Bad News (Polar) Bears?

Oh dear… the poley bears are under the threat of being demoted.
What next ?
Whale poop ?

aren’t most polar bears Canadian?

Emotions, emotions, you’d almost wish we didn’t have them
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/wwf-caught-in-another-big-lie-polar-bears-doing-just-fine/

The Center for Biological Diversity is a very dangerous Marxist organization that is in the business of using environmental law to destroy the US economy. Their primary target is property rights. Many of the suits that they have won actually impede the recovery of the endangered animals they claim to be protecting, e.g. preventing the delisting of wolves, which would have allowed their range to expand and population to increase, but would have also expanded the possible range of management tools available including limited hunting, and allowing ranchers to shoot nuisance wolves. They also invent new species when convenient, e.g. Ambystoma californium (sp?) which is actually A. tigrinum californiense, based on a invalid study from a lefty Berkeley biologist. Side note, for some reason, almost all amphibian biologists are extreme lefties. BTW, Sullivan is one of their favorite activist judges.

OK, I couldn’t resist. Maybe this is why.

Louise has a new angle today:
20 Oct: UK Telegraph: Louise Gray: World must start putting a value on
nature
Natural goods and services, such as the pollination provided by bees or
filtration of water by wetlands, should be included in a nation’s economic
value in the same way as GDP, according to a major new United Nations
report.
Pavan Sukhdev, an economist based in London, was ordered to look at the
value of nature in the same way British economist Nicholas Stern’s famous
2006 report looked at the financial implications of climate change. ..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8075548/World-must-start-putting-a-value-on-nature.html
here’s Pavan flying in for a left-leaning think tank, sponsored by an airline, recently:
Centre for Policy Development: Pavan Sukhdev
What is the world worth? Putting nature on the balance sheet
3 August 2010, Sydney Opera House, Australia
You can watch the talk on the ABC’s Big Ideas
Miriam Lyons, Director Centre for Policy Development (CPD):
First to the people who made this event possible, the amazing CPD staff, the
Board, our volunteers, to, of course, our principle sponsor Qantas the major
event sponsors, KPMG and UTS Business -without whom tonight would not have
been possible…
He’s (Pavan Sukhdev )also the Head of the Green Economy Initiative, which is run out of the United Nations Environment Program…
And he is doing all of this while on sabbatical from Deutsche Bank. So, you
know, this is kind of a hobby for him and I think that we should all give
him an extremely warm welcome, a very big round of applause for all of the
work that Pavan is doing in his spare time…
Pavan Sukhdev, UNEP:
There’s been a lot of work, a lot of reading, a lot of writing and a lot of
travel, as you can see. And thanks to the CPD, the Centre for Policy
Development for organising this, because it’s not often that I get to visit
Australia – especially Sydney, a city I love, and North Queensland, where I
shall go after I finish with you guys, and where I bought a small block of
land many years ago when I started offsetting my footprint…
A calculation, a much bigger calculation like this has been done by a group
in the UK, a research group called TRUCOST…
Carbon tax emissions, guess what? You can make business out of bio carbon
offsets and the REDD+ scheme…
http://cpd.org.au/2010/08/pavan-sukhdev-sydney-lecture-transcript/
nice to know Pavan gets to fly a lot, and that he works for Deutsche “Banking on Green” Bank – http://www.banking-on-green.com/index_e.htm.
and nice to see who is connected to our nature-loving TRUCOST:
TRUCOST – Our Team
includes:
Paul Druckman – Executive Chairman
He also is Chair of the Executive Board of HRH The Prince of Wales
Accounting for Sustainability project
Simon Thomas – Chief Executive
Previously, Simon co-founded the Emerging Markets Investment Trust business
at LCF Edmond de Rothschild and he has held senior positions at Swiss Bank
Corporation, Nomura International and Reed International
http://www.trucost.com/products.asp?sectionID=1&pageID=4&biog_ID=1#1
same old same old…

Polar bear population has at least tripled in the past 40 years (8000 -> 25000). They may well outgrow their food supply. Which would make some of them endangered, if only by being consumed by other polar bears.
What does this have to do with AGW?

” ‘aren’t most polar bears Canadian?’
Most but some can be found in Alaska…”
They emigrated…!!!

DesertYote says:
October 20, 2010 at 8:11 pm
“The Center for Biological Diversity is a very dangerous Marxist organization that is in the business of using environmental law to destroy the US economy. ”
I’m sure you’re correct. The reason for this listing is to shut down access to ANY territory where the bears may roam, under the guise of preservation of an endangered species. And the BHO administration will not flinch and immediately grant the endangered listing. This will be used to shut down oil and gas exploration.
So to answer BenD:
Ben D. says:
October 20, 2010 at 8:48 pm
“Judges with the exception of the supreme court can be fired. Remember to vote no to cap and tax and other dumb stuff. Presidential elections are also being held in 2 years, so we have two more years to judge our current president.”
I don’t need even one more minute to decide.

Of course this all goes back to the summer of 2007 when huge blocks of ice “the size of the State of California” were reported to be melting for the first time ever in recorded history and many people really thought that the ice-cap was going to be gone in just a few more years. Apparently, some still have not recovered from that expectation the way the ice has.

Polar Bear Decoy Bait
(American measurements)
1 can (15 oz) Evaporated Milk (whole)
1/2 can water
1 stick (1/4 cup, 8 Tablespoons) butter
Heat in saucepan until slightly boiling with butter melted, stirring occasionally
Add in
1 bag (12 oz) semi-sweet chocolate chips [may use 3/4 pound semi-sweet chocolate bar(s), broken into pieces]
Stir continuously until chocolate melts, scraping clumps off of sides and bottom, yielding smooth sauce
Pour into:
1 cup sugar (white granulated)
2 c white wheat flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 t salt (NaCl)
Stir together, does not have to be completely smooth
Pour into greased and floured 9×12″ (inch) cake pan
Place into preheated 350°F (Fahrenheit) oven
Bake for 35 minutes.
Note: I used unbleached flour. Whole wheat might also work.
Result is a brownie/cake hybrid, less dense than a brownie with a brownie-like thin crust, can pass as cake. Good chocolate taste, more than Devil’s Food but without the full… whatever-it-is… of a normal chocolate bar or chocolate cake frosting. Tasty. But with hardly any indication of the incredible richness within (figure out the calorie and fat content of one piece, either 8 or 9 pieces per batch).
Feed regularly to intended decoy. Resultant increase in mass with corresponding reduction in speed will enhance the effectiveness of the decoy. Decoy may or may not realize the effectiveness of the bait as the trap they entered is sprung and their status changes from intended to actual.
(Disclaimer: Intended final result of using this bait is to get that charging polar bear to stop for a moment so you can get off a well-aimed shot and save your decoy buddy. You wouldn’t really run to safety by yourself without them, right?)
And that was my Wednesday night scientific research, recipe whipped up on the fly from ingredients on hand based on rudimentary knowledge of them and their usage. Further research is indicated. What’d you do?
Bonus questions: Who else recalls how, from the ancient age of the dinosaurs, such instructions would normally say “Sift together dry ingredients”? Why’d we stop sifting? Do today’s young people even know what a sifter is and what one does?
😉

DesertYote says:
October 20, 2010 at 8:11 pm
The Center for Biological Diversity is a very dangerous Marxist organization that is in the business of using environmental law to destroy the US economy.
Quite right. It was founded by Karl Marx and has had such notables as Mao Tse Tung and Stalin as administrators. However over the years there has been much discussion as to whether it is really an extreme right wing organisation, as supported by Hitler and the then secretary Mussolini, or whether it is not really a political organisation at all, just a muddle headed environmental group that has got it’s facts wrong. What do you think? Maybe Senator McCarthy, were he still here, could have advised us?

From the article

charles the moderator says:
“So, who are you going to believe: a professional conservationist outfit that is actually in situ observing polar bear critters all over the place, or some bureaucrat bent on controlling your tailpipe and windpipe?”

