Missing The Bear Essentials? American Hunter Denies Story On Chinese Polar Bear Hunts

Scott Lupien insists that he is the ultimate conservationist. According to the article below, Lupien, an American fluent in Chinese, takes wealthy Chinese to Canada where they can see magnificent Polar bears up close . . . and kill them and turn them into rugs. The , Lupien is a professional hunter who is “teaching the Chinese about conservation” by leading trips to shoot down male polar bears. He insists that his customers respect nature: “Each hunter is allowed to kill one male only. We then turn them into rugs.” On his website, however, Lupien says that the story is false raising an interesting question of potential defamation.

Lupien’s website has pictures of a variety of dead large animals, but notably not a polar bear. He posted the following statement:

On March 5th, 2012 I received a phone call from a Daily Mail reporter calling himself Peter. He chatted me up, calling himself a fellow “sportsman” to earn my trust, and wanted to know about my polar bear hunts. I told him that I have never been on a polar bear hunt, and to my knowledge, neither has a single Chinese person. Nevertheless, he wanted to know more and I discussed polar bear hunting in general with him — specifically the history, ecology and management of polar bear hunting.

While he insists that he never discussed “Smuggling rugs” it is not clear if he denies this statement: “Each hunter is allowed to kill one male only. We then turn them into rugs.”

On his site, the owner of “I Love Hunting” (which does cater to wealthy Chinese) does argue for hunting polar bears and contests views that they are endangered:

labeling polar bears as “endangered” is another example of misrepresentation of the facts, unethical reporting and pure bias. A quick study of the most recent listing by IUCN will inform anyone who wants to know the true listing status of the polar bear that it is currently listed as “Vulnerable,” not “Endangered.” Furthermore, the reason for this listing (as opposed to a status of lower concern) is based purely on speculation based on models of what might happen. . . .
In other words, eight years ago they decided, based on climate models at that time, that polar sea ice might shrink, thus potentially leading to a reduction in polar bear numbers. This is speculation and such predictions have not come true in the eight years since this listing.

Mr Lupien’s website, 52safari.com, does remind one of that scene out of Ace Ventura (yes, I have four children under 13) where the pet detective finds himself in a room filled with dead wild animals.

Lupien’s site shows a variety of large game from black bears to lions to elephants that can be shot by wealthy Chinese.

The newspaper article says that an advert also features polar bears, stating “Their weight can reach one ton, and they can grow to more than three meters in length. The huge male bear specimens are the most majestic, most beautiful of hunting prizes!”

The article also quotes Lupien as saying “If you believe the ice caps are melting as some claim, these bears are going to die anyway, so you may as well hunt them.”

Lupien’s allegation that the story is false leads to an interesting defamation lawsuit. Lupien clearly does support hunting polar bears, so the article does not attribute a false position — only a false fact. The question is how it would harm his reputation. Indeed, it may be a situation like the one discussed by the Seventh Circuit in Wilkow v. Forbes, 241 F. 3d 552 (7th Cir. 2001). In the case, an attorney sued for defamation after a Forbes magazine article discussed his work in a bankruptcy case and an exception to the absolute priority rule. The article characterized his arguments as helping “unscrupulous business owners to rob creditors.” Notably, however, Judge Frank Easterbrook not only found the article to be opinion but said that the account of Wilkow’s practice might actually bring business to him:

Although a reader might arch an eyebrow at Wilkow’s strategy, an allegation of greed is not defamatory; sedulous pursuit of self-interest is the engine that propels a market economy. Capitalism certainly does not depend on sharp practices, but neither is an allegation of sharp dealing anything more than an uncharitable opinion. Illinois does not attach damages to name-calling. See Stevens, 855 F.2d at 400-02 (collecting cases, including examples such as “sleazy” and “rip-off”). Wilkow’s current and potential partners would have read this article as an endorsement of Wilkow’s strategy; they want to invest with a general partner who drives the hardest possible bargain with lenders. By observing that Wilkow used every opening the courts allowed, Forbes may well have improved his standing with investors looking for real estate tax shelters (though surely it did not help his standing with lenders). No matter the net effect of the article, however, it was not defamatory under Illinois law, so the judgment of the district court is

Lupien may indeed find that the outcry against his business will produce a positive response with some wealthy Chinese.

Putting this aside, there is a major question that the Daily Mail should answer. He is denying that he does these hunts. That would be a significant error in its reporting if it is true. Presumably, this reporter has notes and a basis for the article, which the paper should make clear to answer this charge.

