From the Daily Globe and Mail in Canada:
Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers
The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.
The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.
…
I located the survey done by the Government of Nunavut, here:
http://env.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/foxe_basin_polar_bears_2012.pdf
It seems sound in methodology. Some excerpts from it are posted below.
Summary
Polar bear population assessment in North America has historically relied on physical mark-recapture. These studies are logistically and financially intensive, and while widely accepted in the scientific community, local Inuit have voiced opposition to wildlife handling. To better reflect Inuit values and provide a rapid tool for monitoring polar bear population size, we developed and implemented an aerial survey in the Foxe Basin subpopulation (FB) during late summer, 2009 and 2010. FB, a seasonally ice-free subpopulation, spans some 1.1 million km2 in Nunavut. Polar bears concentrate along the coast during late summer, so we delineated survey zones based on proximity to the coastline.
We used coastal contour transects, inland transects oriented perpendicular to the coast, and total counts on a sample of small islands and ice floes. We focused effort in the high-density coastal region and designed protocols to enable simultaneous collection of double-observer and distance sampling data from a helicopter. We flew >300 hours and 40,000 km during each year’s survey and observed 816 and 1,003 individuals in 2009 and 2010, respectively. In both years, we observed high numbers of bears on islands in northern Foxe Basin and on Southampton Island, neighboring islands and near Lyon Inlet.
Encounter rates were highest near the coast, although bears were observed >40 km inland. The shape of the detection function differed substantially between years, likely attributable to observer experience and variable sighting conditions. However, our abundance estimates were highly consistent between years and survey methods, (~2,580 bears (95% CI: about 2,100 – 3,200), and were comparable to an estimate from the early 1990s. Our results suggest that Nunavut’s management regime has enabled polar bear abundance in FB to remain relatively stable.
Whereas mark−recapture data provide direct estimates of population growth, aerial survey data yield information population on trend only via a time series of population estimates; accordingly, reliance on such data may require more conservative harvest management. The FB aerial surveys provide a framework for future studies during the ice-free season. Ongoing analysis will evaluate the distribution of bears in Foxe Basin and assess alternatives for long-term monitoring.
Figure 2. Transects flown during the Foxe Basin polar bear subpopulation aerial survey, August to October, 2010.
…
Results
We completed the FB aerial surveys during August – September, 2009 and August – October, 2010. We successfully sampled nearly all planned transects in both years (Figure 2), despite particularly challenging weather conditions in 2010. We observed 816 and 1,003 polar bears, including 616 and 790 independent bears, in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Observed litter sizes were similar between years: in 2009, cub of the year (coy) and yearling / 2-year-old litter sizes averaged 1.57 (SD: 0.55, n = 75) and 1.55 (SD: 0.54, n = 53); mean litter sizes were 1.53 (SD: 0.57, n = 80) and 1.40 (SD: 0.50, n=65) for coy and yearlings / 2-year-olds, respectively, in 2010.
The distribution of polar bears was generally consistent between years (Figure 3). High concentrations of bears were observed in central Foxe Basin near Lyon Inlet and on Southampton Island and neighboring Coats, Vansittart, and White Islands and in northern Foxe Basin on Rowley, Koch, Prince Charles, and the Spicer Islands. Relatively few bears were spotted along Hudson Strait and in the Bowman Bay region of western Baffin Island, and sightings were rare near communities. Bears were most frequently observed along coastal contour transects, in the nearshore inland stratum and on large and small islands, but sightings were documented across all strata (Figure 3).
…
Total Abundance
Despite different analytical techniques and detection functions, the four preliminary abundance estimates were remarkably consistent (Table 2). Model averaging yielded a preliminary overall abundance estimate of about 2,580 bears in the Foxe Basin subpopulation, with a 95% lognormal confidence interval of 2,093 to 3,180 (CV: 10.7%).
Survey done by the Government of Nunavut, here:
http://env.gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/foxe_basin_polar_bears_2012.pdf
It seems like a superior methodology to say, seeing three drowned polar bears at sea after a storm and then extrapolating that to the entire population like one now discredited and disgraced researcher did. Of course, honest science like what was done in this survey doesn’t make headlines or wailing and gnashing of teeth by NGO’s and Al Gore, and even Science magazine who much prefer to stick to the view of a declining Ursus Bogus population:
==============================================================
Back to the Globe and Mail article:
…
The study shows that “the bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management. “There is no doom and gloom.”
