Does the end ever justify the means?
Some activists concerned about global warming, and who want the rest of the world to be as concerned as they are, recognise people care about polar bears and want to exploit them as a ‘victim’ of climate change. But if I was a polar bear I reckon I’d rather be appreciated for my true nature.
Here’s an example of polar bear as victim in an article by Clifford Krauss in the New York Times :
“People care about polar bears — they’re iconic,” noted Kassie Siegel, a lawyer at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The reality of the threat to polar bears is helping to get the word out,” she said, about the effects of climate change.
Her group, along with Greenpeace and the Natural Resources Defense Council, filed a petition with the United States government to list the polar bear as threatened as a way to push the American authorities to control greenhouse gas emissions, like carbon dioxide from cars.
The message has alarmed American polar bear hunters, who could be barred from bringing their trophies home from Canada, the only country from which they can legally do so. It has also run up against unbending opposition from local communities of Inuit, also known as Eskimos, and the Nunavut territorial government, which has expanded sport hunting in recent years.”
So Kassie Siegel is just an activist lawyer; making martyrs of everyone and everything is what activists do? But what about when scientists go along with the deal? What about when dubious claims are made by scientists to justify listing polar bears as a threatened species because of global warming?
The recent listing by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) includes the following paragraph:
“There is little doubt that polar bears will have a lesser AOO [area of occupancy], EOO [extent of occupancy] and habitat quality in the future. However, no direct relation exists between these measures and the abundance of polar bears. While some have speculated that polar bears might become extinct within 100 years from now, which would indicate a population decrease of >50% in 45 years based on a precautionary approach due to data uncertainty. A more realistic evaluation of the risk involved in the assessment makes it fair to suspect population reduction of >30%.”
The reference to “Area of occupancy” and “extent of occurrence” by the scientists is presumably just long hand for saying “the area of sea ice has reduced”.
So there is no direct relationship between measures of “area of occupancy” and “extent of occurrence” and polar bear abundance.
This paragraph (and a following paragraph that makes reference to shipping and oil exploration) was then summarized as follows to justify the listing which made headlines all over the world:
“The assessment is based on a suspected population reduction of >30% within three generations (45 years) due to decline in area of occupancy (AOO), extent of occurrence (EOO) and habitat quality.
Does it all seem very logical and scientific?
If we look at sea ice extent and area, well it has declined over recent decades, or at least since 1978, and was apparently at a 20 year minimum in 2002 (Serreze et al. 2003, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 30, No. 3). Yet polar bear numbers might have increased over this same time period?
Why doesn’t the IUCN provide any data on actual numbers of polar bears?
I understand that not so many decades ago polar bear populations had been significantly reduced by hunters? In the article by Clifford Krauss in the New York Times it is suggested that the global population, now estimated at 20,000 bears, was just 5,000 only 40 years ago.
Then in the 1970s, Canada, Denmark, Norway, the United States and the Soviet Union all agreed to restrict hunting and perhaps as a consequence population numbers have increased.
Would numbers be even higher if there was more sea ice? Who knows? Do we want more polar bears?
If over the last 40 years population numbers have increased, while sea ice extent and area has decreased, then it would seem there is a correlation between global warming and polar bear numbers that runs counter to the argument present by the IUCN scientists?
But, someone is about to tell me, the IUCN argument is all about the future and an assumed inability of polar bears to adapt to climate change?
But, as Jane George explains in an article title ‘Global warming won’t hurt polar bears’ in the Nunatiaq News, polar bears are intelligent, quick to adapt to new circumstances and warmer temperatures could even increase food sources.
The bottomline is that while polar bears have more than sea ice to contend with, they are by nature resourceful and to quote from the display at Sea World, a theme park at Queensland’s Gold Coast, “polar bears are [probably] capable of flourishing in the wild under climatic conditions which are most un-Arctic”.
Indeed there are polar bears successfully living and breeding in zoos in Arizona, Singapore and just an hour’s drive from me at Sea World. The polar bears at the subtropical Gold Coast have their swimming pool cooled to just 15 degrees and their favourite food is apparently watermelon.
Suggesting global warming is a significant threat to polar bears is really telling lies about polar bears and misrepresenting their true nature. This continual rewrite of how things are on the basis we should worry more about global warming, is as sad as it is insidious. That’s not to say we shouldn’t care about global warming, but that we shouldn’t tell lies about polar bears! should tell it as it is.
—————–
Changes were made (words crossed out, words added are underlined) at the request of Peter Corkeron. The blog post is intended to draw attention to the difference between the available data and IUCN statement justifying the listing of polar bears as a species threatened with extinction. It is not a personal criticism of particular IUCN scientists.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Polar bears eat seals, which breed on ice floes. The seals need the floes, the bears need the seals.
Animals ‘successfully living and breeding in zoos’ are not necessarily an accurate indicator of how animals out in their natural environment cope with living conditions, and visa versa. Do you think the graphics and education department at Sea World would have written that polar bears are only found in chilly arctic conditions when behind the exhibit you can glimpse palm fronds?
Foxes and wolves also eat seals, are they also dependent on ice floats. Are seals completely dependent on ice floats? How important are ice floats in the scheme of things? How important are seals to polar bears in the scheme of things? Animals adapt.
“The fact that global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate system has been identified. Climate has always varied on all timescales, so the observed change may be natural. A more detailed analysis is required to provide evidence of a human impact.”
International Panel on Climate Change 2001 Report
I found this recently on the Internet and it came as quite a surprise as so many AGW proponents cite the IPCC report as supporting AGW.
Imagine the impact this would have on public perception if all news reports highlighting AGW as a threat included the above as a cautionary note or disclaimer.
I suspect Jen that those who wish to promote the supposed fate of the poor old polar bear do believe that the ends justify the means and any method of grabbing public attention is justifiable given the cause.
I just wish someone could explain to me the reason for the zeal to prove that AGW is a real phenomenon?
The polar bear illustration is a classic example of “fitting” evidence to support a concluison.
Why is that?
With the same, or similar number of seals, breeding on a diminished ice flow, surely, it is the seals that are in for a hiding.
With a more compact hunting ground, I would think the bears will have a bonanza. Of course, a population explosion of bears is likely ultimately, to lead to reduced prey numbers, & future problems.
Sounds a bit like us, realy.
Hi Jennifer,
Seals are hardly a staple diet for wolves, however arctic foxes live on the ice -floes and eat left-overs from seals by they eat other small mammals and birds as well.
Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts, they are being forced into long journeys across open sea to find seals.
Although polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves.
The seals give birth to seal pups on the ice floes – shrinking ice floes – no seal pups, they drown
Are ring seals incapable of giving birth to pups on the permanent ice, are they more prone to predation on the premanent ice?
Also, correction to my first comment to Travis, not all animal species adapt, some animal species are likely to go extinct given small changes to their habitat (unlike polar bears).
I have worked with some species of insect (when I worked as an entomologist) that were very fussy in terms of what they ate and would show no initative when it came to mate location or anything else, when I tried to breed them in cages in the laboratory or glasshouse situation.
There are some people like that, but I suspect the average polar bear has much initative and I suspect polar bears would fairly quickly change their ‘search behaviour’ with any change in the distribution of ice floats.
Hi Jennifer,
Arctic Ringed seal’s reproductive behaviour varies between regions, however ringed seals generally remain on drifting pack ice or shorefast ice to rest, pup and molt.
Here’s a good link between the interrelationship between polar bears , ringed seals and the climate:
http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/polarbears/polarbearweek2003/bearsandseals.shtml
Lots of seal colonies in Australia, no ice. Maybe the seal colonies could adapt?
Is it seriously being suggested that the Arctic will become ice free this century?
Suggest move the bears to the Antarctic. NASA studies show the ice cap there has been increasing for 30 years. See SATELLITES SHOW OVERALL INCREASES IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE COVER at http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html
Bad idea Malcolm. There are emperor penguin colonies at the Antarctic that should never have to fear a polar bear, http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001349.html . The polar bears can make do with the ice and seals they have at the Arctic.
You seem to be using this to kick scientists and those “concerned about global warming”.
When I closely read the New York Times article, the impression I get is that environmentalists, who are concerned about many “traditional” issues about the polar bear, eg:
“Poaching is threatening populations in Russia. Pollution is causing deformities and reproductive failures in Norway.” And later:
“‘The bears are getting smaller, their reproduction is getting less effective, and I have heard about data that show their survival is in decline’, said Marco Festa-Bianchet, a biology professor at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec …”
are using the issue of global warming to further their agenda – not the other way around. I am sure these activists are in line with you in that they would like polar bears to be appreciated for their true nature and global warming is just a way for them to achieve this end
As for the scientists saying: “no direct relationship”: what does that mean? I would think that zero habitat equals zero polar bears and that’s pretty direct. Being more charitable, I would suggest that they mean “no linear relationship” or they are not precluding an indirect relationship via concerns such as those I have quoted above. I forgive them for the sloppy wording they use: by the way I think it is ice “floes” not “floats”, “flows” etc.
Hi Paul Williams,
The ‘seals’ in Australia are fur seals and sea lions, who are capable of running and climbing on land due to different hind flipper anatomy. They swim with their front flippers. Phocids (or true seals) which are what the Arctic polar bears eat, swim with their hind flippers and move around like caterpillars on ice/land. Ringed, ribbon, bearded seals, etc are adapted to living in the Arctic, eating various prey items and dealing with certain temperature regimes. NZ fur seals, Australian fur seals, Australian sea lions are adapted to living in temperate climates like…Australia and NZ. Thank you Jennifer or retracting your previous statement about animals adapting. I’m sure the tropical high altitude frogs which are rapidly diminishing will applaude you.
Yes I think the seals in arctic = seals in australia equation wont stand up, much as the bears in arctic = bears in australia.
I cant see a polar bear happily sitting up a gum tree munching on gum leaves and being cuddled by tourists. A koala in the arctic could spend a long time looking for a tree suitable to climb up.
Polar bears are quite incredible creatures and are perfectly adapted to their environment.
Thanks Travis. Gee, different species of seal in different countries, who’d of thunk it? However, there are several species of seal that are adapted to coastal living, presumably they’d move north to exploit the new habitat niche and provide food for the bears. So why the focus on the bears, when the seals are apparently more at risk?
“Polar bears are quite incredible creatures and are perfectly adapted to their environment”
Like hen’s parties?
Ian K, Do you think the end justifies the means? Do you think the IUCN scientists were honest? I reckon they are caught up in ‘environmentalism’ and that they are doing the wrong thing by polar bears in the long run.
Seals breed on ice flows?
Oh, humans breed on beds.
Then 12 eggs make a dozen,
And 12 cannon balls also make a dozen.
and for some cannon balls = eggs.
Jennifer, a friend of mine is the head of the IUCN Polar Bear group. The sum of your posts, culminating in ‘Do you think the IUCN scientists were honest?’ is insinuating dishonesty on the part of the people responsible for the red listing. And in saying this: ‘Suggesting global warming is a significant threat to polar bears is really telling lies about polar bears and misrepresenting their true nature. This continual rewrite of how things are on the basis we should worry more about global warming, is as sad as it is insidious. That’s not to say we shouldn’t care about global warming, but that we shouldn’t tell lies about polar bears!’ you appear to be suggesting that these scientists have been lying.
You should know that this is a very serious accusation to make of professional scientists, and unless you’ve got something based on sound scientific principles to back your statement, you’d better consider whether you’d like to see it stand. I can’t let a friend’s integrity be impugned, so I have to chime in here. Feel free to correct your post if you’re not meaning to imply that the members of the Polar Bear Specialist group have acted dishonestly.
An initial aside: AOO & EOO are technical terms with specific meanings. You can read about them on the Red List website.
On ‘Why doesn’t the IUCN provide any data on actual numbers of polar bears? ‘. IUCN Specialist Groups can only work with the data available. Scientists from all range states are members of the group. They can only work with numbers that have been collected. The problem’s discussed in the 2002 (I think) report by the specialist group. I don’t think the Russians have good estimates of abundance, and I know that the Norwegian Polar Institute are currently estimating polar bear numbers around Svalbard.
Where good, long term population trends of bears are available for a population that appeared to have rebounded from hunting (western Hudson Bay, also the southernmost population and perhaps the most likely to show climate-related effects), the link between changes in sea ice, ringed seal condition and reproductive success, and polar bear condition and reproductive success are pretty well established.
As I recall, Ian Stirling (who you quoted in a post a couple of days ago) gave a plenary talk on this at the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s conference in 2003. Most of this story has appeared in the refereed literature over the past decade or so.
The species information for the red listing is available at: http://www.redlist.org/search/details.php?species=22823&tab=summ
If you really think that the Polar Bear Specialist group have become ‘caught up in ‘environmentalism’ and that they are doing the wrong thing by polar bears in the long run’, why not fill in the feedback form on the red list site’s web page? Detail your problems with the science of their assessment. I’m sure you can come up with something a far more scientifically defensible that this blog post, can’t you?
This might involve a trip to a University library for you, but here’s one for starters: they’re ice floes, not ice floats.
Jim,
Your IPCC quote comes from here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/045.htm
near the bottom. It is just a classic cherry picked quote, removing contet to misrepresent its meaning. Kind of like if I said “at first I thought I killed him, then he got up and walked away” and you quote me as “I killed him”.
You should reexamine all information that you got from the source that tricked you this way, they are out to deceive.
That comes from climatescience.org.nz doesn’t it? Kind of makes you wonder about their integrity…
Sorry Coby – I can’t see the “trick” at all?
Is it from the IPCC report or not?
The following and preceding paragraphs are consistent with the quote I’ve attributed and the sentiment is pretty clear.
Why hasn’t that excerpt received more attention?
You’ve mentioned previously that the IPCC report raises uncertainties ; if this isn’t an example can you show me a better one?
I am trying to get a better handle on all of this and reading a lot more widely but I’m finding little willingness ( as you’ve just demonstrated)to make any concessions of uncertainty at all – even when the IPCC is obviously prepared to do so.
I’m finding plenty of blind disparagement of opposing views and those who hold them but not much real debate unfortunately.
the ultimate polar bear site:
http://pbsg.npolar.no/
“This is the official website for the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission”
population statistics:
http://pbsg.npolar.no/pop-maps.htm
Jim,
The part of the page from which that quote was cherry picked is a fairly classic essay construction. Present the problem, describe what is done to solve it, present the conclusion. Quoting only the presentation of the problem as if it represents the conclusion is a deliberate deception.
The passage can be read in its entirety by following this link: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/045.htm but it goes like this:
Para 1 –
Para 2 – “Identifying human-induced climate change requires two steps.”
Para 3 – “Having detected a climatic change, the most likely cause of that change has to be established. This is the attribution problem.”….”the SAR found that “there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record”. Since the SAR new results have become available which tend to support this conclusion. The present status of the detection of climate change and attribution of its causes is assessed in Chapter 12.”
My pointing all this out is hardly evidence of an unwillingness to acknowledge uncertainties.
Peter, You provide excuses, but no defence.
The bottomline is that your friend/s appear to have used their position as scientists to push politics and they are misleading people about polar bears. The impression is that polar bear numbers are falling and will fall further because of global warming, but the available data would suggest other factors are likely to be as, or more important including quotas for hunting. They also ignore the reality of evolution and the last about 125,000 years of polar bear evolution.
If your mate wants to do a guest blog post, he is most welcome.
…….
And I’ll watch my spelling, thanks.
Petre Corkeron, you must be living in la la land, if you believe scientists speak only truth.
Since our Dept of Agriculture became part of the Dept of Environment, I have been dealing with many of them.
My experience is that the members of the “scientific industry” lie, at least as much as the members of any industry. You can include the asbestos & tobacco industries in there.
In fact, I think they may lead the field, when they think they can get away with it. It was only when they learned that I too, have a BSc, that the bullshit stopped.
In fact I find your post quite offensive, in its arrogance.
Get over it Hasbeen. There was nothing in Peter Corkeron’s response that implied he was suggesting scientists only speak the truth. As for BScs, they are a dime a dozen in this country. Speaking of offensive, the whole constant slagging off of scientists, environmentalists and anyone else that doesn’t hold dear the opinions of Jennifer and her loyal band of followers is getting beyond a joke. There is absolutely no respect for people’s work, and a constant flow of very poorly researched arguments that are retread over and over again. Jennifer’s insistence that these scientists are using their position to push their own propaganda is highly offensive. She is almost suggesting that she knows more about polar bears and their evolution that these researchers do. Perhaps she should write about something she actually knows about as a researcher, such as insects. It’s not as if they are untouched by environmental issues, but I guess they are just not as sexy as polar bears and whales and wouldn’t attract as much interest.
People have different opinions, and will always have different opinions, and there are always 2 or more sides to every story if you want to look for them. However, learn to do your own research into the various aspects of each argument, and see if you can go beyond your own preconceived ideals and actually change your mind when presented with sound scientific evidence that challenges your tiny world. And learn some respect.
Jennifer,
I don’t have a strong opinion about polar bears or much knowledge of their lifestyles so can not offer detailed corrections to your arguments. It is true that their plight has been seized apon by GW mitigation advocates because they have more “sex appeal” than your average krill. But you have not even come close to making a case that they are not endangered by the loss of sea ice, your advice that they should learn to browse watermelons aside.
“They also ignore the reality of evolution and the last about 125,000 years of polar bear evolution.”
AFAIK, there has been persistent sea ice in the arctic for the last million years or so at least, so this hardly makes your point.
If you want to appeal to the more general idea that animals are always evolving then you are missing the key point that the hardship posed by the current global warming is its rapidity. Evolution is a slow process in general and geological history is full of examples where more creatures die out than adapt when the change is abrupt enough.
Jennifer, you chose to attack the personal integrity of the members of the IUCN’s Polar Bear Specialist Group who were responsible for the red listing. You could have said that you disagree with the way in which these people interpreted the available data, or even that their interpretation was loony. That would be fair enough. Then people could decide if they’d like to take your opinion, or those of the Polar Bear Specialist Group.
But you didn’t take this approach, and you’re not retracting that you’re insinuating that the members of the IUCN’s Polar Bear Specialist Group who were responsible for the red listing are dishonest and liars. Were you to retract those insinuations, my tone would change. If you don’t retract them, perhaps you’d like to provide some evidence to back your attack on their personal integrity. You chose to go down this route. I think it’s called put up or shut up.