Source: Daily Mail

49 thoughts on “Missing The Bear Essentials? American Hunter Denies Story On Chinese Polar Bear Hunts”

  1. ” Richard Branson, a British billionaire and the founder of Virgin, told a Toronto press conference Tuesday. “Climate change and disappearing ice are forcing polar bears to go ashore earlier every year than they did the year before, preventing them from properly nourishing themselves.

    “The southern populations especially, in Hudson Bay and Baffin, could vanish in 20 years unless current trends are reversed,” Branson said.

    Williams, the wildlife consultant in Nunavut, says there is a lot of misinformation about polar bears.

    “When I go south, I get approached by people who say ‘My goodness, you have actually seen a polar bear?'” he said. “There’s this belief that there are 10 left, and they are all on this one iceberg as it melts away and they are going to drown — and that’s not the case.”


  2. OTTAWA — Canadian hunting groups are loaded for bear after the sport hunting of polar bears got some bad international press this week.

    A story in the U.K. newspaper the Daily Mail reported that rich Chinese sportsmen were trophy hunting endangered polar bears in Canada’s Far North.

    “It was very biased and misleading,” said Glen Williams, a wildlife consultant with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc in Iqaluit.

    “Polar bears are not endangered in Canada;

    they are probably the best managed wildlife species in the country,” Williams said. “There’s millions of dollars spent each year doing surveys and population estimates on polar bears.”

    Trophy hunting is when only a head, pelt or antlers are taken by a shooter, leaving the meat to rot and waste.

    Williams says all of the polar bear is used, eaten and shared in the host village closest to the kill.

  3. Forced sterilization worth $50,000, North Carolina panel says

    At least seven of 33 states that carried out eugenics programs have acknowledged or apologized for the policies, but North Carolina is the first to propose paying compensation. The state’s forced-sterilization program, designed to weed out the mentally disabled, criminals and other “undesirables,” was in effect from 1929 to 1974. North Carolina formally shut down its discredited Eugenics Board in 1977.


  4. Bob Tisdale

    Date:August 21, 2011

    Subject:A Request About Your El Niño Predictions And A Question About Anthropogenic Global Warming

    To: James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato

    Dear Makiko and James:

    I am writing to you via my weblog with a request and a question. First, the request: Please stop predicting El Niño and Super El Niño events. Your track record is very poor. I, like many people who study ENSO, hope for extreme El Niño events, but when you predict a strong El Niño, a La Niña starts to evolve, and when you predict a “Super El Niño”, a mild El Niño comes to pass. Two examples come to mind:

    Your March 27, 2011 mailing Perceptions of Climate Change was published at a number of websites, including Climate Story Tellers and Truthout. It included the following prediction of an El Niño event for the 2011/12 ENSO season:

    Sometimes it is interesting to make a bet that looks like it is high risk, but really isn’t. Such a bet can be offered at this point. The NOAA web pages giving weekly ENSO updates predict a return to ENSO–neutral conditions by mid–summer with some models suggesting a modest El Nino to follow. We have been checking these forecasts weekly for the past several years, and have noted that the models almost invariably are biased toward weak changes. Based on subsurface ocean temperatures, the way these have progressed the past several months, and comparisons with development of prior El Niños, we believe that the system is moving toward a strong El Niño starting this summer. It’s not a sure bet, but it is probable.

    Summer is well past its midpoint. And weekly NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for August 10, 2011, based on the Reynolds OI.v2 dataset you use in your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index, are approaching the threshold of La Niña conditions, Figure 1.

    Note also that the NOAA models included in the ENSO updateyou referenced (now dated August 15, 2011) are forecasting La Niña conditions. Refer to Figures 2 and 3.

    And now for my question: Where’s the Anthropogenic portion of the rise in Global Sea Surface Temperature anomalies during the satellite era? I can’t find it. I have been studying Sea Surface Temperature anomaly data for a number of years, and I cannot find any evidence of an anthropogenic component in Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly data. I’m referring to the satellite-era Reynolds OI.v2 Sea Surface Temperature dataset you use in your GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data. Animation 3 provides a basic introduction to what I have found.


