Bad News (Polar) Bears?

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numbers to indicate that the bears do not need some level of protection or that their numbers are increasng, since the historical reference numbers used by the “bears are increasing groups” do not represent a natural state of bear numbers.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.