On a trip to the Northwest Territories last year, Jim Martell spent more than $45,000 for the right to shoot a polar bear. But the animal he killed turned out to have puzzling characteristics – long claws, a humped back and brown patches in its white fur. Had he shot a grizzly by mistake? If so, the American tourist faced up to a year in jail for hunting without a proper licence.
DNA tests showed that the animal in question was not, in fact, a grizzly. But neither was it a polar bear. It was the only confirmed case of a hybrid – born of a polar bear mother and grizzly father – in the wild. source:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071201.HYBRID01/TPStory/Environment
Now here is where my logic leads and I hope you can correct my thinking.
If a man went polar bear hunting he hunted in polar bear territory.
If this bear (lets call him "Ralph") was born of a polar bear mother he was taught to catch seals on the ice floes.
Ralph would have likely have spent two seasons on the ice floes before being weaned.
Ralph, the son of a grizzly, lived as a polar bear before he was shot as a mature bear.
Now Mrs. Polar Bear please don’t dismiss this as an ignorant question. But if the son of a grizzly can live on the ice as a polar bear does that make it seem possible that a polar bear could live on land like a grizzly?
I remain in awe of your wisdom in these matters.
The Pitt Meadows farmer.