I am no expert on polar bears. In fact I have never been to the Arctic. But I do have an interest in animal conservation, that scientific findings are reported honestly and accurately, and that the general public is not mislead on environmental issues.
Over the Christmas holidays Australians were repeatedly told through news broadcasts that polar bears are already a species in serious decline, in particular that they are seriously threated by global warming.
Earlier in 2006 I spent some time reading technical reports about the relationship between the decline in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic and polar bear ecology. I was surprised to discover as part of this research that polar bear numbers have actually increased over the last 30 years.
The more I read the more it became apparent that polar bear researchers were down playing this good news and promoting any finding that could be interpreted as a “decline” in any population of polar bears. It was also clear that global warming campaigners were keen to sieze on this information, extrapolate and exaggerate a bit more, and then parade it as evidence for a claimed overall decline in polar bear numbers.
Just last week I posted a piece at this blog stating that despite claims in the popular press and scientific literature to the contrary, polar bear numbers are actually increasing. I wrote that numbers have increased from about 5,000 to 25,000 over the last 30 years.
The piece has generated much discussion at this blog, and I have received many ‘hate emails’. I have been accused of all sorts of things, including showing a complete disregard for the hard work of experts in the field. But interestingly no-one has disputed my principle claim: that polar bear numbers have more than doubled over the last 30 years.
A key criticism appears to be that I have not acknowledged that polar bear numbers have been predicted by experts to decline dramatically in the future.
The reasoning from the most shrill of the self-proclaimed experts has been that because there is a likelihood the situation might deteriorate into the future, we can’t acknowledge the good news now.
I completely reject the notion that any scientist, researcher, campaigner, or self-proclaimed expert has a right to withhold good news on an environmental issue of intense public interest because of what may or may not happen in the future.
————————-
In the next installment/next blog post on this subject (Part 2) I will explain why I am skeptical of the claims that polar bear numbers will decline dramatically over the next 50-100 years.
I am happy to publish guest posts that put an alternative perspective, for example, that provide information supporting the contension that polar bears are a truly threatened species, email to jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If polar bear numbers are increasing, can we encourage more ‘environmental journalists’ to go on walking tours of the Arctic?
What does the last 3 decades tell us about the next 3 decades? By itself, what does increased total numbers tell us? To get an insight into the likely future for PBs we could start by considering:
1. Why have total PB numbers increased? What caused it? Anything we can infer about their habitat? Any emerging threats to PB survival and reproduction?
2. Total numbers aside, what of the condition of the bears? What health indicators and affects should we consider? Reproduction rates? Cub survival rates? Ageing populations? Risks to food sources, habitat, breeding grounds or other emerging pressures? Any observed changes in behaviours eg hunting?
3. Are PBs affected by changes in ice cover & thickness?
Jennifer can you reference the “technical reports about the relationship between the decline in the extent of sea ice in the Arctic and polar bear ecology” that informed your position so we can join you?
Pinxi,
I’ve read some of the key reports and technical papers referenced in the IUCN listing (which you are familiar with), previously referenced/linked to by Luke and others. From your previous posts, I am of the impression we have more-or-less read the same papers.
Those interested will find links to the relevant literature by google searching at this site and more generally.
And your perhaps getting ahead of yourself:
1. Can you acknowledge that polar bear numbers have increased dramatically over the last 30 years?
“A key criticism appears to be that I have not acknowledged that polar bear numbers have been predicted by experts to decline dramatically in the future.” Do you acknowledge this now?
“… that because there is a likelihood the situation might deteriorate into the future, we can’t acknowledge the good news now.”
Does this mean you now acknowledge that PB populations could be facing threats?
Pinxi, you can set the hypothesis, when you send me the guest post with some biographical information about yourself.
In the meantime, I have gone to some trouble this morning to write something, beginning at the beginning. Now can you please acknowledge that polar bear numbers have increased dramatically over the last 30 years? Simple question. Good place to start.
We’ve already established reports that *total* population numbers have increased Jennifer, no need to flog that dead bear.(We have not established whether or not some population numbers, eg those in most affected areas by reduced ice, have actually decreased but why complicate matters at this early stage, eh?)
So taking an increase in TOTAL PB numbers:
1. Why have total PB numbers increased? What caused it? Anything we can infer about their habitat? Any emerging threats to PB survival and reproduction?