Someone else worth listening to is Dr. Mitchell Taylor has worked on polar bears for the past 30 years and has has published over 50 scientific papers. He was intereviewed in 2009 and here is a sample:

[Q] “The Inuit have objected to southern governments designating “threatened” or “endangered” status for the polar bear. Why is that?”
[A] “Because they are not in danger of extinction. According to a recent article, many Inuit feel that the current time is the “time with the most bears”. Many Inuit have also participated in scientific studies of polar bears over the years. So their experience is not consistent with the notion that polar bears are threatened or endangered or declining.”
Source: Fcpp

Who would you believe? The Inuit who know more about snow and polar bears than anyone else? Dr. Mitchell Taylor has worked on polar bears for the past 30? Or some bureaucrat? The choice is yours.

So there is a large increase in Polar Bear population numbers, and since there are a lot of females with triplets being observed, one can conclude that there must have been sufficient food resources around to support such a population.
What usually happens then is that the population numbers crash due to depletion of food.
So we can look forward to more wailings from the leftie ecofascists, because, see – the polar bears are dying!
Two questions:
*) If these bears did so well at a time of CO2 increase and small temperature rise, shouldn’t they do even better if it gets a bit warmer? After all, there would be more fish in slightly warmer Arctic seas, and thus more seals, no?
*) But here’s the problem: if temperatures decrease – which is, after all, a possibility – and the polar bears die, should we do all we can to help temperatures go up a bit, to save the bears?
I think we can be most certain of one thing, though: no matter what, the ecofascists will blame us all for daring to share the planet with those bears …

Gareth Phillips
October 21, 2010 at 3:29 am
Your are what Marxists call an useful idiot. Why don’t you do a little research before you mock. The CBD is absolutely Marxist. Their activities over the past decades have clearly demonstrated their desire to eliminate all property rights and to end all development, driving mankind back to the stone age. This group has been involved with, and usually the driving force behind with every single campaign in the SW US, to use environmental law to help bring about the destruction of western civilization.

From the files of VERY bad ideas….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101018/ap_on_re_us/us_valley_forge_deer_hunt
“Friends of Animals” propose thinning Valley Forge (in the middle of Greater Philadelphia) deer population with Coyotes. Yes, importing coyotes into one of the largest metro areas, not to mention a public park, to thin deer. You would think sharpshooters would be a far more humane way to thin the herd than being ripped to pieces by coyotes. Maybe the should just import grizzly bears or maybe lions, they’d be much more efficient.

dwright says:
October 20, 2010 at 7:56 pm
aren’t most polar bears Canadian?

Welll yessss — but many have applied for green cards so they can prey on innocents in the more populous regions of the USA. However, due to many unfortunate innocents where they ripped apart and ate the Citizenship examiners in their subsequent attempts to become full and productive citizens they are now on terrorist watch lists at the now heavily fortified Canadian-USA Border. (When the examiner raised his hand for the citizenship oath how were they to know that the Polar bear interpreted this as sign of surrender and that it meant “eat me” in Poley Bear sign language — which once again proves that communication is everything..) This has limited the issuance of green cards and citizenship papers. So, sadly most still hang out at the Garbage Dump in Churchill Manitoba. So while it is deploarble that Polar Bears are now reduced to being “garbage Pickers” and hence very low on the social totem pole, it has done wonders for tourism in Manitoba…
http://www.polarbearalley.com/
If you are a really irritating tourist they will let you “pet” the bears…

I am glad I am useful to someone! I’m not sure any Marxist theory I have studied fits with these guys.Nor totalitarian. I don’t think they are running detentions camps in Alaska or Siberia, and they are not shooting dissenters. Interestingly Marxists on the whole are just about as an un-environmental bunch as you will find. The Aral sea disaster is a good example of Marxist philosophy in sacrificing the environment to the pursuit of Marxist glory. What you are saying could apply equally to any totalitarian state, fascist regimes would be just as likely to enforce property grabs and tell you what to think. We in Europe are pretty convinced the Sarah Palin is barking mad, and the tea party movement has some worrying totalitarian tendencies. But that does not make them fascists, or Marxists, just right wing. And because they are right wing, it does not make them any more environmental than Christian Democrats, or Labour, or the Tories.
Best not to use political theory to explain why you disagree with an environmental group, don’t confuse the two, it’s a complex subject and to use such comparisons just breeds disregard for this excellent site, which I wish more real politicians would read.