I’m intrigued to see the evidence that Oystein Wiig has turned into a greenie. By the way, he had a small piece in Science (2005, 309:1814) on the hunt issue (and no, he’s not a mate of mine).
Hasbeen, I live in scientistland, and I didn’t say that I believe scientists speak only truth, so the rest of your minor diatribe is irrelevant.
Peter,
They’ve made claims in the listing that are pure speculation. They have made a nonsense interpretation and used fancy language and their positions to dress it up as science. It’s becoming so common that most people don’t blink anymore.
I will, however, change the words in the above post that you find so offensive. In my view you are being pedantic and tribal, and my reference in the last line was not particularly or exclusively to your IUCN mates.
Thanks for the changes Jennifer. I’ll take pedantic and tribal from you as a compliment.
Jennifer – I find this whole post a bit misleading. This in particular is just wrong
“indeed there are polar bears successfully living and breeding in zoos in Arizona, Singapore and just an hour’s drive from me at Sea World. The polar bears at the subtropical Gold Coast have their swimming pool cooled to just 15 degrees and their favourite food is apparently watermelon.”
Bears in captivity cannot be compared to wild populations. How do you think they would go if the humans left????
There a number of problems facing polar bears. Their adaption to climate change is made harder by humans killing them and/or depleting fish stocks which deplete their prey. Additionally the recent warming is very rapid which may give them very little time to adapt. Polar bears are very difficult to count accurately. Emperical observations that there are plenty of bears here do not cut it.
http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0012-9658&volume=081&issue=03&page=0761
This study concludes:
“During spring and summer, Archipelago bears used landfast ice more intensively, whereas Baffin bears used moving ice, defined as thick first-year ice found in large floes. Both ice types likely represent areas where most seal pupping occurred in spring for each region. Bears from both regions selected first-year ice in winter when new ice was forming and multiyear ice in autumn when maximum ice melt had occurred. Overall, polar bear selection of ice habitat was similar between regions despite major differences in seasonal ice characteristics. Polar bear density may not directly relate to prey density, due to the limited ability of bears to track the extreme seasonal fluctuations in ice extent found in more productive environments.”
They can adapt however how many habitats are open to them?
This is worth reading:
Beaufort polar bear populations have recovered from overharvesting and are continuing to fluctuate in relation to decadal-scale environmental factors, it has been 15
years since the last population studies of polar bears were conducted in the Canadian Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf. Further, the data upon which the current estimates are based were compromised by uneven sampling, which in turn affected the confidence intervals (Amstrup et al., 2001a). Users and managers agree that within the next few
years, before further management strategies are initiated, both the Northern and Southern Beaufort polar bear populations should be re-assessed simultaneously, and that fieldwork should be coordinated with Alaska. A related problem is that, to date, the delineation of polar bear populations for management purposes has been
based primarily on mark-recapture data and the movements of adult females (e.g., Bethke et al., 1996; Amstrup et al., 2000; Taylor et al., 2001). There are no comparable data on the seasonal movements of adult males because
their necks are too large in relation to their heads to retain radio collars. Although preliminary analyses of mark recapture
data suggest the distances moved by males and
females are similar (e.g., Stirling et al., 1984, 1988; Amstrup et al., 2001b), this hypothesis needs to be tested more rigorously because if the movements of males over large areas were substantially different from those of females, it
might influence the applicability of the assumption of equal vulnerability to capture inherent in models for analysis of mark-recapture data.
Monitoring the Effects of Changes in Climate and Other Environmental Factors
Beginning in 1989, there was a major shift in the Arctic Oscillation Index, a subsequent shift toward less anticyclonic wind forcing over the Arctic Ocean, and a record minimum ice extent (Macdonald et al., 1999). The change in the wind field means that the ice situated to the north of
the Canadian Arctic Archipelago no longer enters the Beaufort Gyre to flow south along the west coast of Banks Island into the southern Beaufort Sea. Instead, most of the multi-year ice now flows northeast and exits the polar basin through Fram Strait. More open pack and less multiyear
ice in the southern Beaufort Sea both lead to greater melting and thinning of the annual ice, resulting in more open water since 1989 (C. Parkinson, quoted pers. comm. in Macdonald et al., 1999). In addition, mean air temperatures
in April, May, and June in the eastern Beaufort Sea have increased steadily over the last 40 – 50 years (Skinner et al., 1998: Fig. 2) and, as a result of the change in direction of the wind field and shallower keels below the pressure ridges in the annual ice along the mainland coast
during winter, fresh water from rivers and from sea ice melt extends farther north into the Beaufort Sea than was the case in earlier decades (Macdonald et al., 1999).