Patience Jennifer.
No Pinxi,
Getting ahead of me again.
I would like you to tell me:
1. How much have polar bears numbers increased and over what period and in what places?
I’m not sure that the 5,000 to 25,000 figures I have been using is really accurate. I’ve also seen figures of 7,000 and 10,000 as lowest bear numbers ever.
What is an agreed bottom number and for what years?
How were the bears distributed? How many discrete populations of how many bears?
These are basic questions not yet answered.
If we care about evidence, here is a good place to start.
Are polar bear numbers increasing or are more bears being spotted near inhabited areas due to food shortages?
Title: Possible effects of climate warming on selected populations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic
Author(s): Stirling I (Stirling, Ian), Parkinson CL (Parkinson, Claire L.)
Source: ARCTIC 59 (3): 261-275 SEP 2006
Abstract: Polar bears depend on sea ice for survival. Climate warming in the Arctic has caused significant declines in total cover and thickness of sea ice in the polar basin and progressively earlier breakup in some areas. Inuit hunters in the areas of four polar bear populations in the eastern Canadian Arctic (including Western Hudson Bay) have reported seeing more bears near settlements during the open-water period in recent years. In a fifth ecologically similar population, no changes have yet been reported by Inuit hunters. These observations, interpreted as evidence of increasing population size, have resulted in increases in hunting quotas. However, long-term data on the population size and body condition of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay, as well as population and harvest data from Baffin Bay, make it clear that those two populations at least are more likely to be declining, not increasing. While the ecological details vary in the regions occupied by the five different populations discussed in this paper, analysis of passive-microwave satellite imagery beginning in the late 1970s indicates that the sea ice is breaking up at progressively earlier dates, so that bears must fast for longer periods during the open-water season. Thus, at least part of the explanation for the appearance of more bears near coastal communities and hunting camps is likely that they are searching for alternative food sources in years when their stored body fat depots may be depleted before freeze-up, when they can return to the sea ice to hunt seals again. We hypothesize that, if the climate continues to warm as projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), then polar bears in all five populations discussed in this paper will be increasingly food-stressed, and their numbers are likely to decline eventually, probably significantly so. As these populations decline, problem interactions between bears and humans will likely continue, and possibly increase, as the bears seek alternative food sources. Taken together, the data reported in this paper suggest that a precautionary approach be taken to the harvesting of polar bears and that the potential effects of climate warming be incorporated into planning for the management and conservation of this species throughout the Arctic.
A quick lit. search doesn’t support the hypothesis that bear numbers a currently increasing. It would appear that dramatic increases took place after hunting was stopped, but numbers are now in decline again, and have been for a little while. The ‘good news story’ ceased being so some time ago.
I look forward to part II.
‘hunting stopped’ should be ‘stopped in some areas and regulated in others.’
Sorry I didn’t realise you were directing my journey while I researched for you. I’m trying to say this politely: surely you got the numbers when you read the technical reports and wrote the IPA review article on PBs?
How can I be getting ahead of you when you’ve already concluded that polar bears are not at risk of going extinct soon? Are we starting at square 1 where you admit the possibility that they might be facing extinction or they might not? If you admit no preconceptions about the future of PBs then I will too and perhaps we can start somewhere.
(there seems a fair degree of uncertainty over the figures so for our purposes close enough is good enough. But now Nexus has chucked a spanner in the works).
All seems a bit laboured here when you could go straight to the articles we mentioned in earlier thread. Do we take their science in good faith? Should we also start by listing all literature we should all read 1st?
Nexus I think some of the confusion in mainstream media has been interpreting ‘declining’ as referring to the past when it might have been ‘declining’ in the future sense of indications that some numbers could decline, or are showing signs of declining and other cautious science talk that media has trouble fitting into a soundbite.
Nexus,
I’m not sure of the evidence for your conclusion? You seem to be potentially relying on ‘summaries’ from experts.
Can you give me some specific numbers and periods and geographical locations.
Pinxi,
You’ve spent three days harassing me and others at this blog. Last night you wanted to know what I meant by ‘evidence’. I explained that for me the process is important, gathering good evidence is a skill. So can we start at the beginning? I am clearly stating that, in my opinion, it is important to understand recent history i.e. to get information and agreement on numbers before 1970.
Several years ago I read the wonderful book “Arctic Dreams” by Canadian writer/naturalist Barry Lopez. One little thing I recall is the time he was walking over some low lawn-like vegetation in the tundra. On closer examination turned out to be old growth forest, ie minature willow and birch trees. An interesting new perception! The other fascinating bit was on polar bears. According to Lopez the pb has one of the widest amplitude of feeding/hunting habitats of all animals. Bears have been recorded feasting on seafood way out in the open ocean 100 kms from land, but have also been found in forest up to 50 kms inland, feeding on the berries which occur in abundance in some seasons in the far north. If correct this suggests a robust ability to adapt to different environments.
I recommend Lopez’ book to anyone interested in the natural history, as well as human history of the arctic.
With respect to the observed increase in pb numbers quoted by Jennifer, it would appear to me that cessation of hunting must be the most significant factor. The Australian saltwater crocodile was almost extinct as a result of hunting 30-40 years ago, but populations have rebounded since hunting was banned. Similar story with Right and Humpback Whales since whaling ceased. Wildlife biologists know that when the population numbers of a species suddenly begin to increase it is mostly due to removal of a predator/hunter; environmental changes affecting food and shelter act more slowly. The sudden decline in numbers of a species on the other hand, is more likely to be due to a massive and sudden change to the animal’s habitat, eg a large hot bushfire, toxic pollutant or arrival of a new and dangerous predator (eg foxes arriving in Tasmania).
Yorkie
Jennifer,
Just a short comment here.
There are no overall data on polar bear population trends.
However, long-term studies in Canada’s Western Hudson Bay have identified reduced adult weights and cub survivorship, resulting in a decline of that population to an estimated 935 animals …a 22% decline—CORRELATED WITH LOSS OF SEA ICE.
Other recent studies have also indicated that adults have loss weight etc . and that the other subpopulations face the same destiny. They have the same trend…
Methink no subpopulation has shown increased growth in the recent years, the best scenario seems to be stagnant.
“Arctic Dreams’ is a great book, esp about the polar bear.
J “I am clearly stating that, in my opinion, it is important to understand recent history i.e. to get information and agreement on numbers before 1970.”
Ok. Yep. Numbers then. I presume you want to look for updates since you researched numbers for the IPA review article. As I said above, among the literature there’s a fair degree of uncertainty over the figures. Also emerging different trends reported in long-term studies of sub-populations – do we ignore this and just go by recently reported total numbers? To get numbers, given the discrepencies, should we list all sources we should consider (and the literature we should read)? These are serious questions, given we’re not about to perform original surveys ourselves.
From the experts “..whilst most populations are currently reasonably healthy and the global population is not presently endangered…”
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/species/polarbear/ExecutiveSummary.pdf
But Rog…how old is your info???
Mine from 27.12.2006 from the US Dep. of Interior.
And those guys methink are not spouting NGO or Greenpeace propaganda!
Population status 2001 from the polar bear specialist group PBSG was 21,500 – 25,000.
“The world’s polar bears are distributed in 19 subpopulations over vast and sometimes relatively inaccessible areas of the Arctic. Thus, while the status of some subpopulations in Canada and the Barents Sea are well documented, that of several others remains less known. Thus, it is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the total number of polar bears in the world, although the range is thought to be 20-25,000.”
PBSG is a subgroup of the IUCN Species Survival Commission.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/
Now now you’re all jumping ahead!! Listen to to the Task Mistress and establish the numbers from all regions and over 30 years 1st. She’s had me slaving all day.
Jennifer how do you expect me to clarify the numbers, let alone by region, when you already know there are uncertainties (in numbers, times, regions, influences) to be factored into the risk assessment? I’ve stated this a couple of times and you know it to be true but you want me to chase my tail for you? Do you want to rerun the IUCN proceedings calculations and risk assessments? Not something easily reproduced by outside amateurs like us, better leave those intricate complexities to the relevant researchers, eh? My hours of research haven’t yeilded the kind of data you’d need to disagree with the experts. I’m sure they’ve learnt the appropriate standards and its blog policy to accept such information on good faith unless good reason otherwise. To please you:
in Western
Hudson Bay, the decline in population size, condition, and
survival of young as a consequence of earlier breakup of
the sea ice brought about by climate warming have all been
well documented (Stirling et al., 1999; Gagnon and Gough,
2005; Regehr et al., 2005; I. Stirling and N.J. Lunn, unpub.
data). In Baffin Bay, the available data suggest that the
population is being overharvested, so the reason for seeing
more polar bears is unlikely to be an increase in population
size. We suggest that the increase in numbers of sightings
of polar bears in Foxe Basin and Davis Strait may also be
influenced by factors related to earlier breakup of the sea
ice
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/157360main_StirlingParkinson2006_Arctic59-3-261.pdf
some other areas have unknown status, or insufficient data
IUCN redlist:
There are 19 hypothesized subpopulations or stocks which number in total 20,000 to 25,000 bears.
IUCN proceedings:
Western Hudson Bay
Noting that the decline of WH polar bears from
approximately 1200 in 1987 to less than 950 in 2004 is
conclusive,
And accepting that the decline was due to a combination
of anthropogenic removals (defence and harvest kills)
and reduced demographic rates from climate warming,
The world’s polar bears are distributed in 19
subpopulations over vast and sometimes relatively
inaccessible areas of the Arctic. Thus, while the status of
some subpopulations in Canada and the Barents Sea is
well documented, that of several others remains less
known. Thus, it is not possible to give an accurate
estimate of the total number of polar bears in the world,
although the range is thought to be 20–25,000.
Now having invested so much time and bandwidth under your instruction, the next bit of hard work is up to you. If you want to factor in population variances from every reported region then I refer you to pages 34-35 etc of the IUCN proceedings but warning, you have to put your head on its side to read the tables! Awfully confusing.
But it’s just for my personal benefit, eh? You’ve already thoroughly considered all the evidence before reaching the conclusion for your IPA article on the status of PBs. You certainly already hold the secrets given that “In the next installment/next blog post on this subject (Part 2) I will explain why I am skeptical of the claims that polar bear numbers will decline dramatically over the next 50-100 years.” I look forward to learning more.
this must be the technical report you read for the IPA article Jennifer?
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/rsrc/Proc_Seattle05.pdf
or do you have access to better data? Cos you’d need better than that to refute the experts.
Hi All,
And happy New Year. Had a nice time in the rainforest at Cross River, am refreshed, and ready to mentally travel to the Arctic, armed with my skeptikal analysis toolkit in readiness for an assessment of the polar bear question.
My googling first turned up the quite comprehensive 14th Proceedings of the polar bear specialist group. Seemed to be a good place to start.
I have read their status of the polar bear report and do not consider they are downplaying good news and promoting the bad news.
What comes through is the efforts of a group of scientists and wildlife managers grappling with the management of a species which happens to inhabit one of the most inhospitible places on the planet -which had by and large, protected it as a species from the fate already suffered by many other bear species.
However, it was clear in most of the countries cirlcing the Arctic that hunting of bears for food, sport and defence was a serious pressure back in the 1960’s and 1970’s and some landmark agreements and sound management practices have brought the species back, so much so, that their listing status for conservation purposes has been revised in the recent past to downgrade the perceived threats to the species.
Having said that, it is clear the current estimates of the numbers of animals as about 20,000-25,000 is a guesstimate. In the Status Report there is a table (pages 41 and 42) that they have developed, after much discussion, which seeks to portray the trend, status and risk for the 19 subpopulations of the species that are generally accepted as discrete units for management purposes.
Of those 19, seven of the subpopulations are so data deficient that no comment is made on the current status or projected risk.
That leaves 12 subpopulations for which the group attempts a status and risk score.
Five of the subpopulations are considered to be stable, and to be subpopulations that were not historically reduced (due to hunting).
Two of the subpopulations were considered to be increasing in number, but were doing so from a severely reduced position -ie from severe hunting pressure in the past.
The remaining five subpopulations are listed as declining, and of these, four are subpopulations that were already reduced from historical (pre-hunting pressure levels).
The data sets for the various subpopulations where a risk assessment is attempted are extremely variable in quality and the dates the data were collected vary widely.
My impression is that there is no good census data on actual numbers in many of these subpopulations and the scientists are having to rely on some clever risk assessment modelling.
They recognise the problems inherent in this approach, but given where the animals live and the lack of funding, what else can they do?