Charles the moderator:
Why did you not include the following paragraph from the same piece explaining why the observations noted above were happening?
“These oddities in polar bear behavior may be warnings of trends in global warming. Perhaps early ice melt in the bay are driving bears on land earlier in the spring up north so that more arrive in Churchill in early summer. As for the mothers with more cubs, increased snowfall may allow for longer and better denning conditions. At first thought, increased snowfall would seem to signal colder conditions but it actually could oppose such a theory. More moisture in the air stemming from open water on the Hudson Bay and warmer, moist air coming to the region translates to more snow. This is great for denning though the new arrivals will need long-lasting solid ice later on to fill their seal quota. Only time will tell.”
The small number of bears and anecdotal information in this piece do not constitute a scientific study of the polar bear status. The piece you quoted from appears to be an infomercial put out by a group that makes money from polar bear tours rather than a conservationist research piece on polar bear status. http://www.nathab.com/polar-bear-tours
Retired Engineer:
Why are you advocating a return to the bad old days of unrestricted hunting that nearly wiped out the bears? How do you think their numbers got down to 8,000 and why has it taken this long for their numbers to get back up to 20,000 to 25,000? Even Russia put in hunting restrictions in 1956. Norway passed a series of increasingly strict regulations from 1965 to 1973, and has completely banned hunting since then. The Soviet Union banned all hunting in 1956, but has allowed some limited exceptions. Canada began imposing hunting quotas in 1968. The U.S. began regulating in 1971 and adopted the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 (that would be the Nixon administration).
Jimbo:
Perhaps we should trust what the scientist says rather than just looking at what he says the Inuit say. The Inuit he is describing may be more concerned about the immediacy of a quick buck (or loon) and economics of harvesting and trophy hunting than they are about long-term preservation of bear populations. Maybe the Inuit hunters need protection from the melting ice, too. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/03/last-of-the-arctic-hunters Dr. Mitchell Taylor’s opinion of the impact of arctic warming on the bears is not necessarily the same as the Inuit or as simplistic as the quotes you have cited.
Dr. Mitchell Taylor (who is acknowledge to be an expert on the bears even by those who disagree with his position on the causes of climate change in the Arctic) has noted that climate change exists and is impacting some of the bear populations:
“Polar bears, as a species, do not appear to be threatened or in decline based on the data that I’ve seen at the present time, although some populations do seem to be experiencing deleterious effects from climate change.” http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2571
Per Dr. Mitchell Taylor:
“The harvest rates are usually intended to keep the population at current levels so even a sustainable harvest would have a stabilizing effect on a population. If you are asking if I think that some populations are declining because of over harvest, I think that probably Kane Basin numbers are stable even though it is over-hunted. Kane Basin seems to be a sink for polar bears right now. The harvest in western Hudson Bay has recently been reduced and the population is thought to be stable or increasing slowly. I’m not exactly sure what’s happening with harvests in the Southern Beaufort Sea, but this population appears to have been badly stressed by the recent arctic warming. The most recent data for the other populations indicates they are sustaining current harvest levels except for Baffin Bay. In Baffin Bay the research data suggests a significant decline in population numbers, but local hunters report that numbers are stable or even increased.”
There are at least 19 distinct populations of polar bears. Dr. Mitchell Taylor has indicated that four of the groups are being adversely impacted by warming:
“The arctic climate has warmed for the last ten years and that has caused a reduction in sea ice. In fact, the two are related. The reduction in sea ice has actually caused the arctic to warm. That has caused difficulties for at least two populations, and we know of nutritional effects in two others. Other populations don’t appear to be affected or at least are not as affected. They are still abundant and productive. So the effect has been different among the world’s 19 populations.”
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2571
As for the status of the 19 populations as of March 2010, the chart in this link indicates that 6 populations of polar bears have a very high possibility of decline (note- this is not an extinction prediction) See chart at: http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html#bottom
For a science study of the bears in the Churchill area:
Predicting survival, reproduction and abundance of polar bears under climate change by Péter K. Molnára, Andrew E. Derocherb (a former student of Mitchell Taylor), Gregory W. Thiemannc, and Mark A. Lewisa
which is discussed in this article (note: this article should not be cited as proof that all polar bears are in decline, only the bears in western Hudson Bay).
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2293
“The basic facts are as follows: The region’s [western Hudson Bay] polar bears have been forced to spend an extra week per decade onshore; the bears have been losing, on average, more than 20 pounds per decade; the body mass of the bears has been steadily declining; females have lost 10 percent of their body length; and the population has dropped from 1,200 to 900 in three decades, with much of the decline coming in the last 10 years.
Looking at projected sea ice declines, Derocher and his colleagues estimated in a recent paper in Biological Conservation that western Hudson Bay’s polar bear population could well die out in 25 to 30 years. Indeed, in an interview with Yale Environment 360 senior editor Fen Montaigne, Derocher said that the population — one of 19 in the Arctic — could be gone within a decade. All it would take is several straight years of low sea ice conditions — such as the current year — which could force the bears onshore for more than five months a year, leading to a sharp decline in the bears’ physical condition and the inability of females to gestate cubs. “One of the things we found was that the changes in this population could happen very dramatically,” says Derocher. “And a lot of the change could come within a single year if you just ended up with an earlier melt of sea ice.”
Later in this article:
“So the real rub here is that there’s not much in the way of terrestrial resources for these bears to pull on during the ice-free period — there’s a few berries and a bit of grass, but that’s certainly not enough to sustain a polar bear population. So the challenge is, you push them, there’s nothing on shore, they run out of energy, and then the real catastrophe is that you’ll also see things we’re beginning to see on land like increased cases of infanticide and cannibalism. The number of observed cannibalism events in the last couple of years in this population has just been skyrocketing. That’s what happens when you get desperate animals trying to survive — anything becomes a viable option and cannibalism is one that we’ve seen increasing dramatically.”
While the article is presenting a worst case scenario, it is not presenting a scenario that has no chance of happening. Hopefully the above article will prove to be overly pessimistic, and the sea ice in the Hudson Bay will recover, but the rapid melt of the bay in 2010 does not provide any indication that Hudson Bay ice conditions have improved.
There is also as earlier study of the Hudson Bay bears provided the following:
“Some of the most pronounced responses to climatic warming are expected to occur in polar marine regions, where temperature increases have been the greatest, and sea ice provides a sensitive mechanism by which climatic conditions affect ice dwelling species. Population level effects of climatic change, however, remain difficult to quantify. We analyzed data for polar bears captured from 1984–2004 along the western coast of Hudson Bay, and in the community of Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. The size of the Western Hudson Bay polar bear population declined from 1194 (95% CI = 1020, 1368) in 1987, to 935 (95% CI = 794, 1076) in 2004. Total apparent survival of prime-adult polar bears (age 5–19 yr) was stable over the course of the study for both females (0.93; 95% CI = 0.91, 0.94) and males (0.90; 95% CI = 0.88, 0.91). Survival of juvenile, sub adult, and senescent-adult polar bears was correlated with spring sea ice breakup date, which was variable among years and occurred approximately 3 weeks earlier in 2004 than at the beginning of the study in 1984. We propose that this correlation provides evidence for a causal association between earlier sea ice breakup (due to climatic warming) and decreased polar bear survival. It may also explain why Churchill, like other communities along the western coast of Hudson Bay, has experienced an increase in the number of human–polar bear interactions in recent years. Earlier sea ice breakup may have resulted in a larger number of nutritionally-stressed polar bears, which are encroaching on human habitations in search of supplemental food. Because western Hudson Bay is near the southern limit of the polar bear’s range, our findings may foreshadow how more northerly polar bear populations will respond to the continued warming that is projected for many parts of the Arctic.”
Regehr, E.V., Lunn, N.J., Amstrup, S.C., and I. Stirling. 2007. Effects of earlier sea ice breakup on survival and population size of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(8):2673-2683.
Regehr, E. V., N. J. Lunn, S. C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling. 2007. Supplemental materials for the analysis of capture-recapture data for polar bears in western Hudson Bay, Canada, 1984-2004. U. S. Geological Survey Data Series 304. 13 p.
While some polar bear populations may be currently stable, the bear populations in western and southern Hudson Bay, the Kane Basin, Southern Beaufort Sea, and Baffin Bay appear to be under stress and need monitoring and protection. There appears to be a general agreement among the various governments and experts that some level of protection is needed for Polar bears. With a current population estimate of 20,000 to 25,000, it does not appear that it would take much in terms of overhunting or additional environmental stress to put the bears out of business. Waiting until the stark projections of the study below become a reality before providing additional protections from over-harvesting or economic development does not appear to be a prudent Likewise, using the plight of the bears to advance a political agenda that only incidentally provides protections to the bears should be rejected.
Amstrup, Steven C.; Marcot, Bruce G.; Douglas, David C. (2007) (PDF). Forecasting the Range-wide Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_Amstrup_Forecast_lowres.pdf.
Charles the moderator:
So who are we to believe, respected scientists with peer reviewed research or Inuit hunters with an economic agenda and some limited observations by a tour guide masquerading as a conservationist?

p.s.
We definitely should not believe anyone that is trying to advance a political agenda, be they promoting AGW or denying the possibility of AGW.

Will Crump , I have read some of the material referenced and wonder at the veracity of much of the information. I have noted that true conservationists carefully avoid any appearance of bias and would backtrack extensively if they thought their statements were in error let alone untruthfull. Be the subject endangered species, global warming, anti trapping or antihunting, those advocating for the first two and against the second two have repeatedly shown their willingness to even lie about the facts in order to promote their agenda. Based on these observations I am no longer willing to believe anything that is said by them. I dont know you or your particular stance on these issues and I would ask that you not consider this a personal attack as it is not intended as such. This is an explanation of how I have come my opinion and I seem to share this attitude with the average person.

Mick J.
Is it being removed because it is a form of advertising?
Find an science article that shows polar bear increases for a particular area like the Davis Strait, where very little hunting is occurring. Try these and see if they go through.
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2007/articles01/davis.htm
http://www.nnsl.com/northern-news-services/stories/papers/sep17_07bear.html
The above article is particularly interesting as it projects nubers would rise even further if hunting was restricted.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/975_davis_strait_bear_numbers_healthy_but_could_decline/

vigilantfish:
I liked the recipe.
I have noted that a number of people use “natural variability” as a statement to prove that humans are having no influence on climate or to say that the influence is so small that we should just ignore it. I do not find these statements very convincing or comforting. There is no question that climate varies over time, but what does this prove?
The question is how human activities are affecting these processes.
I do not find it credible that after all the changes in land use, building artificial lakes, pumping out groundwater, agricultural practices, fishing practices, particularly in the ocean, building of cities, paving of roads, the increase in human population over 6 billion and the changes we have made and continue to make to ocean and atmosphere chemistry that there is no negative consequence to these changes. We have clearly affected the environment and climate in the past (ex. the dust bowl) and have driven species to extinction.
I am also wary of the so called “solutions” being offered up by groups as their solutions appear to fit the particular political or economic agenda of the group more than they accomplish any real change.
For now, I will satisfy myself with debunking the extreme claims made on both sides of this discussion and providing links for people to information to possibly make a more informed decision, although, it appears that people (me included) are only interested in information that fits their pre-conceived view and do not challenge items that fit that view with the same rigor as information that is contrary to their view.
The “polar bear” issue appears to be sufficiently small that I can understand it and is within our grasp to do something about by regulating harvesting (I do not see a need to stop all harvesting at this time) with minimal disruption to the world economy so I tend to get over involved in these discussions.
Please send any info you have on the MWP and its impact on the polar bears and I will digest and address it.

