]

05:17 PM on 04/09/2012

Well it's global warming isn't it. I was waiting to read that lame lie. I thought for sure the artical would read, Polar Bears are shedding their fur at an alarming rate before Global Warming reaches an un BEARable tempeture.

[rodterry1]

04:21 PM on 04/09/2012

I wonder how much money we spent to send these people up there to study bears only to have them tell us we don't know what is wrong with the bears.

[mimseyme]

04:26 PM on 04/09/2012

I wonder how much stress these animals are experiencing with polluted waters and global warming. Alopecia (hair loss) is usually related to stress in humans. Maybe when your hair starts falling out because of too much stress due to our environment collapsing around us, you will understand why we do this type of research on animals. We are animals too!

[rodterry1]

05:48 PM on 04/09/2012

And maybe next time we send someone to visit the Polar Bears we can send someone who can tell us exactly what the problem is. Cause you and the people we sent do not have a clue.

[briock]

04:16 PM on 04/09/2012

Thias sounsds like their bodies are adapting to the warming climate. More and more ice is melting quicker and sooner than ever before.

[Autora]

04:08 PM on 04/09/2012

It is probably human related, whether something we have done to the atmosphere or sea, or somthing we have done to them by mere contact.

I am so sad about this. We're already destroying their living environment, and now we are ([possibly) destroying them too? If only we would learn to leave things alone. We need our ways to survive, but they need theirs, too. We can figure out other ways of surviving that don't involve tampering with theirs.

[teachweber]

03:45 PM on 04/09/2012

In Northern Wisconsin, in 1980 there were Several Species on the Brink of Extinction. The Bald Eagle AND the North American Wolf among them.

NOW they have been taken OFF the Endangered Species List, as they are Flourishing HERE.

And the CO2 Levels have been RISING for them TOO !! Hmmmmmmmm...

MeThinks I SMELL Liberal non-logic.

[Autora]

04:00 PM on 04/09/2012

I am glad to hear that those species are doing well in your part of the world (so to speak), but they are not doing well in others. If they hadn't had protections to begin with, they probably would not have survived long enough to flourish where you are.

CO2 will eventually (as a greenhouse gas) have a very bad effect on them, as well as you and me. (We are animals too, after all).

On some species, the effects of greenhouse gases do not take place as quickly or measurably
as on others. But the effects are there. Are you saying that as long as you don't see it yourself, in a decade or so, it isn't happening and who cares?

[teachweber]

04:38 PM on 04/09/2012

Actually I am citing Logic AND some very high powered "Non-Man Made Global Warming" climatologists, who among other things, say the CO2 levels on the earth

fluctuate normally and are far beyond Man's ability to Influence them.

As was also taught to me at the University in Geology, Geography and Meterology courses there.

CO2 according to EVEN the UN's IPCC Reports, produced by MAN MADE activities

Accounts for only >> 1/2 of ONE PERCENT

[mimseyme]

04:27 PM on 04/09/2012

MeThinks you are smelling dead bears....

[sylvabugg2]

03:35 PM on 04/09/2012

Well it could be all the pollutants we pump into our oceans every day. We can look the other way and pretend it's not having an impact on the environment, but it is. Polar Bears are already on the brinks of extinction, this does not bode well for them. The things we human do will come back to bite us some day.

[mimseyme]

04:30 PM on 04/09/2012

Because the ice floats are melting, the bears are having a much harder time hunting for food and their cubs are starving or being eaten by the male adult bears for survival. It won't be long now, but nobody will notice until it reaches our shores and our fish and wildlife start washing up.

[B2U]

07:09 AM on 04/10/2012

Totally.

[teachweber]

03:34 PM on 04/09/2012

There have been Several Very High (Higher than today) levels of CO2 in the Atmosphere, Historically.

Verified by Polar Ice cores and various fossils found thru out the world.

And God knows there were NO SUV's, polluting aircraft, trains etc. back then. The word survived AND in fact plant life flourished then as Plant life is dependent on CO2.

Now we KNOW what many animals eat, correct? Uh Huh...........Plant life.

I can AND will send you a CD copy of an extensive study, done by 16 of the world's Leading Eco Scientists, most are Climatologists, several of which SUED the United Nations to have their Names taken OFF the IPCC Reports of the UN, because those Reports represented conclusions THEY did NOT believe in.

Want a copy of that CD of the eight year study they did, worldwide? Respond to this Post.

[Gas-Bag]

03:51 PM on 04/09/2012

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4–5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[37][38] Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide