A note to the University of Alberta – timing is everything

From the apparently out of touch with reality University of Alberta , comes this poorly timed headline that made me laugh out loud when I read it, because of this other polar bear story today in which it demonstrates polar bear numbers on the rise:

NPR finally gets it – does this signal an end to the polar bear as poster bear for global warming?

Polar bear researchers urge governments to act now and save the species

(Edmonton) A University of Alberta polar bear researcher along with eleven international co-authors are urging governments to start planning for rapid Arctic ecosystem change to deal with a climate change catastrophe for the animals.

U of A professor Andrew Derocher co-authored a policy perspective in the journal Conservation Letters urging governments with polar bear populations to accept that just one unexpected jump in Arctic warming trends could send some polar bear populations into a precipitous decline.

“It’s a fact that early sea ice break-up and late ice freeze-up and the overall reduction in ice pack are taking their toll,” said Derocher. “We want governments to be ready with conservation and management plans for polar bears when a worst case climate change scenario happens.”

The effects of climate change on polar bears are clear from both observational and modeling studies in many parts of the distribution. Earlier studies by Derocher and his colleagues show that one very bad ice year could leave hundreds of Hudson Bay polar bears stranded on land for an extended period. Derocher noted “Such an event could erase half of a population in a single year”.

“The management options for northern communities like Churchill would range from doing nothing, to feeding the bears, moving them somewhere else or euthanizing them,” said Derocher.

The concerned researchers say they’re not telling governments what to do. The authors, however, want policy makers and wildlife managers to start planning polar bear for both the predicted escalation of Arctic warming and for an off the charts worst case scenario.

“You’re going to make better decisions if you have time to think about it in advance: it’s a no brainer,” said Derocher. Further, “consultation with northern residents takes time and the worst time to ask for input is during a crisis”.

The researchers say the options for polar bear management include feeding and releasing the bears when freeze ups allow the animals to get to their hunting grounds. Derocher calls this a wild bear park model, but the paper reports the cost could run into the millions and could have ramifications for the long term behaviour of the animals.

The authors of the paper say government should be aware of the fall-out from climate change and human safety in the north is going to be an increasing challenge..

“Around the world polar bears are an iconic symbol so any tragedy would produce massive attention,” said Derocher. “If the warming trend around Hudson’s Bay took an upward spike, the population of 900 to 1000 bears in western Hudson Bay would be on the line, so there has to be a plan.”

The paper is titled; Rapid ecosystem change and polar bear conservation. It was published online as an accepted article January 25, 2013 in Conservation Letters.

###

Link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12009/abstract

================================================================

Models don’t cut it, data does.

Some numbers via Andrew Bolt:

Polar bear numbers as estimated in 2009 by the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission: 20,000 – 25,000.

Polar bear numbers as estimated in 2012 by the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission:  22,600 – 32,100.

From: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming

Ask the Experts: Are Polar Bear Populations Increasing?

Answered by Dr. Andrew Derocher

Some recent media reports have cited inaccurate data concerning polar bears. For clarification on polar bear numbers, we turned to Dr. Andrew Derocher, Chair of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.

Dr. Derocher is a polar bear scientist with the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. He also serves on PBI’s Scientific Advisory Council.

Question: The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has proposed that the polar bear be listed as a threatened species. Yet some news reports state that polar bear numbers are actually increasing. For example, the following paragraph appeared on the Fox News Web site:

“In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it’s 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent.”

If this is true, then why are scientists worried about population declines?

Answer from Dr. Derocher: The various presentations of biased reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.

The bottom line here is that it is an apples and oranges issue. The early estimates of polar bear abundance are a guess. There is no data at all for the 1950-60s. Nothing but guesses. We are sure the populations were being negatively affected by excess harvest (e.g., aircraft hunting, ship hunting,self-killing guns, traps, and no harvest limits). The harvest levels were huge and growing. The resulting low numbers of bears were due only to excess harvest but, again, it was simply a guess as to the number of bears.

============================================================

I can’t say this answer by Dr. Derocher inspires any confidence in his ability to give a straight answer. If it were guessing, show how that you determined it was “guessing”.

Maybe it is because nobody really has a handle on the numbers, from an article in the Society of Environmental Journalists:

These and other scientists agree that polar bear populations have, in all likelihood, increased in the past several decades, but not five-fold, and for reasons that have nothing to do with global warming. The Soviets, despite their horrendous environmental legacy on many issues, banned most polar bear hunting in 1956. Canada and the U.S. followed suit in the early 1970s — with limited exceptions for some native hunting, and permitted, highpriced trophy hunts. And a curtailment of some commercial seal hunting has sparked a seal population explosion – angering fishermen, but providing populations in eastern Canada and Greenland with plenty of polar bear chow, leading in turn to localized polar bear population growth in spite of the ice decline.