Mr. Gissing added that the government isn’t dismissing concerns about climate change, but he said Nunavut wants to base bear-management practices on current information “and not predictions about what might happen.”
…
The debate over the polar-bear population has been raging for years, frequently pitting scientists against Inuit. In 2004, Environment Canada researchers concluded that the numbers in the region had dropped by 22 per cent since 1984, to 935. They also estimated that by 2011, the population would decrease to about 610. That sparked worldwide concern about the future of the bears and prompted the Canadian and American governments to introduce legislation to protect them.
But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears. Mr. Gissing said that encouraged the government to conduct the recent study, which involved 8,000 kilometres of aerial surveying last August along the coast and offshore islands.
===================================================================
What I found most interesting is the clear message that polar bears are thriving in an environment where sea ice (NSIDC includes Hudson Bay as sea ice) seasonally disappears entirely.
Note in the Cryosphere Today comparison image above, Hudson Bay is completely ice free around the time of Arctic maximum melt ~ Sept 30.
It seems the Polar bears can adapt to non-existent sea ice and do just fine.
Of course this isn’t news, as I’ve previously reported: Polar Bears Survived the Ice Free Arctic
So when you see claims like this one from the National Resources Defense Council…
Scientists predict that Arctic summers could be ice-free by the middle of this century-without sea ice, polar bears cannot survive.
Or this one from Polar Bears International
Asked by CNSNews.com about the IUCN body’s findings regarding populations remaining stable, Buchanan pointed out the group’s acknowledgment of insufficient data in some of the 19 sub-populations. He concluded that “without ice polar bears can’t survive.”
…we can pull out Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s handy button that he provided for the IPCC SREx report and apply it to polar bears and sea ice, citing the survey done by the Government of Nunavut.
They want to “base management practices on current information and not predictions about what might happen”.
I propose a constitutional ammendment that requires the government to do just that!
“In conclusion and moving back to conversations with young people, I always agree with them in the end that the Polar bear situation is terrible but what I’m really thinking is terrible, is just how successful propaganda can be.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/polar-bears-going-extinct-yawn/
Pointman
Here’s an interesting article about the polar bear fur trade. Looks like the Inuit hunters/guides are harvesting about 500 bears a year. A good pelt can go for over $10,000 at auction:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/02/16/were-shooting-polar-bears/
“But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears.”
But what would people on the ground know about local ‘anything’? Like temperature, snow, bears, rain, tree frogs…?
I am astonished that the Globe and Mail printed this. It has become a vessel of unreadable diatribes against climate realism with the demi-god Suzuki as their database-in-residence. I had no doubt that they would soon start a campaign against Inuit kayaks as being so inherently unstable they are therefore impossible to use as a mode of maratime conveyance – a computer model of the craft having proven this in numerous simulations. No doubt an engineer fell over trying to paddle one during an empirical test.
Polar bears are at risk wherever there are people because they are ruddy dangerous, the bears, that is.
Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe
Special agents from the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office are questioning the two government scientists about the paper they wrote on drowned polar bears, suggesting mistakes were made in the math and as to how the bears actually died, and the department is eyeing another study currently underway on bear populations.
Biologist Charles Monnett, the lead scientist on the paper, was placed on administrative leave July 18. Fellow biologist Jeffrey Gleason, who also contributed to the study, is being questioned, but has not been suspended.
Investigators are also examining Monnet’s procurement of one of those research studies on polar bears conducted by Canada’s University of Alberta, as well as the “disclosure of personal relationships and preparation of the scope of work,” according to a July 29 memo from the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office.
In particular, investigators are asking questions about the peer review work on Monnett’s drowned polar bear paper, which was done by his wife, Lisa Rotterman,….
as well as Andrew Derocher,…..
the lead researcher on the Canadian study under review by the inspector general’s office.
[Moderator’s Note: Latitude, this is old news and not entirely accurate. Dr. Monnet’s suspension involved potential conflict-of-interest issues in his administration of grants. He has since returned to work but without grant supervision or administration. The full scope of the inquiry and any possible further action have apparently not been revealed. Commenters are asked to NOT post misleading or partial information that may be detrimental to a person’s reputation. -REP]
Remember the Caribou story?