Ben D.
You are wrong. All federal judges have a lifetime tenure, unless they are impeached.

Rattus Norvegicus said on October 21, 2010 at 7:55 pm:

Ben D.
You are wrong. All federal judges have a lifetime tenure, unless they are impeached.

Gary Turner agrees, since he said that back here.
Thank you for reading the comments before replying.
Would you like to try some homemade baked goods?
☺

Will Crump says:
October 21, 2010 at 12:54 pm
p.s.
We definitely should not believe anyone that is trying to advance a political agenda, be they promoting AGW or denying the possibility of AGW.
I agree Will, it’s desperately sad when posters use this excellent site to advance their hard right wing agendas (or occasionally left) . This is probably the most active independent scientific website and is wonderfully influential. There are many people who would like to see the back of it. One way of doing that is to use it to publish obsessive political ideas, and to insult those who point our that our cause is not based in political beliefs, right or left, but on the evidence published by determined researchers who will not be browbeaten. Lets keep it like that and keep the those who would undermine our cause for their own reasons at arms length.
Science, like religion is an evil mix in politics. we have seen the results of religion and politics in Iran, lets be on our guard to make sure it does not happen with science and politics.

DesertYote says:
October 21, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Gareth Phillips
October 21, 2010 at 9:29 am
I am not call the CBD Marxist because they are enviro-wackos. I am calling them Marxist because they are Marxist, that is the founders are real honest to goodness Marxists. They literally want the destruction of property rights and capitalism. Why don’t you do some research or are you dense? They don’t care about environmental issues unless they can use it to push a Marxist agenda. This organization started in my State. I became aware of them when I got involved with wolf recovery 15 years ago. I have been keeping tabs on them every since.
Apologies for upsetting you Mr.Yote, but I have copied the CPD history below, but there is no mention of your state Marxist group or the events you you have related. Possibly seeing as you have been closely monitoring this dangerous revolutionary group with it’s roots in your state ( I assume this is the USA?) perhaps you can point me to independent or reliable evidence of the Marxist agenda of this group? As a student in my younger days of political thought I must confess I had entirely overlooked this particular revolutionary group. If you have any evidence of dangerous activities you may also wish to update your local policeman to these events. While most Marxists in the west own more to Dave Spart than to Shining path, you can never be too careful.
I suspect personally that the global warming industry is a capitalist scam, but with China being the most elegant expression of a Capitalist country in existence, but claiming to be Marxist/Maoist it’s all very confusing once politics is thrown into this witches brew.
P.S. I’ve always found it a strange terms to call the hunting of Polar bears, wild cats and and other carnivores “a harvest” I’d always assumed we harvest food, or maybe this is another example of English being a sneaky tongue!
best wishes, G.
The Earth’s biological resources are vital to humanity’s economic and social development. As a result, there is a growing recognition that biological diversity is a global asset of tremendous value to present and future generations. At the same time, the threat to species and ecosystems has never been so great as it is today. Species extinction caused by human activities continues at an alarming rate.
In response, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) convened the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Biological Diversity in November 1988 to explore the need for an. international convention on biological diversity. Soon after, in May 1989, it established the Ad Hoc Working Group of Technical and Legal Experts to prepare an international legal instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The experts were to take into account “the need to share costs and benefits between developed and developing countries” as well as “ways and means to support innovation by local people”.
By February 1991, the Ad Hoc Working Group had become known as the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. Its work culminated on 22 May 1992 with the Nairobi Conference for the Adoption of the Agreed Text of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Convention was opened for signature on 5 June 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the Rio “Earth Summit”). It remained open for signature until 4 June 1993, by which time it had received 168 signatures. The Convention entered into force on 29 December 1993, which was 90 days after the 30th ratification. The first session of the Conference of the Parties was scheduled for 28 November – 9 December 1994 in the Bahamas.
The Convention on Biological Diversity was inspired by the world community’s growing commitment to sustainable development. It represents a dramatic step forward in the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

vigilantfish says:
October 21, 2010 at 8:42 pm
My limited purpose in posting to this thread was to cast doubt on the validity of the impression left by the original post that a conservationist had proved that polar bears in the Hudson Bay area were expanding. This initially struck me as odd since this population referred to in the article is known to be under stress from warming and harvesting.
Upon checking the source being quoted above, it appeared that the source was more in the nature of an advertisement by a tour group than a peer reviewed research paper evaluating the health of the polar bears. That so much reliance was being placed on such a weak source made me suspect that this post was being used to advance a political agenda rather than to provide an accurate assessment of the status of the bears. The impression that a particular political agenda was being advanced by this post was reinforced by the inclusion of a reference to a legal dispute about the status of the bears under the endangered species act.
Upon checking a number of research papers it became clear that the actual picture of polar bear health is more complex than the picture portrayed in the original post, with some populations being stable or expanding and others in decline or showing indications that they are likely to decline. The Hudson Bay group of bears being referred to in the travel group’s article was noted as being under stress. A number of references were provided which indicated that some polar bear populations were doing well and other populations were showing signs of stress, or were declining, or considered likely to decline.
Direct quotes were provided from Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a polar bear researcher who does not support the view the human activities are causing the arctic warming, that show that current conditions and harvesting levels are having a negative impact on some of the bear populations.
I am not suggesting that anything I have posted resolves the issues being raised in the legal dispute, which appears to be more about the political agendas of the different groups involved in the dispute than it does about the future health of the polar bears. Rather, I am providing information that casts doubt on the reliability of the impression left by the original post that polar bears are not being affected by warming in the Hudson Bay area.
To your most recent points:
I do not follow why a lack of data on the MWP justifies any conclusions with respect to the current or future health of the bears. The experience of the near extinction of the polar bears in the first half of the 20th century due to the use of technically advanced hunting methods is warning enough that the bears need some form of protection. This does not mean that a total ban on harvesting is needed, only that it be done in a manner that does not cause individual bear populations to decline.
I am at a loss as to why you think that a sudden temperature drop at the end of the MWP in Europe has any meaning to the management of polar bears in the arctic today.
Likewise, the Darwin reference appears to have little relevance to polar bears. What do you think Darwin’s impression would be of the current status of the species he first encountered on the Galapagos islands if could be there today?
Much of your post appears to be based on a rather vague and not well documented or referenced belief that conditions in the arctic for the bears will improve in the future. I hope they do improve, but could you provide a reference to a peer reviewed research paper that supports this view and makes a specific projection with respect to a recovery of the ice so we can test this hypothesis against future observations?
I have the read the recent post about the Russian book which was posted under the title “Ice Rebound Predicted”. I would have preferred the post use the actual title of the book “Climate Change in the Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas” as the headline in the post does not accurately convey the coverage or purpose of the book. The original post about the book does not appear to be an accurate portrayal of its contents. While the book offers important survey information concerning the Euarasian shelf, the book does not establish a prediction with any level of confidence that an Arctic wide recovery of the ice is about to occur. Additionally, there appears to be some weaknesses in attempting to rely on this book as support for saying that a rebound of all of the ice in the arctic will occur in the next few years. These weaknesses are detailed in the quote below.
With respect to the current state of the arctic ice and the possibility of future changes to that state, please read the following post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/21/summer-2010-in-the-arctic-and-other-sea-ice-topics/
which makes the following observations with respect to the book “Climate Change in the Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas”
“For example, there was post earlier this week (October 16) [ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/arctic-ice-rebound%c2%a0predicted/ ] about a recent book on longer-term sea ice changes in the 20th century. I read through this book earlier this year, so I’m familiar with it. As the title (“Climate Change in the Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas”) states, the book analyzes data only the Russian shelf regions of the Arctic – it doesn’t include the central Arctic or U.S./Canadian Arctic, where a significant portion of the decline has occurred over the past decades. Their conclusions are drawn from data through only 2003, so with the recent low years since then, the observed patterns of variability may no longer hold. (There is a final section in the book on 2003-2008 sea ice conditions, but these data are discussed independently and are not incorporated to update their analyses earlier in the book.)
The book only superficially examines ice thickness changes (again only in the Russian shelf regions) and does not examine the recent thickness data from ICESat or the ice age fields. Finally, as it states in conclusion #2: “These cyclic oscillations of sea ice extent were superimposed on the background consisting of a negative long-term linear trend that characterizes gradual decrease of sea ice extent during the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century.” In other words, even in the Russian data, there is a decline. The authors suggest this decline could be indicative of a longer cycle, but admit that such a conclusion can only be “conjectured”.
So while the book provides useful data (Russian information is often difficult to obtain), their conclusions about reasons for the changes in overall Arctic sea ice and the state of sea ice in the coming decades are more limited than the book seems to suggest. Andy Mahoney (a former colleague of mine at NSIDC) and others also analyzed the Russian data in a paper published in 2008 (Mahoney et al., 2008 – a brief summary is here).”
If you believe that the future of the bears is secure because:
“Human beings have also already saved a number of species of plants and animals from extinction, as has been done by centres such as Kew Gardens in London with several naturally isolated island plants, which have been subsequently reintroduced into the wild, and no doubt could do the same with polar bears.”
Then no amount of information on the current status of the bears or the ice matters to you. I would appreciate, however, if you could provide a single example of where Kew Gardens has saved a species from extinction where the extinction was not directly caused by humans or by changes to the environment and habitat associated with human actions as I was not able to find any such examples.