  5. Hansen says the sea will rise 85 feet. Sea level rise is 3.2mm per year do the math.

    By Jim Hansen Friday 17 February 2006

    How fast can this go? Right now, I think our best measure is what happened in the past. We know that, for instance, 14,000 years ago sea levels rose by 20m in 400 years – that is five metres in a century. This was towards the end of the last ice age, so there was more ice around. But, on the other hand, temperatures were not warming as fast as today.

    How far can it go? The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.


  6. Really the top climate expert who predicted the West Side Hwy which runs along the Hudson river in New York would be underwater by now. That guy.


    How bout this expert Dredd He’s Obama’s Science Czar. Could you imagined if he was able to do this through policy.

    Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”[21] In 1973, Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.”[22] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and discussed “the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences” such as access to birth control and abortion.[12][23] [24]


  7. Bdaman 1, March 9, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    OK Dredd your gonna make me show you Hansen is a flake.
    Not until you get his job at NASA and become recognized world wide as on of the top experts.

    You have now lost your credibility, so deny on in your own glory I suppose.

  8. OK Dredd your gonna make me show you Hansen is a flake.

    First of all you know he’s the keeper of the magic pen right. Meaning he can make the temperature what he wants within GISS. Whole other story?

    “that Earth would likely warm in the 1980s, and warming would exceed the noise level of random weather by the end of the century.”

    Ok In 1986, Hansen made a prediction to a newspaper reporter in California of a 2 degree temperature rise by 2006. How much has it risen?
    .42 degrees celcius, way off.

    Tuesday, Oct 23, 2001 3:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
    Stormy weather
    Floods, droughts, hurricanes and disease outbreaks — an expert explains why climate changes give us yet another reason to find terror in the skies.

    In this article from Salon the writer states this,

    While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”


    I’ll let you do the math. The article was written in 2001. The West Side Highway is far from being underwater. Again I let you do the math but the annual rate for sea level rise is 3.2mm per year and sea level has been falling the last three years. I let you figure out how many years it would take for the sea to rise 5 feet.

    Also from the article just before this part about Hansen it says this.

    Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

    Dredd World wide tropical cyclone activity remains near 30 year lows 4 years in a row. Where are in the longest period on record without a major hurricane strike on the U.S. currently over 2400 days and will likely exceed 2500 days because we don’t see major hurricanes until September. The last Cat 5 to strike the U.S. was Andrew in 1995.

    Tornado’s are not increasing either, not in strength. The numbers may be up in small ones but this is attributed to the increase number of storm chasers and better technology.

    It’s obvious by your responses you accept whats told to you with out checking the facts. You don’t have to be an expert to figure this shit out. It’s a hoax. There has been no increase in temperature the last 15 years in spite of increased atmospheric CO2 now above 390ppm. Extreme weather events are not increasing. Open your eyes Dredd and look instead of just accepting what you hear.

  9. Bdaman,

    A good scientist like you knows that for a hypothesis to morph into a theory it has to predict future behavior.

    Hansen predicted several global changes thirty years before they happened.

    His theory is valid.

    The nation of Kiribati is preparing to move because the oceans are rising around them.

    I could care a less about a lecture andI could care a less about a lecture and speculation. speculation.”

    That is exactly what you have been doing, Hansen and the cadre of scientists along with him have proven their theory. No lecture, no speculation, just here is what is going to happen, and it did, and still is.

    He points out the error of your exclusive reliance on levels of CO2 (350 ppm etc.), pointing out that what first happens is an energy imbalance, caused by anthropogenic excessive release of green house gases into the Earth’s atmosphere, which acts as a blanket.

    Thereafter, sometimes years later, as a result of the warming caused by that blanket, CO2 levels change as a result of non-anthropogenic CO2 release triggered by the anthropogenic excesses.

    Those nonantropogenic results in turn combine with the ongoing anthropogenic CO2 excesses, to accelerate the phenomenon by increasing the thickness of the blanket. At some point it will be unstoppable, if it is not already.

    The safe point to watch, therefore, is the energy coming into the Earth’s environment, as well as the outflow of energy leaving the Earth’s environment. This is very closely monitored now, and is a known quantity from year to year.

    If the incoming is larger than the outgoing, then there is too much green house gas in the atmosphere, and there will be more, because it triggers CO2 release from both the oceans and land areas where it is stored.

    Stopping excessive anthropogenic green house gas emissions takes care of the trapping of the excess heat, the blanket, which is the original problem.

  10. Dredd thats great.

    Now can you tell us the level, Hansen considers, atmospheric CO2 to be at the upper safe zone?