It is also clear that their relatively conservative efforts in relation to setting quotas for hunting (the application of the precautionary principle) has produced dividends in that it is widely believed there are more bears than there were in the 1960s and 1970s.
However, hunting still remains an issue, and there is disagreement over quotas between the scientists themselves, and also between the scientists and the traditional residents of the region, many of whom consider the bear subpopulations are steadily increasing.
There is a strong correlation between the amount of sea ice and the polar bear numbers and there is general agreement that loss of sea ice has negative consequences for bears in the long run -although it may aid the success of recruitment of cubs initially.
The early loss of sea ice in recent years has forced bears onshore, earlier and in larger numbers, and increased the number of interactions between bears and locals, hence the perception that numbers are still increasing.
My conclusion is that the group has been relatively effective in stopping the unsustainable hunting of the species and that has allowed some subpopulations to stabilise or increase.
However, there are still many management problems, not the least of which is an absence of reliable data for many subpopulations – almost half of them.
Where there is data available that seems to be more reliable, it is Canadian, Norwegian and US, and this currently constitutes about 60-65% of the total population of bears. This data shows some subpopulations are stable while others are in decline. Only two are increasing, and these are relatively small subpopulations that are still recovering from hunting pressure.
On the basis of the data, the scientists of the PBSG have concluded the polar is potentially threatened, and on the basis of the data before them, that is a reasonable position to adopt.
If many journalists are too lazy/dumb to read through the information and instead resort to a comfortable, dumbed down 30 second summary of the situation, that is not the fault of the scientists. Is it?
For my part, I would suggest the success they have achieved with regulating the hunting pressure on these animals demonstrates that there approach thus far has worked. I therefore have no problem with them identifying sea ice loss in the Arctic as a potential threat to this species.
Jennifer, I can not understand why you would bother discussing polar bear numbers with Pinxi.
If the USA was having to build 10 Ft high electric fences along the Canadian Border, to keep out, hoards of marauding PBs, she would still tell you they were endangered.
Probably from eating contiminated Canadians.
You are not making sense Mlle Clouseau, can you prove that PBs are endangered right now?
It would appear that uncontrolled sport hunting was the major contributor to PB nos declining esp in the late 60’s and early 70’s, subsequent controls have led to an apparent increase in nos. If you read all these docs, due to the huge scope they are educated “guesstimates.”
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/stock/finalpbcbseas.pdf
Russell,
I think you are jumping ahead a bit.
1. but i think we can agree that there are now about 19 discrete populations and that numbers within these populations have been historically influenced by different factors.
Are we in agreement that numbers have increased from about 5,000 30 years?
How many discrete populations do you think existed 30 years ago?
OK you unscholarly lot – I’m going to attempt to sort you guys out.
This is is job for the Wiki – seems you need 3 things
(1) population data trends/info in the last 10 years – get it written down, concisely described and referenced. Agree that out or Wiki yourselves to death arguing.
(2) then document the projected changes to Artic conditions under AGW and /or previous changes
(3) How will that affect the food web/ecosystem
(4) what information do we have now to suggest populations under stress
(5) the BIG policy recommendation – support, withdraw, supplement or defend ??
So you may actually be thresholding on a the cusp of a scholarly discussion. Fear not dear combatants and Wiki the mongrel !
Why not try it – although watching you guys beat each other up is fun as blood sport.
OK 5 things then.
After that there is about 100 other issues to go:
Jen – reckon the blog needs a vision/values statement.
(1) We’re evidence based
(2) Economic development and prosperity brings happiness, health, security
(3) Economic development is preferred over the environment.
(4) Default positions are we’re pro-GM, anti-AGW, pro-forestry, pro-whaling, anti-Greenpeace and greenies in general, pro-nuclear, pro-coal mining, pro-property rights, pro fisheries, anti tree clearing legislation, anti-carbon economy, anti-organic food, but are interested in conservation of endangered species (mainly mammals)
Luke, thanks for the first contribution. [I’m ignoring your most recent which is off topic]
So regarding the 5 points.
I think ‘1.’ needs to be teased out a lot more.
I am particularly interested to know what has been limiting numbers of polar bears in populations not previously subject to much hunting pressure?
I would also like to know what has historically influenced population numbers of key prey species including ring seals.
OK guys,
If I find the time during the day, I will e-mail one of polar bear researchers up in Svalbard at the Norwegian Polar Institute and pose some questions.