Will Crump
October 22, 2010 at 9:17 am
The paper you refer to regarding the Hudson Bay polar bear populations is deliberately misleading. The actual numbers have not decreased, it is models that show a problem, not the real data. The indicators that they have seen that they have used to indicate population stress do not. The paper also very carefully completely ignores the know history of the population. The main reason for the bears to be in the area year round, is human trash. So the only real stress on the bears is people doing a better job of managing their garbage.
Environmentalist have been doing agenda driven pseudo-science a lot longer the climate activists. I think they are much better at it. Also, their schooling does a much better job of insuring that only those with the correct viewpoint can graduate and find jobs, so they don’t have to worry so much about contra-narrative studies.

Desert Yote:
I have noticed that there have been people and groups that attempt to attack this research, but I have not find a refutation of it by a climate scientists in a peer reviewed paper.
Can you help me by providing such a link?
In the meantime, I will keep looking on my own.

There is a rebuttal to the Armstrong paper at:
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1594648.1594654
Rebuttal of “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit”
Steven C. Amstrup US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Hal Caswell Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Eric DeWeaver Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Department, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742
Ian Stirling Wildlife Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, Edmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5, Canada
David C. Douglas US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Juneau, Alaska 99801
Bruce G. Marcot USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon 97205
Christine M. Hunter Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Abstract:
“Observed declines in the Arctic sea ice have resulted in a variety of negative effects on polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Projections for additional future declines in sea ice resulted in a proposal to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act. To provide information for the Department of the Interior’s listing-decision process, the US Geological Survey (USGS) produced a series of nine research reports evaluating the present and future status of polar bears throughout their range. In response, Armstrong et al. [Armstrong, J. S., K. C. Green, W. Soon. 2008. Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit. Interfaces38(5) 382–405], which we will refer to as AGS, performed an audit of two of these nine reports. AGS claimed that the general circulation models upon which the USGS reports relied were not valid forecasting tools, that USGS researchers were not objective or lacked independence from policy decisions, that they did not utilize all available information in constructing their forecasts, and that they violated numerous principles of forecasting espoused by AGS. AGS (p. 382) concluded that the two USGS reports were “unscientific and inconsequential to decision makers.” We evaluate the AGS audit and show how AGS are mistaken or misleading on every claim. We provide evidence that general circulation models are useful in forecasting future climate conditions and that corporate and government leaders are relying on these models to do so. We clarify the strict independence of the USGS from the listing decision. We show that the allegations of failure to follow the principles of forecasting espoused by AGS are either incorrect or are based on misconceptions about the Arctic environment, polar bear biology, or statistical and mathematical methods. We conclude by showing that the AGS principles of forecasting are too ambiguous and subjective to be used as a reliable basis for auditing scientific investigations. In summary, we show that the AGS audit offers no valid criticism of the USGS conclusion that global warming poses a serious threat to the future welfare of polar bears and that it only serves to distract from reasoned public-policy debate.”

BS Footprint says:
October 22, 2010 at 11:06 am
pat says:
October 20, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Louise has a new angle today:
20 Oct: UK Telegraph: Louise Gray: World must start putting a value on
nature
Natural goods and services, such as the pollination provided by bees or
filtration of water by wetlands, should be included in a nation’s economic
value in the same way as GDP, according to a major new United Nations
report.
Insanity takes many forms.
Reply
Yes I saw that, personally I rather felt it supported the idea that the climate change dogma is about money more than anything else.

Will Crump
October 22, 2010 at 2:14 pm
You have dug up some interesting stuff. The Elizabeth Peacock study is pretty important for setting the tone of PBSG. I personally find problems with it, though I have not run across any studies that refute it. That is not too surprising as most of the science suffers from agenda-itis. Currently, the PBSG has all Polar Bear science wrapped up. If you read through the information on their website, you might notice a few things. The one that I find most interesting is the lockstep mentality of its members with a strong desire to stay on message. Their response to the Nunavut Nation is a perfect example of what I am talking about, consensus science at its best. Contrast that with the literature found on some of the other specialty groups websites.
The problems I have with the current studies that are being promoted as demonstrating that Polar Bears populations are declining are twofold. One they suffer from selection bias in collection of data(calculated birth and survival rates) and in the design of the models used to analyze the data. Second, they ignore the garbage issue. These southern populations would not even be at their current levels without human trash. The last study I recall that dealt with this issue was done way back in the eighties. I can’t for life of me remember the authors involved.
If I have some time tonight, I will do some digging around, though to be truthful, I doubt I will find what I am looking for. Most of the accessible literature is pretty one sided, and too much of it is behind pay-walls 🙁

Gareth Phillips says:
October 22, 2010 at 12:32 pm
First, after I submitted my last post, I thought to myself, “hope he’s not in the UK”, then I looked at your name, damn. I am well aware of the conservative movement in the UK, though from the language you use, I am assuming that you see the world via a socialist world view. That whole left-wing right-wing thing is a fallacious dichotomy promoted by socialist. They are just the two sides of the socialist coin. As you noted, there is a lot of commonality between fascism and Marxism.
Second, many of my friend accuse me of playing too rough. I get frustrated when people don’t see what I think should be obvious. The CBD has a long and storied history. They have been at the center of virtually every environmental lawsuit in the US for the past decade. California is a developmental basket case because of then. Ever here of the Delta Smelt? It should be trivial for you to find the facts for yourself.
BTW, did you bother to Google the CBD? If you did, didn’t you notice something very peculiar? Or do you think it is natural for the first seven links to be to the CBD website itself, followed by a couple of CBD owned propaganda sites and an article on the far left wing huffpo?
Third, I am quite familiar with political philosophies of all stripes, and am surprising well read for an American. I tend to be a bit bombastic in my anti-socialist rhetoric, but that is not because of ignorance. In fact, when I get a fact wrong, I usually appreciate being corrected because I hate being wrong. Holding a wrong fact is like walking around with ones fly down. Being told about it is embarrassing but better then walking about obliviously. If I have any question regarding Marxism ( or any philosophy for that matter) I have a room-mate with a master in philosophy from Columbia University to ask questions of. Though, I might take a look at the book you recommend, but I have a resent work on canine evolution to get through first. It is even denser then Marxist writings! As I consider Marxist to be the enemy of mankind, I have taken care to learn their tactics. Its not hard to do, just need to spend some time around the University.
Fourth, … just goes to show how resilient the Germans work ethic can be. Though they don’t have the history of the quest for freedom that you guys in the UK have, so I worry about them.
Fifth, “Drinking the Kool-aid” means to be blinded by ideology, or to accept the propaganda as truth.