The scientists also caution that we still don’t have a firm count on these mobile, remote, supremely camouflaged beasts. All this uncertainty over the numbers — past and present —even gave some conservative bloggers pause.

http://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

84 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Old Grey Badger
February 4, 2013 7:55 pm

I’m from Alberta, and this study by Dr. Derocher is just embarrassing.

February 4, 2013 7:57 pm

Looks to me like they are trying to get some quick grant money in before it all goes up in smoke.

Curious Canuck
February 4, 2013 8:04 pm

A quick google on “Andrew Derocher” and “Tides Canada” brings up some interesting overlaps. First three results = WWF Canada. Followed by Pew.. I didn’t look further to verify other than the first link where he sat as a non board member on a “Conservation and Science Committe” for this report http://awsassets.wwf.ca/downloads/wwfcanada_annualreport_2009.pdf
The usual suspects.

KevinK
February 4, 2013 8:05 pm

Ok, how about all these concerned scientists ADOPT just one young polar bear and raise it to adulthood in their own homes…..
That should fix the problem, after all the number of scientists concerned about polar bears would drop, and the polar bear population would rise, just what they want right ?
New Motto; Hug (feed) a polar bear TODAY, save the Earth TOMORROW.
And it would create lots of new jobs making polar bear toys and cleaning up scientist’s houses……..
Cheers, Kevin.

February 4, 2013 8:12 pm

“Answer from Dr. Derocher: The various presentations of biased reporting ignore, or are ignorant of, the different reasons for changes in populations. If I thought that there were more bears now than 50 years ago and a reasonable basis to assume this would not change, then no worries. This is not the case.”
Then he does not know either……………..
Pathetic!

Robert in Calgary
February 4, 2013 8:16 pm

…and an article from the Edmonton Journal, last July.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/environment/Bleak+future+polar+bears+scientists/6948642/story.html
“Polar bears, Derocher says, survived the last period of Arctic warming, but they did so at a time when there were no humans hunting them, no shipping, no oil and gas developments, and no pollution stressing them. The past period of warming was also not as intense or prolonged as this one is turning out to be.
This grim prognosis is no longer theoretical. Declining sea ice cover in western Hudson Bay has already resulted in fewer cubs being born and surviving long enough to make it past their first year.”

MattN
February 4, 2013 8:17 pm

As I said in the NPR thread, the polar bear is NOT the canary in the coal mine….

February 4, 2013 8:20 pm

He is an expert who has spent 20 years studying polar bears but even experts have biases. A good teacher and mammalogist by all accounts but maybe he hasn’t studied the geological record to figure out how polar bears survived previous ice free periods. Or maybe the current crop are bleached brown bears as someone said in another blog.

February 4, 2013 8:20 pm

This German eco-woman wanted to interact with a cuddly Polar bear. Bad decision.
And if you want a Polar bera, don’t raise it in your home! Tragedy could result. This is the only safe way to keep one in your house.

Chris B
February 4, 2013 8:20 pm

“The management options for northern communities like Churchill would range from doing nothing, to feeding the bears, moving them somewhere else or euthanizing them,” said Derocher.”
Euthanize them? LOL, ya, that’s the ticket, kill them before they get a chance to die, thereby confirming the dangers of CAGW. /sarc.

Joey
February 4, 2013 8:25 pm

The University of Alberta is home to the laughable “Pembina Institute” which is a radical enviro group heavily funded by big Green.

February 4, 2013 8:25 pm

I guess they didn’t check your sea-ice page, Anthony.
Hudson Bay is utterly frozen over. The 30%-and-greater sea-ice graph shows current levels are second highest since 2005.

Bernal
February 4, 2013 8:26 pm

“Fox News!” he explained.

LEROY
February 4, 2013 8:32 pm

For just the facts and the lowdown on polar bears – see http://polarbearscience.com/
A great site

O Olson
February 4, 2013 8:43 pm

I’m in Saskatchewan and I’m embarrassed to be even this close to this guy. This is about the most incredibly myopic, navel gazing bull crap I’ve seen in a while. I personally know how top notch and rigorous grant proposals have to be to get funded in some branches of science these days. How, how how does this guy get any kind of funding at all?

February 4, 2013 8:46 pm

There have been numerous TV “science” programmes here in the UK over the past 2 or 3 years, all of which have included the “death spiral” story of Polar Bears. In every case, they have shown film of perfectly fat, healthy mother bears, each with usually 2 healthy cubs. They always miss the obvious connection that a female Polar Bear would be unlikely to be able to raise one cub, let alone two, if she was in any way short of food.

