This interesting article shows the information and perception gap between scientists that do helicopter surveys of polar bears and the native people who co-exist in their presence.
Excerpts:
In a news release issued after its conference last July, the PBSG concluded that only one of 19 total polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. Data was insufficient to determine numbers for the remaining seven subpopulations. The group estimated that the total number of polar bears is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000. (Estimates of the population during the 1950s and 1960s, before harvest quotas were enacted, range from 5,000 to 10,000.)
…
Not so fast. According to a U.S. Senate and Public Works Committee report, the “alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. Those predictions are being “challenged by scientists and forecasting experts,” said the report.
Those challenges, supported by facts on the ground, including observations from Inuit hunters in the region, haven’t stopped climate fear-mongers at the U.S. Geological Survey from proclaiming that future sea ice conditions “will result in the loss of approximately two-thirds of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century.”
…
Harry Flaherty, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the capital of Iqaluit, says the polar bear population in the region, along the Davis Strait, has doubled during the past 10 years. He questions the official figures, which are based to a large extent on helicopter surveys.
“Scientists do a quick study one to two weeks in a helicopter, and don’t see all the polar bears. We’re getting totally different stories [about the bear numbers] on a daily basis from hunters and harvesters on the ground,” he says.
…
The growing population has become “a real problem,” especially over the last 10 years, he says. During the summer and fall, families enjoying outdoor activities must be on the look-out for bears. Many locals invite along other hunters for protection.
Last year, in Pelly Bay, all the bears that were captured were caught in town, Nirlungayuk says. “You now have polar bears coming into towns, getting into cabins, breaking property and just creating havoc for people up here,” he says.
…
Flaherty and many others disagree with the official story. “We are aware there are changes in the weather, but it is not affecting the daily life of the animals,” he says. “Polar bears hunt in the floe-edge areas, on newly formed ice, and in the fiords in search of baby seals. They don’t hunt in the glaciers [areas of multi-year ice].
“We’re not seeing negative effects on the polar bear population from so-called climate change and receding ice,” he says. He is convinced that some scientists are deliberately “using the polar bear issue to scare people” about global warming, a view widely shared by many Nunavut locals.
…
Read the entire article here, it is quite enlightening
2010 Polar Bear numbers…according to…:
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html
Have any of the biologists out there considered the possibility that the bears have reached carrying capacity? Large animals need a lot of calories, animals in cold weather need more calories than in warm 2-3 times. Now in the Arctic there is distinct limitation in food resources for both the bears and the seals they feed on.
@Martin Brumby
MANY thanks for that SPPI link. As I read through all these comments and especially the ones that name dropped “polar bear experts” I was racking my brain trying to remember the name of Mitchell Taylor – a REAL polar bear expert. In fact, he is so much of an expert that I believe the IPCC polar bear working group kicked him out because he refused to support their story line. Taylor has been studying polar bears LONG before it became fashionable. Everyone should read that PDF file.
Jeez. This is a tuff crowd.
Rhys Jaggar @853: they are not simply “the projections of computer modelers” – they are empirical data that are synthesized via equations to estimate population trends. Not magic. Not mere models. Nothing to be afraid of. And these scientists get up close and personal with these beasts all the time.
GP Hanner @910: True. There are recently evolved from brown bears and bears as a group are adaptable, but polar bears are the most specialized bear and as marine mammals they need sea ice. Moreover, the transition took tens of thousands of years. They are not going to magically evolve into forest or tundra dwellers in a few decades.
Gail Combs @921 and others: I have heard of some bears being afraid of copters, but I never witnessed that. In fact, they usually don’t budge when a plane, helicopter truck or massive tundra buggy comes near. But you probably know that if you really drove a tundra buggy.
Latitude @922: jeez Latitude, that myth has been debunked for years. Is that the best you can do!
Matthew W @935: Point of agreement – the WWF/Coke formula for protection is silly.
The Expulsive @954: Perhaps, but this would not mean the populations are increasing since the bear live AT SEA (on sea ice) far from where bush pilots fly. If they are being seen on land, that is a bad sign. Did you read my post?
Peter Miller @1002: These are not “climate scientist” they are wildlife biologists. They don’t need to keep their jobs – they have tenure at universities. The data are not manipulated. etc. Are you one of those nutters that thinks NASA faked the moon landings?
Smokey @1005: Fair point regarding the anecdote – not science. But they can be informative (although misleading at times).
BioBob @1006: The two species can successfully interbreed but they are morphologically and ecologically very different. Which is why you don’t see brown bears hunting for seals on the ice pack. Your argument is based on a very narrow definition of what a “species” is – that is far too complex a discussion to get into here.
ferd berple @1010: Ferd, agreed. I’d never be able to spot a bear. But the scientists that work on them sure can. They are the world’s best bear hunters and trackers. They just don’t kill them when they catch them.
hstad @1030: no, no and no.
WHOA NELLIE!!! ANOTHER ADJUST THE PREVIOUS DATA DEAL???????
Looking at the charts in the 2 links I just posted, one from 2005, the latter from 2010, both from the same source…and populations from the SAME studies on one chart differ from the other chart, AND show a decline where there was none in the first report!!!
Just 2 examples are the Barents Sea and S. Beaufort Sea populations. Is this just ME???
Michael Bergeron @ur momisugly 11:27 am
Good question. Don’t know the answer. I wouldn’t be surprised if the northern populations, some of which appear to be stable, are.
For the declining populations, their carrying capacity (K) is likely declining as their access to prey (hunting habitat) declines. Note this isn’t because the prey populations are declining, but instead because the platform from which they hunt is.
Attenborough (The Man himself) plays with polar bears…… geesh so many people were suckered in during the Frozen Planet series……. you don’t sit next to a polar bear for a photo opportunity!!!! http://www.zoenature.org/2011/12/amazing-polar-bear-scene-staged/
Shame really, until I realised what a poisonous little man he really is underneath the scientific vernier, I actually enjoyed a lot of his work. I find that watching it with the sound off is the only way to go these days. I did try to watch his latest piece … but no, sound off as soon as he opened his “Club of Rome” mouth. Sound off – enjoy the photography. Proof, if any were needed, that age doesn’t improve a corked wine.
Rather than counting hungry polar bears from helicopters wouldn’t it be easier to count the number of humans being eaten by bears.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1102347/Chilling-game-hide-seek-hungry-polar-bear.html
In past 30 years USA – 1 Canada – 8. Russia – 19. ?
Very simple, very cheap and hardly any ongoing research funds required. If the above figures can be ratified by the IPCC looks like the Russian bear populations have no problems but there seems to some trouble in Alaska – too many guns?
ThePowerofX says:
December 17, 2011 at 9:24 am
“You now have polar bears coming into towns, getting into cabins”
And then…
“We are aware there are changes in the weather, but it is not affecting the daily life of the animals”
Perhaps the bears wish to go shopping, or something.
___________________________________
Two causes:
1. Polar bears have increased to the point where they are out pacing their food supply.
2. Humans are not hunting them so they are no longer wary of humans.
And lastly once a bear figures out it is easier to eat at the dump then go hunting they are going to train their youngsters to dump dip instead of hunt. This is asking for a major problem down the road.
If Coyotes are not hunted they get bold enough to snatch your child from under your nose. This story is about a friend of my brother-in-law. He reported it in the family newspaper. It is reprinted here:
Even a deer can do major damage to a human. …Donald Dube, 55, died of multiple internal injuries, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Sgt. Marc Violette said Wednesday. The victim had been trampled by an eight-point buck and stabbed with its antlers….
I really do not like the attitude toward wildlife I have seen developing over the last forty years. The “Bambi syndrome” can lead to severe injury of a human and the death of the animal, a real lose-lose situation that is being promoted by WWF and Green Peace painting animals as cute and cuddly.