“They believe the insidious impact of climate change, its tipping of natural balances and disruption of feeding habits, is decimating a species that has long numbered in the millions and supported human life in Earth’s most inhuman climate.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/caribou-supposedly-roasted-by-global-warming-found-unharmed/
Ursus maritimus, the maritime bear, capable of swimming over 600kms in nine days; the Arctic apex predator, in fact the largest land carnivore anywhere; the females can fast for eight months or more and still be fit enough to hunt. Ursus maritimus is the ultimate adaptor. It can swim prodigious distances; it can run 25kph when necessary. It doesn’t depend on the strangulation bite to subdue its prey which Panthera leo does. No, the bear simply crushes the skull of its prey with one bite. It hunts walrus which are twice its size and has been known to catch and kill adult narwhales.
It interbreeds successfully with the brown bear, it is known to hunt land mammals.
It is the ultimate survivor. It will not disappear for many centuries to come, no matter what the climate in which it lives.
You may find this amusing. The greenpeace eco religion priest employed by the Globe and Mail, Martin Mittelstaedt, wrote this heap of lies in December 2005.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article925628.ece
6 and 1/2 years later a government study, the subject of this posting by Anthony Watts, says the complete opposite.
These two articles from the same news paper is evidence that The Globe and Mail was involved in deliberate propaganda to mislead the public. Mittlelstaedt still writes for the G&M but mostly on finance matters. Just google “Martin Mittelstaedt polar bear” and a huge listing of his lies are there for you to judge for yourself.
This guy was supposed to be a reporter… with ethics…. He knows nothing of ethics… he simply lied, ignored contrasting opinion and advanced his religion of Greenpeace on the rest of the public.
The facts are out… he’s a liar. He should be fired.
I’m just waitng for Richard Black of the BBC to cover the story in a news bulletin. He must be so anxious to let the world know the true facts about Polar Bears. And he must be so very excited that the Polar Bear population is growing and that they are not likely to go extinct after all. Maybe he’s doing a special programme on the subject in order to reinforce the news to the world that ‘ ‘it’s not as bad as we thought it was.’. How elated he must feel at the wonderful findings of this research group, and how anxious he must be to tell everyone that ‘the warmists were wrong’ and we want to tell you the truth. I wonder when we will see his story, after all the BBC have a reputation for putting out un-biased truths, ….don’t they?.
[Moderator’s Note: Latitude, this is old news and not entirely accurate. Dr. Monnet’s suspension
=====================================
From the article linked in this post:
The study’s conclusions drew concern from Andrew Derocher………………….“This is a clear indication that this population is not sustaining itself in any way, shape, or form.”
From the article about drowned polar bears:
Special agents from the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office are questioning the two government scientists about the paper they wrote on drowned polar bears,
In particular, investigators are asking questions ………………….
as well as Andrew Derocher,…..
the lead researcher on the Canadian study under review by the inspector general’s office.
…………….The article posted quoted Andrew Derocher …… he has a history
[REPLY: Comparing quotes is fair game. Outdated speculation that the investigation was focusing on the drowned-bear report when in fact it was not, and suggesting that Dr. Monnet was still under suspension, when he is not, is out of line. WUWT will not be party to defamation. Please exercise discretion. -REP]
Anthony Watts Wrote:
“What I found most interesting is the clear message that polar bears are thriving in an environment where sea ice (NSIDC includes Hudson Bay as sea ice) seasonally disappears entirely.”
————-
The Food Habits of Polar Bears of
James Bay and Southwest Hudson Bay
in Summer and Autumn
RICHARD H. RUSSELL1
ABSTRACT. A study of summer and autumn food habits of polar bears (Ursus
maritirnus Phipps) on some islands of James Bay and the coastal mainland of
southwest Hudson Bay was conducted in 1968 and 1969. Analyses were made of 233 scats collected from islands in James Bay and 212 scats gathered on the southwest coast of Hudson Bay. Birds, primarily Anatidae, were the most commonly used summer and autumn food of bears in James Bay. Marine algae and grasses were the foods most often eaten by bears on the mainland. The diet of the bears from James Bay probably provides a better preparation for winter than the diet of those from the mainland, but evidence suggests that bears in both regions are generally in good physical condition.
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic28-2-117.pdf
————-
“But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong.”
Do the Inuit have a particular word for researchers not being able to count Polar Bears, or are there several?
sorry didn’t mean to give you the false impression that it had anything to do with Monnet at all……the only thing I was pointing out was that the article linked quoted Andrew Derocher as poo pooing the results…..and that Andrew Derocher was the LEAD researcher in the paper on drowned polar bears…the paper that caused such a stink
[REPLY: Thank you for the clarification. -REP]
Or floes, even.