My primary question is about polar bear adaption, and how they have survived previous warming periods etc.
People might still be on holidays…
Hi Jen,
Great Blogitorial Policy – if you disagree with a comment, don’t like the facts or observations contained, and can’t shout it down or oblique it, then delete it. Of course you may show character by restoring my posts to both yourself or Pinxi, and you may even choose to engage in email if you’re so uncomfortable with comments posted in a quasi-public forum.
While I don’t recall his name, there is a prominent expert with over two decades experience in field monitoring of polar bear populations in Canada. He appears in the first 20 minutes of David Attenborough’s “Are We Changing Planet Earth?”. Perhaps you’d avail yourself of that documentary and pursue his research before firing off poorly backed up claims such as this into the spinosphere. At least then you’d have some idea of which facts you’re trying to head off. Break a nail.
PS as a self-proclaimed expert in biology, I’m surprised that you haven’t made account for what effect the well known increased-breeding-of-populations-under-stress factor may have had in reported changes of observable populations. You know, the same effect that has been observed among humans in countries in and around Africa, India, and China where the unquestionably wonderful and holistically measured joy of economic development has made life so much better for everybody?
Carbon Sync,
your two posts last night were defamatory and contained incorrect information. also you need to use a functioning email address if you wish to post at this site.
if you have information on polar bears, well that’s most welcome. but if you intend to post more incorrect information about my past and present political affiliations you are most unwelcome.
ps why hide behind a pen name.
Jennifer,
I have looked over your last post regarding polar bears and still can’t see the evidence from you to back up your claims. This is not the result of me disrespecting/disagreeing with your views or valuing Stirling’s. I simply have not found supporting evidence there. Like you, I have been trained as a biologist to observe, read and look for facts.
The contributors above have been gathering supporting information, but I see little from you regarding this issue (except questions). I look forward to Part II and reading what you think. I am being sincere, not contributing to the “hate” mail.
Regarding not thinking much of the evidence/arguments I have presented on lungfish and polar bears, I am open to your opinions on why. Criticism and differing views put in a polite format are how we can learn and grow.
Jen,
not sure what I am jumping ahead on?
But yes, I think there are 19 subpopulations and these populations have different histories and also differ from each other in the pressures they face today….although all are presumably vulnerable to impacts from earlier sea ice melt and smaller sea ice area.
As for the number 30 years ago? If you look at the data in the table I quoted – its in the IUCN publication of the proceedings, and is available at
http://pbsg.npolar.no/docs/Proc_Seattle05.pdf
The lack of reliable data now, for many subpopulations suggests to me that any figure of 5000 bears around 30 years ago is also a rough guesstimate, and may have been based on much less data and of poor quality, except perhaps for Canada, US and Norway?
Suffice to say the numbers fell substantially 30 years ago due to hunting and have recovered to the present level as consequence of better management.
As for how many subpopulations there were in the past? I suspect the same 19 as now.
Two fundamental questions which still need to be answered are:
What was the original total population size before the modern hunting pressure began? By this I mean the advent of modern high powered rifles. Before that traditional hunters had to use traditional methods and get a whole lot closer to the bears….consequently the hunting pressure on the bears would have been minimal.
If you know what the population size was prior to modern hunting pressure you have some idea of what numbers you might expect the bear population to recover to in the absence of hunting – sure there are maybe 20,000-25,000 now, but is that the maximum possible? I suspect not, as its a big area and there are a lot of seals. Therefore although the population has recovered to some extent, it may not yet have completely recovered from overhunting? Is a stable subpopulation size an indicator that the subpopulation has reached its pre-hunting level? Maybe, maybe not.
The second question is: what is the viable (self sustaining) size for each of the 19 subpopulations? It will vary dependent on the characteristics of each subpopulation- e.g. food supply, success of recruitment each year, longevity and so on.
Armed with the answers to these two questions its then possible to work out what the 19 subpopulation sizes should be and devise a sound management strategy.
It is clear the PBSG does not have good enough data to do this yet, and so is taking a cautious approach, including identifying the problem posed by loss of sea ice.
