That would require an effort by conservation groups, the various governments, and polar bear experts. If you really wanted to know you could check the plans they made in previous attempts.
I certainly would not be involved so I don't know why you think I should be the one that comes up with any plan. I don't have to be a subject matter expert to advocate for a cause. I don't have to be an OB-GYN to advocate for abortion rights. I don't have to be an environmental scientist to advocate for action on climate change. And I don't have to be an expert on polar bears to be able to say "Maybe we shouldn't kill polar bears."
That would require an effort by conservation groups, the various governments, and polar bear experts
That's exactly the problem that both the article and I have brought up. Greenland has no obligation to take the polar bear and has good reasons not to.
Do you expect me to personally negotiate with Greenland?
No, I expect you to explain to me why Greenland would accept such negotiations with Iceland when it would put their own polar bear population at risk.
That's something you should ask Greenland, something one might do in some sort of negotiation.
Why am I the one that has to come up with a plausible way for your idea to work?
You seem to want to know the answer to the question and I have already given you all I can. so I will just repeat:
I certainly would not be involved so I don’t know why you think I should be the one that comes up with any plan. I don’t have to be a subject matter expert to advocate for a cause. I don’t have to be an OB-GYN to advocate for abortion rights. I don’t have to be an environmental scientist to advocate for action on climate change. And I don’t have to be an expert on polar bears to be able to say “Maybe we shouldn’t kill polar bears.”
And I don’t have to be an expert on polar bears to be able to say “Maybe we shouldn’t kill polar bears.”
Except you have not given a viable alternative to killing the polar bear.
I have given an alternative. It is just not perfectly detailed enough for some random person on the internet that has no say in anything related to the subject.
You have not given a viable alternative. Your alternative is "negotiate with Greenland." That is not viable and I explained why. It risks their entire polar bear population. It would have the potential to kill far more than just one polar bear and much more slowly and painfully.
But I guess that's your preferred solution to shooting a single bear in Iceland, the first since 2016.
Who do you think is qualified to make such a plan?
The Icelandic government, what with it being in their purview. And they decided the best course of action was to kill the bear.
You saying "maybe they shouldn't have killed it" is not a solution to the issue.
Don't forget to downvote this post. It's vital that you downvote all of my posts for some reason.
For the easy solution, all you have to do is ask the people with the gun. Congratulations the easy solution won.
That would require an effort by conservation groups, the various governments, and polar bear experts. If you really wanted to know you could check the plans they made in previous attempts.
I certainly would not be involved so I don't know why you think I should be the one that comes up with any plan. I don't have to be a subject matter expert to advocate for a cause. I don't have to be an OB-GYN to advocate for abortion rights. I don't have to be an environmental scientist to advocate for action on climate change. And I don't have to be an expert on polar bears to be able to say "Maybe we shouldn't kill polar bears."
That's exactly the problem that both the article and I have brought up. Greenland has no obligation to take the polar bear and has good reasons not to.
Do you expect me to personally negotiate with Greenland?
No, I expect you to explain to me why Greenland would accept such negotiations with Iceland when it would put their own polar bear population at risk.
That's something you should ask Greenland, something one might do in some sort of negotiation.
Why am I the one that has to come up with a plausible way for your idea to work?
You seem to want to know the answer to the question and I have already given you all I can. so I will just repeat:
Except you have not given a viable alternative to killing the polar bear.
I have given an alternative. It is just not perfectly detailed enough for some random person on the internet that has no say in anything related to the subject.
You have not given a viable alternative. Your alternative is "negotiate with Greenland." That is not viable and I explained why. It risks their entire polar bear population. It would have the potential to kill far more than just one polar bear and much more slowly and painfully.
But I guess that's your preferred solution to shooting a single bear in Iceland, the first since 2016.
Who do you think is qualified to make such a plan?
The Icelandic government, what with it being in their purview. And they decided the best course of action was to kill the bear.
You saying "maybe they shouldn't have killed it" is not a solution to the issue.
Don't forget to downvote this post. It's vital that you downvote all of my posts for some reason.
For the easy solution, all you have to do is ask the people with the gun. Congratulations the easy solution won.