_________
This study is just another in the accumulating mound of evidence that any and every claim of the warmists can be counted on to be approximately 100% wrong. Try using that as a guideline; you’ll like it!
Dear Moderator REP
This seems to be new information related to what Latitude posted 0 just out today.
“Update: Polar bear-gate investigation goes interagency
Greenwire reports:
An investigation into a wildlife biologist at the Interior Department has evolved into a multiagency probe of his research for a 2006 paper that galvanized the global warming movement, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Interior’s inspector general office began its investigation of Charles Monnett two years ago. Officials first said the probe was related to his role in a sole-source contract for a current polar bear study, but investigators have repeatedly focused their questions on Monnett’s famous 2006 paper that linked the death of polar bears to melting ice caps.
In October, two IG agents interviewed Jeffrey Gleason, an avian biologist and Interior employee who co-authored that paper. In a tense conversation — revealed in the transcript PEER released today — agents Eric May and John Meskel questioned the validity of the database Gleason and Monnett used to conclude an uptick in polar bear deaths in open water.
Now investigators are turning their sights on the current operator of that database: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In an email sent in January, and provided by PEER, May asks to interview the employee in NOAA’s National Marine Mammal Lab who oversees the surveys recorded in the database…”
http://junkscience.com/2012/04/05/update-polar-bear-gate-investigation-goes-interagency/
Greenwire reports it today as:
“INTERIOR:
IG turns to NOAA in probe of biologist’s 2006 polar bear paper”
http://www.eenews.net/gw/
[REPLY: Kimmie, you are very good. I was in fact searching for an update like that earlier today before answering latitude. Keep in mind that PEER, the source of Steve Milloy’s article, is an activist organization working to make the investigation look like a witch hunt. Corroborating information from a more official or neutral source would be good. If you locate additional information, post it here or in Tips and Notes if this thread becomes “stale”. So far, however, the report is simply that there seems to be an on-going investigation of something but no one is actually being accused of anything. Yet… -REP]
The inclusion of the photo of the bear on the ice floe may be tongue in cheek. I believe I may recognize it from one revealed to have been photoshopped.
In any case, I would expect a bear that size, on an ice shard that small to make some ripples in the water. Just a small weight shift would move the flow enough to cause a disturbance in the water, unlike what shows in that particular photo.
So, at this point, I guess we can expect the Alarmista’s to go and change the name from Polar Bear Extinction to Polar Bear Disruption.
Cannot wait until “environmentalists” are declared an endangered species.
Pull out Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s handy bullshit button and let’s hear it for the Polar Bear. The Polar Bear has just eaten another canary in the cage.
Anyone who has seen a Polar Bear Close up knows that they are the ultimate survivor and a huge terrifying predato not a cute and cuddly Green Peace Icon. It will not disappear for many, many centuries yet no matter what the climate in which it lives is up to, it will just adapt to it.
Let’s see you swim 700km. in nine days, then kill and eat a walrus.
There you go….. It’s amazing what you find when you actually go outside and look….;-)
This is all very interesting but I still hate bears. I would like to kill every one I see. There is nothing good about bears.
Honest data beats the doom mongers and fantasy climate models every day.
In one TV program – maybe one by the alarmist David Attenborough – it was noted that during the winter polar bears often go hungry. It’s only when the summer comes, and the ice breaks up, that they eat well. It’s obvious why. If the Arctic is completely covered by ice the bears will starve, because most likely the only source of food for them or their prey comes from open water. The bears probably won’t put on much weight by eating ice. In other words, they actually need areas of open water to survive.
.
If you and your friend are being attacked by a polar bear, you don’t need to outrun the bear. You just need to outrun your friend.
Chris
I would love to see a polar bear close up. Preferably from over Al Gore’s shoulder.
The best methamphetamines comes from South East Asia , and all polar bears are secretly meth heads, hence the statement, polar bears can’t live without SEA-ICE. /droll off
Dear Moderator REP
Thanks!! 🙂
I found nothing more at the OIG [ Office of Inspector General ] pages. http://www.justice.gov/oig/new.htm They [ OIG ] probably wouldn’t be saying much, as it being an on-going investigation, though?
I will ask if I can e-mail Mr Eric May at OIG.