    I know do you ?

    I could care a less about a lecture and speculation. Speculation is what some consider is driving up gas prices. LETS DEAL WITH FACTS. Not what somebody says it will be like 100 years from now. If you would like I could give you five predictions he’s already made THAT ARE WRONG.

    Wootsy Obama has asked Saudi Arabia and Brazil to increase production to help us.

    1. If it’s not supply why ask for an increase if demand is so low.


    2. By asking those two countries to do so are we not increasing our reliance on foreign oil.

  11. Bdaman 1, March 8, 2012 at 5:08 am


    AGW is noted to have started with the industrial revolution.

    Expert climate scientist tell us the upper level safe zone is 350 part per million/ppm see 350.org

    The current level of atmospheric CO2 is approximately between 390ppm and 400ppm

    In the early 60′s when measurements began recording the level of atmospheric CO2 the reading was approximately 315ppm.
    As non-experts in a given area, we ought not put on a show that sets us up as experts in that area. It is disingenuous.

    So, I will stick with my level, pointing out that one of the hallmarks of testing a hypothesis is the ability of that hypothesis to make predictions.

    In that light, lets look at the NASA scientist James Hansen, who two decades ago, based upon a hypothesis, stated:

    Hansen explains that his work as a climate scientist dates back to 1981 and a paper he co-authored on global warming. He and his colleagues found that “observed warming of 0.4 C in the prior century was consistent with the greenhouse effect of increasing CO2.” He says that they also found, “that Earth would likely warm in the 1980s, and warming would exceed the noise level of random weather by the end of the century.”

    (Watch his entire TED talk, titled “Why I must speak out about climate change,” in the video above.)

    Most strikingly, Hansen says, the paper predicted that the 21st century “would see shifting climate zones, creation of drought-prone regions in North America and Asia, erosion of ice sheets, rising sea levels and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”

    Noting that “most of the things mentioned in our 1981 paper were facts,” Hansen moves to the present and makes a case for working to decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

    Hansen shows pictures of his young grandchildren and argues that “It would be immoral to leave these young people with a climate system spiraling out of control.”

    Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, has been outspoken on environmental issues. He was arrested last year during a protest at the White House against the Keystone XL pipeline — the incident he mentions at the beginning of his TED talk.

    (TED video).

  12. Bdaman 1, March 7, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Dredd we know what we don’t agree on. How do you feel about these statements.

    Man made global warming is caused by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels.

    AGW is noted to have started with the industrial revolution.

    Expert climate scientist tell us the upper level safe zone is 350 part per million/ppm see 350.org

    The current level of atmospheric CO2 is approximately between 390ppm and 400ppm

    In the early 60′s when measurements began recording the level of atmospheric CO2 the reading was approximately 315ppm.

    Anything above you don’t agree with.
    As I said up-thread, your “knowledge” and mine are technically “beliefs”, according to the disciplines of Epistemology and Agnotology.

    So, in effect, since you and I are not an experts in this area, we are pitching a battle between “my experts” and “your experts.”

    Man made global warming is caused by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels.”

    John Tyndall in mid 1800’s began research into green house gases, including CO2. Svante August Arrhenius followed and did the first degree calculations re: CO2 content, leaving: ΔF = α ln(C/C_0), which is still used as a green house gas formula today. Circa 1900 he indicated that “the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age.” E.O. Hulburt’s contemporary calculations supported Arrhenius. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Gilbert N. Plass developed CO2 atmospheric calculations, and from 1956 onwards he published a series of papers on the topic. Suess & Revelle did a paper in 1957 warning of global warming dangers. Dr. Revelle warned of polar ice cap melt in a TIME interview that year. Echoing scientists, Lyndon Johnson in 1965 said fossil fuels causing global warming. The science was not politicized originally. White of NOAA, 1978, warns of growing global warming dangers. It was noted that Polar Areas would be impacted 4 times more than other areas. Because of the scientific consensus, the IPCC was formed in 1979 with a mission to very closely monitor global warming. In 1992, Bush I signed the United Nations global warming treaty for America.

    So why are you and I discussing something that most scientists would be embarrassed to “debate”, because, as Gov. Schwarzenegger said years ago, “the so called debate” is over?

    Because in the early 1980’s when The Marshall Institute lost its propaganda battle, after being hired by Big Tobacco to promote the notion that cigarette smoking and lung cancer were not related, they were thereafter hired by Big Oil, whereupon they then took up a propaganda effort to convince the public that global warming was a hoax.