DesertYote says:
October 22, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I am a bit surprised that you did not raise an easier criticism concerning the numbers game, which is that accurte data are nearly non-existent. One look at the number of data deficient blocks in the March 2010 chart update and the dates of the surveys supporting the numbers shows that the number of bears at any particular time is an open question.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
Please re-think this statement and the bias exhibited in its focus:
“Second, they ignore the garbage issue. These southern populations would not even be at their current levels without human trash.”
Is your solution to the threat the bears face to allow them to feed at garbage dumps?
I do not think that is a good idea as it increases the number of bear – human encounters which appears to have a higher negative percentage effect on the number of polar bears than it does on the number of humans on the planet.
The really sad part of your analysis is that you are focused on garbage feeding as somehow resulting in an artificial spike in the numbers from which the declines are being measured, and I believe this reflects a particular bias that you are bringing to the discussion.
The groups relying on the increase in numbers position to support their viewpoint never get around to admitting that the numbers they are using for the past number of bears are even more suspect than the estimates of how many bears there are today.
But this is a minor point compared to the real reason why the numbers of bears have increased. The problem with the increase in polar bear numbers position is not garbage, it is the usually undisclosed reason why the historical bear numbers these groups so desparately cite were so low in the first place. While the number of bears in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s appears to be an open question, with some groups using a low point number of 5,000, a near extinction level, there does not appear to be any doubt that there were fewer bears at these times than there are today.
The reason there were fewer bears at these times is not that the natural habitat could only support this number of bears, rather it is because of harvesting by humans. It is therefore dishonest to use these numbers to indicate that the bears do not need some level of protection or that their numbers are increasng, since the historical reference numbers used by the “bears are increasing groups” do not represent a natural state of bear numbers.
Shouldn’t your focus be on how many bears there would be if there was no hunting and the bears were not allowed to use the garbage dumps as a feeding station?
If you want to use an unbiased number, then compare the current status of the bears with the estimates of the number of bears before the era of technologically advanced “harvesting” witnessed in the first half of the 20th century.
The other problem with the polar bear issue is that it has become entangled with global warming, with people lining up on sides of the polar bear protection debate based on their view of whether people are a contributing to global warming.
Is it really so difficult to believe that if the current warmng trends continue (regardless of the forces causing the warming) that the bears will decline?
Of course, the bears have been around for 200,000 years or so and have survived habitat pressures in the past. People who cite past periods of warming as proof the bears can survive any current warming ignore the fact that the bears of these periods did not have to face the level of human predation and human habitat destruction that exists today. They also convenienly ignore that polar bears may nearly have been wiped out during these periods and that we have no data on what they actually experienced or how they managed to survive.
Eliminate the concerns about whether the plight of the bears can be used as a method of advancing the political agenda of AGW groups and focus on the bears. Pass a rule that the bears can not be used to support restrictions on CO2 (as if the plight of the bears alone would ever be sufficient or meaningful reason to enact such restrictions).
The bears need protection. Without existing protections, we would not have the number of bears that we have today. Is that so difficult to understand? Isn’t the discussion only a matter of what degree of protection is needed?
I have not looked into whether the standard of endangered species requires a showing of imminent extinction. I submit that the bears will not go extinct in the next 60 years. The study cited above only stated that:
“Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.”
If the study is correct, then the bears need help. If the arctic ice recovers and this scenario becomes less likely, then the bears can be delisted. Treating the bears as endangered would not stop all economic development in the bear’s habitat and would not require the end of all harvesting.
The economic forces aligned against the bears have sufficient resources to produce their own forecasts and models showing no impact on the bears from declining sea-ice and human impacts that deteriorate their habitat. The failure of these groups to produce such studies and their reliance on the increase in bear numbers from artificial lows cast doubts on the legitimacy of the position that the bears need no help.
Under the IUCN standards listed below, the classification of polar bears is “vulnerable”.
IUCN Red List Endangered species
IUCN Red List refers to a specific category of threatened species, and may include critically endangered species. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species uses the term endangered species as a specific category of imperilment, rather than as a general term. Under the IUCN Categories and Criteria, endangered species is between critically endangered and vulnerable. Also critically endangered species may also be counted as endangered species and fill all the criteria
The more general term used by the IUCN for species at risk of extinction is threatened species, which also includes the less-at-risk category of vulnerable species together with endangered and critically endangered. IUCN categories include:
Extinct:
Philippine Eagle, pictured in Davao Citythe last remaining member of the species has died, or is presumed beyond reasonable doubt to have died. Examples: Javan Tiger, Thylacine, Dodo, Passenger Pigeon, Caribbean Monk Seal, Dimetrodon, Aurochs, Dusky Seaside Sparrow
Extinct in the wild: captive individuals survive, but there is no free-living, natural population. Examples: Alagoas Curassow
Critically endangered: faces an extremely high risk of extinction in the immediate future. Examples: Mountain Gorilla, Arakan Forest Turtle, Darwin’s Fox, Javan Rhino, Brazilian Merganser, Gharial, Vaquita
Endangered: faces a very high risk of extinction in the near future. Examples: Dhole, Blue Whale, Bonobo, Ethiopian wolf, Giant Panda, Snow Leopard, African Wild Dog, Tiger, Indian Rhinoceros, three species of Albatrosses, Crowned Solitary Eagle, Philippine Eagle, Markhor, Orangutan, Grevy’s zebra, Tasmanian Devil,
Vulnerable: faces a high risk of extinction in the medium-term. Examples: Cheetah, Gaur, Lion, Sloth Bear, Manatee, Polar Bear, African Golden Cat, Komodo dragon, Golden hamster
Conservation dependent: The following animals are not severely threatened, but must depend on conservation programs. Examples: Spotted Hyena, Blanford’s fox, Leopard Shark, Black Caiman, Killer whale
Near threatened: may be considered threatened in the near future. Examples: Blue-billed Duck, Solitary Eagle, Small-clawed Otter, Maned Wolf, Tiger Shark, Okapi
Least concern: no immediate threat to the survival of the species. Examples: Nootka Cypress, Wood Pigeon, White-tailed Mongoose, House Mouse, Wolverine [3]
Arctic indigenous people cling to polar bear hunt
(AFP) – Mar 19, 2009
TROMSOE, Norway (AFP) — Hunting polar bears has been banned since 1973 but the Arctic’s indigenous peoples are exempt out of respect for their ancestral traditions, despite scientists’ objections over how the quotas are divided.
“When I was a child, it was forbidden to speak our language, to do things like dancing because missionaries said we were worshipping the devils,” said Charles Johnson, an Inuit from the small town of Nome, Alaska.
“We need to keep our traditions alive. That includes regaining our language, regaining our culture and polar bear hunting is part of that,” he said on the sidelines of a follow-up meeting in the Norwegian town of Tromsoe on a 1973 polar bear conservation agreement.
Signed by the five Arctic states that have polar bears — Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Russia and the United States — the pact bans the hunt except in rare cases.
Article 3 of the agreement stipulates that “any contracting party may allow the taking of polar bears when such taking is carried out … by local people using traditional methods in the exercise of their traditional rights.”
Indigenous people consider the practice essential to their survival even though the bear accounts for only a small part of their diet and despite the fact that the species is under threat from climate change.
In Canada, which is home to two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, part of the hunting quotas go to sports hunting by wealthy tourists.
“Subsistence is not just about nutrition. It is also about economic subsistence for the community,” said Virginia Poter, the director general of the Canadian Wildlife Service.
A 10-day hunting expedition with a guide can bring in up to 30,000 Canadian dollars (24,400 US dollars, 18,000 euros) to the local population, or 1.87 million Canadian dollars annually.
“And the meat and fat usually remain in the country,” she said.
The situation in Alaska is very different, where sports hunting is not allowed.
“There’s no money involved, it’s all about sharing,” said Taqulik Hepa, an Inuit from Barrow in northern Alaska.
“When a polar bear is harvested, an announcement is made in the community and people come to the hunter’s house to share the meat. It goes in no time,” she said.
Each year, some 700 bears are killed in Canada, Greenland and Alaska out of a total population of 20,000 to 25,000 — a level that scientists generally deem sustainable.
But a bone of contention is how the quotas are divvied up between different polar bear populations.
In the winter of 2004, authorities in the Canadian territory of Nunavut sharply increased quotas in Baffin Bay located between Canada and Greenland, from 64 to 105 animals.
The decision was based on Inuit accounts of increasingly frequent bear sightings.
“Raising quotas was a mistake,” said Canadian polar bear expert Ian Stirling.
“People reported seeing more polar bears and the interpretation was that there were more polar bears. But the truth is that it was probably linked to the melting of sea ice, which forced bears onto land,” he told AFP.
Added to the Greenland Inuits’ taking of about 100 bears from the same population, the Nunavut decision has endangered the survival of the species in the area, according to scientists who said a sustainable quota to be shared by the two countries was 93.
“The population I’m most concerned about is the one in Baffin Bay,” Stirling said