Finally, Melling (1998) has shown that between 1989 and 1996, the upper halocline in the Canada Basin has warmed 0.15°C, an amount sufficient to account for the melting of 0.7 m of sea ice.
How, or whether, these recent regional-scale changes in ecological conditions have affected the reproduction and survival of young ringed seals and polar bears through the 1990s is not clear. In part, this is because fewer widespread and comprehensive data have been collected from independent studies of both seals and bears over the last decade than was the case in the 1970s and 1980s. Curiously, the productivity of ringed seals in Amundsen Gulf in the early 1990s (as measured by the proportion of young-of-the-year in the open water harvest) appeared to be low, even though
ovulation rates were high (Fig. 5; Harwood et al., 2000).
Similarly, the natality rate of polar bears sampled in the most northerly portion of the area in 1992 – 94 was at an intermediate level in the range that tends to prevail in the study area (Fig. 5). Whether or not there could be a relationship between the reproductive data on the bears and seals is uncertain. However, the average ages of harvested polar bears remained lower than in years when heavy ice prevailed, suggesting that, so far at least, reproduction and
survival of younger bears are probably still strong.
While direct effects of climatic warming on polar bears or seals have not yet been confirmed in the Beaufort Sea area, warmer temperatures in western Hudson Bay from April through June (Skinner et al., 1998) have been shown to cause breakup to be earlier and the bears to come ashore in poorer condition and with lower natality rates (Stirling
et al., 1999). Stirling and Derocher (1993) also reported anecdotal observations of unseasonably warm weather and rain in late winter or early spring that were capable of causing maternity dens of female polar bears to collapse and kill the occupants (Clarkson and Irish, 1991) and
washing away the roofs of the subnivean birth lairs of ringed seals, leaving the occupants vulnerable to both inclement weather and unusually high levels of predation. More recently, Smith and Harwood (2000) reported additional
mortality of ringed seal pups in some areas of
eastern Amundsen Gulf as a result of an unusually early breakup in spring 1999. While the risks of such weather POLAR BEARS AND SEALS • 73
events to polar bears and seals are potentially serious, there are few data available to date with which to quantify or project their importance.
The most important alternative prey species for the polar bear in the Beaufort Sea is the bearded seal, although quantitative data on its consumption by bears are limited.
Polar bears have also been recorded killing walruses,
belugas, and several other species (see summary in Stirling and Øritsland, 1995), although not in the Beaufort Sea.
Stirling and Derocher (1993) predicted that warmer winters in western Hudson Bay would result in more open water during winter and, if so, that numbers of bearded and spotted seals (Phoca largha) might increase and become more important in the diet of polar bears. Data gained through monitoring the Inuit harvest of seals at Arviat, Nunavut, indicate this may be happening in western Hudson
Bay. (Stirling, unpubl. data). Thus, it seems possible that if open water becomes more extensive in the southern Beaufort Sea in the coming years, numbers of bearded seals may increase, and spotted seals (already known to occur in very small numbers) may also increase. How shifts in the
distribution of these or other species in the eastern Beaufort Sea might influence polar bear numbers is unknown, but in the short term, at least, the potential benefits to smaller
bears of scavenging on the carcasses of larger prey species might be significant. Similarly, it is possible that, in the short term, more open water might enhance primary productivity.
However, in a recent re-evaluation of the data in
the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Wigley and Raper (2001) conclude that in the absence of climate-mitigation policies, there is a 90% probability that between 1990 and 2100 the
world’s climate will warm between 1.7° and 4.9°C. That amount of climatic warming is enormous and, if unabated will have large-scale effects on the climate, ice, and biota of the Beaufort Sea. Consequently, it is of immediate and significant scientific importance to re-establish baseline
parameters for polar bears and their prey species that will permit us to evaluate change and develop appropriate responses for conservation and management of marine mammals in the Beaufort Sea.”
We need more research not people bagging scientists that are working in the field and saying that polar bears might become extinct to get some more money for the research.
Who needs polar bears? We do.
Quote from
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic55-S-59.pdf
Jen,
if animals tend to be as adapatable and fancy free as you suggest, then why did the:
Desert Rat-kangaroo
Pig-footed Bandicoot
White-footed Rabbit-rat
Central Hare-wallaby
Eastern Hare-wallaby
Lesser Stick-nest Rat
Toolache Wallaby
Lesser Bilby
Short-tailed Hopping-mouse
Long-tailed Hopping-mouse
Big-eared Hopping-mouse
Darling Downs Hopping-mouse
Lord Howe Long-eared Bat
Crescent Nail-tail Wallaby
Desert Bandicoot
Broad-faced Potoroo
Gould’s Mouse
Christmas Island Rat
all succumb to extinction within 100 or so years of European colonisation of Australia?