    In 2003 this was picked up by a propagandist, Luntz, who wrote the script for the republican politicians running that year, telling them to call “global warming” something else, to call it “climate change”, and to urge that the scientific debate is open, there having been no consensus.

    They got to you, and a whole host of republicans, who still hawk this crap.

    Later Luntz recanted, so I ask you why do you persist with what is as large a hoax as “cigarette smoking prevents lung cancer?”

    Verification of what I wrote above is in a link to a university lecture on video presented by a renowned science historian here.

    The hunter has grounds for suing because of defamation because Ruppert’s Rag made factual statements that amount to calling him a criminal killer of endangered bears.

  13. make them use chinese built rifles with chinese made ammo.

    that should give the bears an equal chance.

  14. Dredd we know what we don’t agree on. How do you feel about these statements.

    Man made global warming is caused by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels.

    AGW is noted to have started with the industrial revolution.

    Expert climate scientist tell us the upper level safe zone is 350 part per million/ppm see 350.org

    The current level of atmospheric CO2 is approximately between 390ppm and 400ppm

    In the early 60’s when measurements began recording the level of atmospheric CO2 the reading was approximately 315ppm.

    Anything above you don’t agree with.

  15. In the rush to sensationalise the story, the New York Times and other media outlets failed to check whether the claims they were making were actually true.

    For example, one crew member aboard the USS Skate which surfaced at the North Pole in 1959 and numerous other locations during Arctic cruises in 1958 and 1959 said: [5]

    “the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.”

    Other scientists and experts on the Arctic environment quickly dismissed the McCarthy claims, pointing out that stretches of open water in summertime are very common in the Arctic [12]. Previous Arctic explorers even expressed frustration at being unable to proceed over the ice due precisely to unpredictable areas of open water obstructing their progress. The reason for the areas of open water is that the floating ice is subject to stresses from wind, currents and tides, causing cracking, ridging between slabs, and the creation of open leads of water between separating ice slabs. In winter, open leads quickly freeze over from the sub-zero air temperature, but in summer with the air temperature often above sea water freezing point (-2°C), such leads can remain open for extended periods.

    In the end, the New York Times retracted the story. But we should not be too quick to blame them – it was IPCC scientists aboard the Yamal, particularly James McCarthy, who first started the scare story. The media simply took his word at face value assuming his scientific credentials would be sufficient authority to support the story.


  16. 1958 Newsreel: USS Skate, Nuclear Sub, Is First to Surface at North Pole

    ED HERLIHY, reporting:

    USS Skate heads north on another epic cruise into the strange underseas realm first opened up by our nuclear submarines. Last year, the Skate and her sister-sub Nautilus both cruised under the Arctic ice to the Pole. Then, conditions were most favorable. The Skate’s job is to see if it can be done when the Arctic winter is at its worst, with high winds pushing the floes into motion and the ice as thick as twenty-five feet.

    Ten times she is able to surface. Once, at the North Pole, where crewmen performed a mission of sentiment, scattering the ashes of polar explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins. In 1931, he was the first to attempt a submarine cruise to the Pole. Now, the Skate’s twelve-day three thousand mile voyage under the ice, shown in Defense Department films, demonstrates that missile-carrying nuclear subs could lurk under the Polar Ice Cap, safe from attack, to emerge at will, and fire off H-bomb missiles to any target on Earth.

    A powerful, retaliatory weapon for America’s defense.

  17. The Canadian Coast Guard has confirmed that in a major first, a commercial ship travelled through the Northwest Passage this fall to deliver supplies to communities in western Nunavut.

    Dredd do you think thats the first time

  18. The polar bear is classified as a vulnerable species, with eight of the nineteen polar bear subpopulations in decline.[6 It is difficult to estimate a global population of polar bears as much of the range has been poorly studied; however, biologists use a working estimate of about 20,000–25,000 polar bears worldwide.[1][25]


    The polar bear or the sea/ice bear are the world’s largest land predators. They can be found in the Artic, the U.S. (Alaska), Canada, Russia, Denmark (Greenland), and Norway. Each of these countries either banned hunting or established rules for how many polar bears could be hunted within its own boundaries. These rules help keep polar bear populations stable. Today, 25,000 to 40,000 polar bears roam the Arctic.


Comments are closed.