I will also look for some information on where polar bears are increasing which allow for an increase in the harvesting quota.

I have not been able to find info on increases in polar bear hunting quotas beyond the 2005 increase for Nunavut of 115 bears and a September 2010 proposal of a 6 bear increase in Nunatsiavut, which appears to be a proposal that has not been approved.
January 2005 harvesting quota increase of 115 bears in Nunavat.
Hunters win hike in polar bear quota
Published online 4 April 2005 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news050404-2
“In January, the total quota for hunters in Nunavut was raised from 403 bears to 518. Permission to kill more bears was granted following both requests from indigenous Inuit hunters, who said that they had observed more bears in the region this year, and advice from local wildlife organizations.
Polar bears, besides seals and walrus, are a major source of meat, fat and skin for Eskimos, who live in small enclaves in coastal areas of Canada, Greenland, Alaska, and northeastern Siberia. Numerous polar bears are also killed for sport by hunters, mainly from the United States, who pay up to US$28,000 for a hunting permit.
But scientists say that the decision violates the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. This was signed by Canada, Denmark, Norway, the United States and the Soviet Union, as it then was, to protect polar-bear populations and their habitats from excessive hunting. The agreement aims to ensure sustainable, science-based management of the mammals, and requires consultation between signatory parties before quotas can be changed.
“The observed increase in local density alone does not justify a higher quota,” says Øystein Wiig, a mammalogist at the University of Oslo’s Zoological Museum, and an expert on polar bears with the World Conservation Union. “The amount of harvest could be much higher than the populations in the Baffin Bay can actually take.
Bear necessities
Of the Arctic region’s estimated 25,000 polar bears, around half live in northern Canada. Worldwide, roughly 1,000 animals are killed each year by hunters. The species is not yet classified as endangered, but scientists are concerned that environmental changes may pose an increasing threat to the mammals.
Norwegian researchers revealed in 2003 that bears that roam large distances accumulate relatively high levels of industrial pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls, known as PCBs, in their bodies1.
Canadian officials dismiss this view. Mitch Taylor, the Nunavut government’s chief polar-bear biologist, says that scientific studies were certainly considered before increasing the quota. And officials in Nunavut claim that traditional Inuit knowledge about population size deserves more trust than it has had in the past. ”
Moreover, there is growing concern about habitat losses associated with global warming. The rise in the world’s temperatures is particularly pronounced at high latitudes, and the resulting ice melt threatens to leave many bears homeless. To survive, animals are forced into smaller areas, and increasingly stay on land during summer. This is the most likely explanation for the observed concentration of bears in the Nunavut region, Wiig believes.
He adds that he is not challenging the Inuit’s right to hunt polar bears. “There is nothing wrong with hunting as long as their harvest is sustainable,” he says.
References
1. Haave M., et al. Environment Health Perspectives, 111. 431 – 436 (2003
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050404/full/news050404-2.html
Optimizing Polar Bear Hunting and Fees in Nunavut
Posted on September 28, 2005 by Brian Carnell
The Canadian territory of Nunavut occupies almost 1/5th of that country but is home to only about 30,000 people — and quite a few polar bears. The territory is occupied largely by Inuit who have long hunted polar bear, and is also home to a multi-million dollar industry in selling polar bear hunting permits to foreigners.
But how the annual polar bear quota is managed and how to best optimize the money earned from the hunt are topics that came to the fore this summer.
In July, the Polar Bear Specialist Group warned that as the Arctic appears to be shrinking from the increase in global temperatures, polar bear habitat is likely to decline as well which could put population pressures on the polar bear. It warned that by 2055, the polar bear population worldwide could decline by up to 30 percent.
Scott Schliebe, a researcher with the Polar Bear Specialist Group, told the CBC News,
We’re seeing some fairly significant reductions in the actual area that pack ice occupies in the Arctic, and we’re seeing some thinning in the thickness of the ice.
Schliebe and his fellow researchers issued their warning after Nunavut announced it was going to increase polar bear quotas for 2005. Again, Schliebe told the CBC News that his group believes Nunavut has overestimated the number of polar bears, adding that,
We would like those levels to be adjusted to the current population abundance estimate, 950 animals, and we would like the adjustment to be calculated as sustainable over time,
Nunavut announced in January that it was increasing the 2005 quote by 28 percent, saying that the population of polar bears is on the increase. But if the CBC is to be believed, its method of determining the polar bear population leaves a lot to be desired,
Nunavut’s environment minister, Olayuk Akesuk, says government officials decided to increase the quota after consulting with Inuit elders and hunters about how much the bear population has increased.
He said the government is open to making more decisions like this on the basis of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, or traditional knowledge.
“We will respect more the say of the community and we want to see more of Inuit knowledge and western science included into one,” he said.
Especially given the potential profit from polar bears, such increases should be based on sound scientific estimates of the number of polar bears, not hunters opinion about the status of the bear population.
When it comes to profiting off of the bear hunt, however, an economic study of the bear hunt suggests that Nunavut is not maximizing the money it could make off the hunt. In a study funded by Nunavat and the Safari Club, Dr. George Wenzel of McGill University found that of the $2.9 million hunters spend on the polar bear hunt, only half of that ends up in the pockets of the Inuit.
One of Wenzel’s major findings was that the Inuit may be underpricing polar bear tags. Currently it only charges $30,000 to $35,000, depending on the specific locale, to hunt a polar bear. Wenzel noted that in contrast U.S. hunters pay up to $400,0000 to hunt bighorn sheep in Alberta. As Wenzel told Nunatsiaq News,
If you can sell a sheep for that much, I’m sure you could sell a polar bear for more money than is coming in.
Currently, only about 50 polar bear hunt tags are sold to outside hunters. The rest are used by traditional Inuit hunters. Wenzel estimated that if Nunavut sold all its polar bear tags to outsiders, it could increase its income from the hunt to $14 million annually even if it stuck with the current $30,000 to $35,000 price.
http://www.animalrights.net/2005/optimizing-polar-bear-hunting-and-fees-in-nunavut/
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Nunatsiavut Hunters Calling for Higher Polar Bear Quota
[Note: I was not able to confirm if the quota increase has been approved.]
The possibility of increasing Nunatsiavut’s polar bear quota was up for discussion during a meeting of three Inuit regions.
Representatives from Nunavik, Nunavut and Nunatsiavut came together to discuss the Davis Strait polar bear population.
Jamie Snook is the Executive Director for the Torngat Secretariat.
He says 11 representatives from Labrador attended the first ever Davis Strait Polar Bear Interjurisdictional Meeting.
The attendees included local hunters, government representatives and members of the Torngat Wildlife and Plant Co-management Board.
[The following is info on this organization that was not in the original article – The Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board is a public body made up of seven members, including the chairperson. Members are appointed as follows: three members by the Nunatsiavut Government; two members by the provincial minister; one member by the federal minister. The chairperson is nominated by the other members and appointed by the provincial minister.