Toronto singer, Taylor Mitchell, a 19-year-old, was attacked and killed. One of these days it will be a very well known person or their child who is mauled/killed and public opinion will turn.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/717207–toronto-singer-killed-by-coyotes?bn=1
This Fall the live tundra buggy and lodge base webcams in Churchill showed plenty of bears and temps cold enough to form sea ice at an earlier date than previous years. The ‘bears are going extinct, along with the melted Arctic disappearing’ theme seemed to be a primary position of many of the hosts and visitors. The positive trends in the AO and NAO and extreme cold, along with so many bears seemed to counter dire opinions. The webcams didn’t broadcast for as many days as had been stated-several days less. The sea ice formed and kept forming and so bears left Churchill and headed out onto Hudson Bay. All the bears and cubs I saw looked to be in good shape and very active. My observations from my comfortable office chair aren’t exactly scientific proof of anything, but at this point the Arctic doesn’t appear to have a fever and I wouldn’t want to be lost wandering around up there.
http://explore.org/
John F Bruno says:
December 17, 2011 at 11:46 am
Latitude @922: jeez Latitude, that myth has been debunked for years. Is that the best you can do!
=======================================================
You dimwit, I quoted the article
John F Bruno, thanks for your original post, which I found to be generous, civil, respectful, informative, and challenging in a good way. And thanks for hanging with the “tough crowd” (a fair observation in this instance, I think) rather than just taking your toys and going home. Regrettably, some of my fellow skeptics (not unlike their extremist opponents) leap to the conclusion that any science that might seem to support the “other side” is automatically tainted, and its messengers disingenuous and therefore fair targets. In this I think they do a disservice to the spirit of our esteemed host, as well as to real science. I come here to learn, and your posts, along with the more respectful and informed responses to them, have furthered my goal. Thanks again.
John F Bruno says:
December 17, 2011 at 9:46 am
You are another data point in a hypothesis of mine….
Latitude, that is my point exactly. This early population “estimate” was at best a WAG (Wild Ass Guess) not based on data. We now know it to be false. Just like we know the earth wasn’t created in 7 days. Get with the program!
John F Bruno says:
December 17, 2011 at 11:46 am
Jeez. This is a tuff crowd.
======================================
It usually is……….. Before we start going on about how these bear counters are real scientists and not like climatologists, I would remind the readers of the floating dead bears study…….. done by……. animal counters. There are a couple of good articles archived here…… it gives us some pretty good insight towards their methods and scientific rigor.
John F Bruno says:
December 17, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Latitude, that is my point exactly.
==============================
You made you’re point….either you can’t read and comprehend….or you didn’t even read the article you were replying to…….
…Otherwise, you wouldn’t have addressed that to me…you would have addressed it to the article.
You chose to look like a pompous dimwit…………………..
John F Bruno
December 17, 2011 at 9:46 am
###
You are not the only one with a background in ecology who comments on this blog. Though I have focused primarily on freshwater desert ecosystems, I have a strong interest in carnivores. My knowledge has been gained by self study, field research ( one does not need a PhD in order to do meaningful research!), and experimentation. I tried to get a degree, but the insistent Marxist indoctrination that permeates those fields drove me away. I have Aspergers Syndrome (yes diagnosed) and I can’t keep my mouth shut. As far as I can tell, most wildlife biologists are lefties. The higher up they are the more left leaning they are. You talk of Inuit having an agenda, but it seems that the biologists also have an agenda. They can’t help it, they see everything through a Marxist world view, so all of their science is through a Marxist world view.
But I have noticed this tendency is not universal. Because of my interest, I read a lot of papers and publications. I have always been surprised by the quality of science done by the bear specialists. The IUCN Bear Specialist Group in particular has impressed me, enough so, that I almost decided to try to go back to school and get a degree. On the other hand, the Polar Bear Specialist Group seems to exist primarily to provide ammunition to Marxists in their war against freedom.