If Polar Bears- like black rats, feral pigeons and cockroaches- are able to adjust to sudden human induced change then why aren’t we seeing signs of this now? When can we expect to hear stories of Polar Bears turning up at Texas dude ranches? Some evidence would be appreciated.
The point with polar bears is there is no sign of a population decline, rather the opposite over the last 40 years. The IUCN listing of Vulnerable appears to be based solely on the probability of a severe reduction in Arctic ice over the next 45 years, caused by global warming.
As far as I can see by looking at the web site the listing is based on speculation about what MIGHT happen, with a side order of alarmism about pollution, overhunting, lack of regulation and reproductive defects.
No firm statements about actual effects that have been observed, at least they’re not noted in the “comprehensive” document.
It even states there is no direct relationship between AOO, EOO, habitat quality and polar bear abundance!
What we have forgotten to mention here as threats to polar bear populations is that polar bears top the list of most contaminated animal in the Arctic.
Especially flame retardants may be threatening polar bears.
Some scientists also believe that many bear cubs are contaminated by their mother’s milk and die.
Bears in Canada’s western Hudson Bay, the most well-researched population, declined from 1,100 in 1995 to fewer than 950 in 2005.
In Svalbard (Spitzbergen) Norway, the sign on the glass door of the bank is fairly clear : leave your rifles and .44magnum handguns outside!
In Longyearbyen you are adviced to carry a gun , in case of polar bear encounters. People carry guns even in supermarkets!
Where can we find the list of most contaminated Arctic animals Ann, is there a site you could link to? Thanks.
Hi Paul,
I don’t have a list of “the most contamined animals ” in the Arctic, but polar bears and orcas top the list together with seals ans sea birds. Here’s a link:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/headlines/20060120.html
Lots of organisms are ‘contaminated’. Given polar bears mostly live on seal fat I image they are particularly high in organochlorines etcetera. But it is wrong to assume a relationship between the level of organochlorines in your fat and health.
I wrote something about dioxins and dugongs a few years ago in this issue of the IPA review: http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review55-1.pdf .
When I was researching the piece it was suggested that I probably had a higher level of dioxin in my fat tissues than the dead dugongs. When I asked to have the level tested I was told I was too skinny and that they preferred to sample cadavers.
But hey Anne, if you have data linking levels of ‘contamination’ in polar bears or seals with an indicator of ‘health’ or ‘fecundity’ I’d be most interested.
Hey Jennifer,
Have you never heard about the contaminated whale issue?
There are lots of evidence and scientific work on this issue.
On Faroe Island for example children have developed serious neurological sympthoms after eating pilot whale’s blubber and meat.
I’ll post a comment and link soon.
Meanwhile here’s another link on dioxins:
http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/toxics-map/deadly.htm
“Brominated flame retardants in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Alaska, the Canadian Arctic, East Grenland, and Svalbard”, in Environmental Science and Technology, vol 40, no 2 (2006).
“Fireproof killer whales (Orcinus orca): flame-retardant chemicals and the conservation imperative in the charismatic icon of British Columbia, Canada”, in Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science, vol 63 (2006)
“Variation on sea ice cover on the eact coast of Canada from 1969-2002: climate variablility and implications for harp and hooded seals”, in Climate Research, vol 29 (2005).
Look at the State of the Cetacean Environment reports submitted to the IWC (last year’s should still be available on the IWC website). There are summaries of some of the recent papers that have come out on issues such as contaminants, habitat degradation and so on, and they don’t exclusively cover cetaceans.
For example…”Some harbor porpoises in northern Norway, some resident killer whales and all transient killer whales in Alaska and some log-finned pilot whales in the Faeroes display levels of PCBs that have induced immunosupression and reproductive failure in other mammalian species. Reproduction in fish-eating marine mammals such as minke whales, belugas, narwhals, long-finned pilot whales and harbour porpoises may be affected as the result of consuming PCB-contaminated fish. Killer whales consuming contaminated marine mammals may exhibit PCB-related reproductive abnormalities. Contaminant levels (especially PCBs, DDT and dioxin-like substances) in cetacean prey species (fish and molluscs) should be considered and monitored when managing and issueing guidelines to protect marine mammals.” From De Wit et al., (2004) AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic. Monitoring and Assessment Program, Oslo, Norway.
I guess there will be too many “maybes” in there to satisfy you Jennifer.
There are heaps of journals dealing with marine pollution, and the contaminated belugas issue has been around for years. We are simply adding to it with other species and contaminants.
Paul Williams – “The point with polar bears is there is no sign of a population decline, rather the opposite over the last 40 years. The IUCN listing of Vulnerable appears to be based solely on the probability of a severe reduction in Arctic ice over the next 45 years, caused by global warming.”