The Board has the power to establish, when necessary, total allowable harvests for all species of wildlife other than migratory birds and caribou, and for plants. This power is subject to ministerial disallowance. The board may also recommend the total allowable harvests for caribou and migratory birds to the relevant minister.
The board may recommend conservation and management measures for wildlife, plants and habitat, and provide advice and recommendations to the federal, provincial, and Nunatsiavut governments on all other matters related to the management of wildlife and plants in the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area.]
They met in Kuujuaq, Nunavik, last week.
Snook says they discussed the current state of the Davis Strait polar bear population and management of the polar bear hunt.
The Davis Strait polar bear population is the highest and most densely populated of any other.
They discussed the science behind the population and shared traditional knowledge on polar bears.
Safety concerns about the high number of polar bears were also discussed.
A resolution was passed during the meeting to increase Nunatsiavut’s polar bear quota by six bears.
The proposed increase would bring Nunatsiavut’s quota to a total of 12 polar bears.
The resolution was supported by all three Inuit regions involved.
Snook says that the participants will now bring the recommendations to their respective governments in hopes of increasing the quota.
He adds that the meeting was a huge success and they hope that it is something that will happen again in the future.
http://610ckok.blogspot.com/2010/09/nunatsiavut-hunters-calling-for-higher.html
From wikipedia:
Russia
The Soviet Union banned all harvest of polar bears in 1956, however poaching continued and is believed to pose a serious threat to the polar bear population.[24] In recent years, polar bears have approached coastal villages in Chukotka more frequently due to the shrinking of the sea ice, endangering humans and raising concerns that illegal hunting would become even more prevalent.[97] In 2007, the Russian government made subsistence hunting legal for Chukotka natives only, a move supported by Russia’s most prominent bear researchers and the World Wide Fund for Nature as a means to curb poaching.[97]
Greenland
In Greenland, restrictions for the species were first introduced in 1994 and expanded by executive order in 2005.[24] Until 2005, Greenland placed no limit on hunting by indigenous people. It imposed a limit of 150 for 2006. It also allowed recreational hunting for the first time.[98] Other provisions included year-round protection of cubs and mothers, restrictions on weapons used, and various administrative requirements to catalogue kills.[24]
Canada and the United States
About 500 bears are killed per year by humans across Canada,[99] a rate believed by scientists to be unsustainable for some areas, notably Baffin Bay.[23] Canada has allowed sport hunters accompanied by local guides and dog-sled teams since 1970,[100] but the practice was not common until the 1980s.[101] The guiding of sport hunters provides meaningful employment and an important source of income for native communities in which economic opportunities are few.[26] Sport hunting can bring CDN$20,000 to $35,000 per bear into northern communities, which until recently has been mostly from American hunters.[102]
On 15 May 2008, the U.S. listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and banned all importing of polar bear trophies. Importing products made from polar bears had been prohibited from 1972 to 1994 under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and restricted between 1994 and 2008. Under those restrictions, permits from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service were required to import sport-hunted polar bear trophies taken in hunting expeditions in Canada. The permit process required that the bear be taken from an area with quotas based on sound management principles.[103] Since 1994, more than 800 sport-hunted polar bear trophies have been imported into the U.S.[104]
Ironically, because of the way polar bear hunting quotas are managed in Canada, attempts to discourage sport hunting would actually increase the number of bears killed in the short term.[26] Canada allocates a certain number of permits each year to sport and subsistence hunting, and those that are not used for sport hunting are re-allocated to Native subsistence hunting. Whereas Native communities kill all the polar bears they are permitted to take each year, only half of sport hunters with permits actually manage to kill a polar bear. If a sport hunter does not kill a polar bear before his or her permit expires, the permit cannot be transferred to another hunter.[26]
The territory of Nunavut accounts for 80% of Canadian kills.[99] In 2005, the government of Nunavut increased the quota from 400 to 518 bears,[105] despite protests from some scientific groups.[106] In two areas where harvest levels have been increased based on increased sightings, science-based studies have indicated declining populations, and a third area is considered data-deficient.[107] While most of that quota is hunted by the indigenous Inuit people, a growing share is sold to recreational hunters. (0.8% in the 1970s, 7.1% in the 1980s, and 14.6% in the 1990s)[101] Nunavut polar bear biologist, Mitchell Taylor, who was formerly responsible for polar bear conservation in the territory, insists that bear numbers are being sustained under current hunting limits.[108] The Government of the Northwest Territories maintain their own quota of 72–103 bears within the Inuvialuit communities of which some are set aside for sports hunters.
In 2010, the 2005 increase was partially reversed. Government of Nunavut officials announced that the polar bear quota for the Baffin Bay region would be gradually reduced from 105 per year to 65 by the year 2013.[109] Environment Canada also banned the export from Canada of fur, claws, skulls and other products from polar bears harvested in Baffin Bay as of January 1, 2010.[109]
Sources:
99. ^ a b Lunn, N. J.; et al. (June 2005). “Polar Bear Management in Canada 2001–2004”. In Compiled and edited by Jon Aars (PDF). Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. 32. Polar Bears, Nicholas J. Lunn and Andrew E. Derocher. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. pp. 101–116. ISBN 2-8317-0959-8. http://pbsg.npolar.no/docs/PBSG14proc.pdf. Retrieved 15 September 2007.
100. Freeman, M.M.R.; Wenzel, G.W. (March 2006). “The nature and significance of polar bear conservation hunting in the Canadian Arctic”. Arctic 59 (1): pp. 21–30. ISSN 0004-0843.
101. a b Wenzel, George W. (September 2004). “3rd NRF Open Meeting” (PDF). http://www.nrf.is/Open%20Meetings/Yellowknife_2004/Wenzel.pdf. Retrieved 3 December 2007.
102. “Nunavut hunters can kill more polar bears this year”. CBC News. 10 January 2005. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/01/10/polar-bear-hunt050110.html. Retrieved 15 September 2007.
103. “Bear Facts: Harvesting/Hunting”. Polar Bears International. http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/hunting/. Retrieved 14 March 2008.
104. The Humane Society of the United States “Support the Polar Bear Protection Act”
105. CBC News, 10 January 2005, “Nunavut hunters can kill more polar bears this year”
106. CBC News, 4 July 2005, “Rethink polar bear hunt quotas, scientists tell Nunavut hunters”
107. a b c d e f Stirling, Ian; Derocher, Andrew E. (Fall 2007). “Melting Under Pressure: The Real Scoop on Climate Warming and Polar Bears” (PDF). The Wildlife Professional (Lawrence, Kansas: The Wildlife Society) 1 (3): pp. 24–27, 43. http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/andrew_derocher/uploads/abstracts/Stirling_Derocher_Wildlife_Professional_PB_climate_2007.pdf. Retrieved 17 November 2007.
108. a b Taylor, Mitchell K. (6 April 2006) (PDF). Review of CBD Petition. Letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/200701_taylor.pdf. Retrieved 8 September 2007.
109. a b George, Jane (April 2010). “Nunavut hunters still enraged over bear quotas”. http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/8976_nunavut_hunters_still_enraged_over_bear_quotas/. Retrieved 4 April 2010.