The problem of Polar Bears invading towns is not new. I first read about it 20 years ago. The problem is not that the bears are starving, but that the towns provide an easy meal. The towns started to manage their trash better, so the bears stopped being so disruptive by hanging around town all year long. Now we hear stories of the decline in the South Hudson Bay population. It has little to do with global warming, but with the bears moving on because they can no longer rely on a free handout.
I dare say those environmentalists bent over computer models and comfortably ensconced in air-conditioned southern high-rises would also have difficulty finding Greenland and Manitoba on a map. ;->
John F Bruno says:
December 17, 2011 at 11:46 am
Jeez. This is a tuff crowd.
Rhys Jaggar @853: they are not simply “the projections of computer modelers” – they are empirical data that are synthesized via equations to estimate population trends. Not magic. Not mere models. Nothing to be afraid of. And these scientists get up close and personal with these beasts all the time…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is a computer model and subject to the same
Garbage In = Garbage Out
I did not have to read more than the first paragraph from Dr. Taylor to spot one of the Garbage Ins of your “Not a Computer Model”
So change the years for one generation from 12 to 15 and you completely change the conclusions from your “Not Computer Model” it would seem.
Yes John F Bruno, I think they are a very tough crowd!
I’m getting just a wee whiff of the same sort of hubris that you can get from those who overplay the global warming thing.
I don’t believe that the scientists are silly dupes (well not all of them, there are exceptions). I can go with the idea that bear numbers may be in decline partly because of environmental factors.
However, firstly, that says nothing at all about the causes of the environmental factors (i.e. it is not an argument for (nor against) AGW); secondly, it is clear that other ( i.e. non environmental, albeit human) factors are very important in affecting bear populations.
Getting ‘hot’ and bothered about ‘changing the climate’ is just fatuous. Might as well try to stop the clouds flying across the sky. But the other thing – deaths caused by human actions, well that seems to be a very sensible subject for intense study..
Gail Combs says:
December 17, 2011 at 12:47 pm
You are another data point in a hypothesis of mine….
Gail, you tease, care to elaborate? I generally find your hypotheses worth considering.
Thanks Don 1247: a reminder for me to keep it civil.
pmchinook @1227: I spent a week on the Tundra and stayed at the Tundra Lodge Nov 14-17. Yes, there were a lot of bears around as you can see in my pictures posted here: https://picasaweb.google.com/110312667684005848760/ChurchillPolarBears. They concentrate along the shore in the fall, waiting for the ocean to freeze. Once it does, they are gone.
“and temps cold enough to form sea ice at an earlier date than previous years” This is simply not true. When I arrived, the temps were barely below freezing and there was little ice on the sea, as you can see in the picture I took off Churchill in mid Nov (I think Nov 16): http://theseamonster.net/wp-content/uploads/ocean.jpg
By the time I left, temps had dropped and there were signs of some coastal freezing, but the ice didn’t firm up for several more weeks. Eg. look at my post here and see how little sea ice there was on Nov 20: http://theseamonster.net/2011/11/still-no-ice-on-hudson-bay/
Also see: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/programs/scientists-and-explorers/wheres-ice
“The sea ice formed and kept forming and so bears left Churchill and headed out onto Hudson Bay” yes, in early/mid-Dec they did.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/programs/scientists-and-explorers/late-return-sea-ice
As Dr. Andrew Derocher states (see quote in link above): “Although it’s good news that the bears are finally hunting, we need to keep in mind that this was a very late freeze-up. In the 1980s, freeze-up typically arrived by the end of the first week of November. Two decades later, that had moved to about November 20th. For the past three years, it has been December. These longer and longer ice free periods are straining this population’s ability to survive.”
John Bruno,
Martin Brumby’s link above shows there is no verifiable connection between sea ice and bear numbers. That is only a baseless assumption:
“In the 1980s, freeze-up typically arrived by the end of the first week of November…….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I guess that was inevitable…… Can anyone make the case that that time period wasn’t marked by exceptional and excessive ice and early freezing? I don’t think it is proper to make comparisons to outlier periods.