Well how do you know this? The article points to lack of research and extreme difficulty in counting bears so how can you possibly say the polar bear numbers are increasing?
Thanks Libby,
For example , in Norway the Ministry of Fisheries recommend pregnant women not to consume whale meat due to health concerns.
Regarding dioxins your comment is really a bit odd -haven’t we all seen the picture of Ukraine’s Prime Minister’s face- a face that is completely distorted by dioxin!!!
Back to Faroe Islands, ongoing research for nearly 20 years, shows that tests strongly suggest that a mother’s consumption of mercury – tainted seafoof- whale meat in this case – damages her fetu’s brain as it grows in the womb, impairing her child’s intelligence in subtle ways.
Los Angeles Times – Young sentinels of Peril:
http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs/Sentinels
Hi Jennifer, all,
I think many questions on toxic health effects etc. can be answered through this website on polar bears:
http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/polar_bears_at_risk_report.pdf
Ender
I was basing it on the information on the IUCN document, and Jennifers post.
Red List Category & Criteria VU A3c
A. Reduction in population size based on any of the following:
3. A population size reduction of 30%, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years
or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years), based on (and
specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.
(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat
There is little doubt that polar bears will have a lesser AOO, EOO and habitat quality in the future. However, no direct relation exists between these measures and the abundance of polar bears. (From the Assessment Information of the “comprehensive” document.)
I’d hate to think that Polar Bears were under threat, but this looks more like exploiting an iconic species for political purposes than scientific evidence.
Travis, if it only were just opinion, it would not matter, but when I see peoples lives destroyed by policies based on falty science, I start to see red.
One of these areas is water.
I don’t know if the present bad policy is based on bad science, or the scientists are following an instruction to “find the science to back the bad policy”, but the science is very bad.
I have watched government scientists do a snow job on some very nice, 70+ year old farmers. These blokes left school at 9 ot 10, but they are not dumb. After 6 years on the a water management plan, where they were trying to do the “right” thing, they have just realised that was not the objective.
They & their families are to be sacrificed to help satisfy the insatiably thirst for urban water.
I saw so much of what I thought was bad science, I now realise, was an attempt to justify a desired result.
I have seen the same thing going on with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
For either personal “green” attitudes, or to help promote government policy, we got the most ridicules rubbish, served up as science.
In these 2 areas, where I have some expertise, & have had contact with government scientists, I have found them to be, either incompetent, or dishonest.
Where their advice to government effects the lives of the public, this is not good enough.
If you want my respect, you will have to do a much better job of earning it.
Paul Williams – “I’d hate to think that Polar Bears were under threat, but this looks more like exploiting an iconic species for political purposes than scientific evidence.”
Yes but how did you decide this? How do you know how many bears there are to decide that it was greenies exploiting an iconic species?
Ender, if you read the document explaining the classification of Polar Bears, you will see they have based their decision on FUTURE habitat decline due to global warming. Yet the very same document says there is no relation between such habitat decline and Polar Bear abundance.
I quoted the relevant bits above.
So it looks as if they are using Polar bears to gather support for the dubious (in my opinion) concept of future climate catastrophe.
Paul Williams – “While all bear species have shown adaptability in coping with their surroundings and environment, polar bears are highly specialized for life in the Arctic marine environment. Polar bears exhibit low reproductive rates with long generational spans. These factors make facultative adaptation by polar bears to significantly reduced ice coverage scenarios unlikely. Polar bears did adapt to warmer climate periods of the past. Due to their long generation time and the current greater speed of global warming, it seems unlikely that polar bear will be able to adapt to the current warming trend in the Arctic. If climatic trends continue polar bears may become extirpated from most of their range within 100 years.
There is little doubt that polar bears will have a lesser AOO, EOO and habitat quality in the future. However, no direct relation exists between these measures and the abundance of polar bears. While some have speculated that polar bears might become extinct within 100 years from now, which would indicate a population decrease of >50% in 45 years based on a precautionary approach due to data uncertainty. A more realistic evaluation of the risk involved in the assessment makes it fair to suspect population reduction of >30%.”
This is what it said. They are talking about risk which is the point that is missing here. Loss of habitat gives a greater RISK of loss of species. Just because your house is not broken into does not reduce the risk assessment of your suburb.
It also says that there is great data uncertainty which is true. The population of polar bears may well have decreased in line with sea ice reduction however our lack of data is not showing this. You should have seen in my previous post the difficulties that researchers face in estimating the number of polar bears.
Filing link suggesting periods of open ocean over last 10,000 years where now we are concerned about sea ice breakup: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/07/12/open-arctic-ocean-commentary-by-harvey-nichols-professor-of-biology/