Icelandic police said Wednesday they had shot and killed a polar bear discovered earlier this week on the island, which is hundreds of kilometres (miles) from the threatened species' natural habitat.
"It was shot last night (Tuesday)," a police spokesman in the northern town of Saudarkrokkur told AFP.
Polar bears are rare sightings on Iceland, since they have to swim hundreds of kilometres through icy waters to reach the island from their natural Arctic habitats, but the bear discovered Monday was the second spotted and killed on the island in the past two weeks.
Naturally the author of the article doesn't understand his own dichotomy as it relates to climate by adding the following to the story:
That two polar bears that have made their way to Iceland in recent weeks could lend credence to warnings from experts that climate change is creating a more perilous environment for the majestic Arctic animals.
A warming climate means the ice -- where the bears usually hunt their favourite prey, the seals -- is receding and literally melting under their paws, forcing them to swim ever greater distances.
Environmental and animal conservation groups have long warned the polar bear was in danger, and recent studies indicated melting Arctic sea ice could cut their population by two-thirds over the next 50 years.
Polar bear surrounded by tons and tons of "global warming"
So is the ice melting "from under their feet", forcing them to swim hundreds of miles to Iceland? Maybe one bear could have done this, but now two? Or is it more likely that the polar ice is extending further allowing the bears easier access to Iceland? Funny how there is no mention of this (even as a possibility) in the article.
The second half of this article makes absolutely no sense in context with the facts. If the ice were indeed melting, if the bears habitat were diappearing from "global warming", then how in the name of Sam Hill did these bears get to Iceland?
No agenda driven pre-conceptions here. Move-along.