Sad-But-True-Its-You
February 4, 2013 8:59 pm

Sir Richard III our beloved sovereign died from … from … ummm …. ummmmmmm … GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!!!
There, now don’t we feel much better now my little possums.
XD

john robertson
February 4, 2013 9:11 pm

Before this scam took over there was a real bear biologist, name of Mitch ??? who was the polar bear biologist for NWT & Nunavut,he actually did field work, with real wild bears(as opposed to computer animated ones) and is well respected by the locals, apparently he would not speak the party line so the GNWT moved him on, last I heard he was advising Nunavut but he may have retired.

LamontT
February 4, 2013 9:12 pm

But my computer said the bears would die.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
February 4, 2013 9:16 pm

A considerably more reliable, verifiable – and dispassionate – source than activist/advocacy-tainted Derocher, can be found at Dr. Susan Crockford’s Polar Bear Science Past and Present.
The timing of this paper from Derocher follows the pattern (of alarmism) we have come to expect prior to UNEP sponsored confabs. As Crockford noted in a post today:

[…] 16th meeting of the signatories to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Bangkok Thailand (3-14 March, 2013) is a proposal to upgrade the polar bear from Appendix II to Appendix I status – prepared by the US Fish & Wildlife Service. The suggested change is based on what is claimed to be “a marked decline in the population size in the wild, which has been inferred or projected on the basis of a decrease in area of habitat and a decrease in quality of habitat.” If this proposition is adopted by CITES, it would be illegal to trade legally harvested polar bear parts of any kind.
The US tried this [manoeuvre] at the last CITES meeting in 2010 and it failed rather miserably. I see little reason to believe it will pass this year, even though the US is actively campaigning and has motivated activists worldwide to pressure other countries to vote in their favour

Crockford further notes that Canada (along with other Arctic nations), is quite rightly opposed to this change. And she concludes by observing – and asking:

Advocate scientists would do more for polar bears of the future if they stopped their infernal cries of “Save the polar bear” and get on with the next conservation step – increasing our knowledge of this species. Where is the global campaign led by Stirling, Derocher and Amstrup for money to survey all Russian territories and East Greenland for polar bears? Why is all this advocacy effort being poured into more and more stringent regulation schemes and fighting the crystal-ball perils of global warming that may or may not be an issue 50 years from now when there are basic biological questions that still need to be answered – information critical to managing polar bear populations 10 years from now?

February 4, 2013 9:22 pm

Thought a couple of links might add some perspective to the thoughts of the doomsayers…
http://polarbearscience.com/quote-archive/
And here: http://uphere.ca/node/850
Leo Ikakhik says that if a bear has found some food, “it will ignore you no matter what you do.” When nothing else works, he calls for backup from Joe Savikataaq, the local Nunavut Conservation Officer. A calm, well-built individual with the steely confidence of a veteran lawman, Savikataaq has been enforcing the wildlife laws in Arviat for almost 25 years. He checks the hamlet before the kids go to school in the morning, deals with his normal workload during the day (including building and maintaining electric bear fences), and works late into the evening, patrolling the community while people walk home from work and do their shopping. He used to work all night long as well, jumping out of bed whenever someone called him about a prowling bear, but now that Leo Ikakhik works the graveyard shift, Joe only has to put on his boots when Leo runs into a bear that won’t listen to reason. Savikataaq’s ace in the hole is a 38-milimetre riot gun. As Ikakhik puts it, “A bear will always bugger off when Joe hits it on the rump with one of those big rubber slugs.”
During the course of his career in Arviat, Joe Savikataaq says he has chased many polar bears out of the community. (“I can’t say how many. Hundreds and hundreds.”) He believes that it’s important to teach the bears to fear human beings. “We want them to think that people cause pain. We want them to avoid people whenever they can.” With some bears, that lesson seems to be sinking in. Leo Ikakhik has a cabin north of town, and one day he was trapped inside it by a polar bear. “I called my wife on the CB radio and told her I might have to shoot the bear. I asked her to call Joe and tell him what was going on. Joe got on his Honda and came out to help me. As soon as the bear saw Joe coming, it took off. I think some of these bears are learning to be afraid of people on Hondas – or at least they’re learning to be afraid of Joe.”

fwiw…

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead back in Kurdistan but actually in Switzerland
February 4, 2013 9:29 pm

Fortunately for Derocher, he doesn’t live in Churchill. That ‘could’ be dangerous. I may be a Canucklehead, but please, don’t insult my stupidity.

February 4, 2013 9:32 pm

“Polar bear dens found near Manitoba-Ontario border” Darn Polar Bears are migrating south …
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/08/21/mb-polar-bear-dens-manitoba.html

dynam01
February 4, 2013 9:38 pm

A Polar Bear in every eco-dolt’s living room! Make it mandatory and watch the hilarity ensue.

1 2 3 4