Hi Jen,
1. please highlight which aspects of those posts were defamatory or incorrect. If you don’t want to attempt this discussion you can write to me at
2. my functioning email address, which I have included: polarbearswearingfloaties@yahoo.com.au
3. I am not hiding behind a pen name – funny thing about this wacky internet gizmo is that a lot of us use nom de plumes which are not camouflage but identifiable expressions of our positions. e.g. while a carbon sink is something of help to the environment, we are also carbon based lifeforms and we tend to get more done when we work in synchronicity. See also Tesla’s work on resonance.
This is a weak objection. I find it of far less concern that somebody identifies themself in their way of choice, e.g. Eileen Edmonds prefers the alias Shania Twain, than that somebody should pose as something that they aren’t – e.g. fact-based, scientifically competent, environmentally concerned – as a platform of deception in propping up the agendas which serve only to maximise the profit of world’s worst practice natural resource corporations. And it is also amusing that you should raise this concern in regard to my posting name while obviously not voicing the same concern about your other-than-christened-name supporters.
Game on.
Carbon Sync, I didn’t read all of your long essays from last night before deleting them first thing this morning, but I read enough to know they were about me, including falsely suggesting that I was once a member of the young liberals. a couple of rules, if you wish to post here, stick to the topic and don’t be abusive or you risk your post being either deleted or worst still edited.
i’ve decided i do have a new year’s resolution after all and that it is that i will delete more posts containing misinformation that relates to me personally. also I no longer feel the need to justify why i delete posts, but if your post was deleted you can assume its because it was defamatory or perceived as defamatory to me or someone else. if you don’t like these rules find somewhere else to post.
Russell,
I can see some of your logic, but also lots of assumptions which I can’t agree with.
Why would you assume that there were originally 19 populations? Why would you assume that sea ice extent currently influences bear numbers? What’s been happening to seal numbers as the extent of sea ice reduces?
Libby,
Thanks for the comment.
I’m asking questions because I was of the opinion people like Pinxi were interested in how I think, how I gather ‘evidence’.
Also, i’m no expert on polar bears and i’m happy to revise my position/my opinion if Pinxi or others have good information…
Also, i’m persisting with the polar bear issue because of popular demand.
Jen – sorry for off-topic – was meant for Huxley thread. Happy for you to move if you have any time.
There used to be polar bears on the Norwegian mainland as well…but the last sighting of a mainland polar bear in Norway was in the early 50’s.
It could be a long post to comment on seals and seaice cover.
Ringed seal populations in Canada have declined due to loss of sea ice ( Stirling).
Harp seals, Grey seals are also dependent on ice floes for pupping
Anne,
Half of the world´s poulation of Grey seals is found on or around the UK coast – Last time I looked, The UK was not surrounded by ice 😉
Should read ” Half of the world´s POPulation” Coffee´d keyboard ;(
Hi George,
Dunno what the Brits are doing…anyway our grey seals in the Baltic pup on ice floes…
Jen,
Here is the definition of subpopulation I am using, drawn from the 14th Proceedings.
“In this volume we have decided to use the term
population for all the polar bears in the Arctic. This decision is based on their biology, as polar bears roam over large areas and the genetic structure is low even between areas far apart. However, in earlier issues and in a lot of publications, population has been used to term
more local management units. Here those are termed
subpopulations. Furthermore, we like to address the fact that the boundaries between these subpopulations will always be based on current knowledge, and that they thus might change as more complete knowledge on their ecology becomes available. Especially in the less studied areas encompassing the Russian Arctic in particular, our
view of what the real subpopulations or management
units are, and to what degree they interact or are a part of the neighbouring nations’ subpopulations, might alter in the near future.”
So in this context, subpopulation is a management unit -a convenient device in which the total population is divided on some pretext, or set of asumptions -presumably there are both ecological and management factors which influence this. They also state that it might change in the future -dependent on better information, and was different in the past, based on less information -eg a 1993/94 assessment that used 15 subpopulations.
However, whatever classification and partitioning they used in the past, the fact remains it was a method devised for management purposes, with some basis in ecology. for that reason I am confident there were 19 subpopulations in the past, based upon the current method of delineating subpopulations, which is based on satellite tracking data.
If in the future they change the clasification methodology then they may end up with more, or less subpopulations, but then those will always have been there, as what is changing is the methodology adopted, not the population.
Do I detect a desire on your part to propose that there are now more subpopulations because numbers have increased dramatically (your adjective)?
Jen,
my asumption that sea ice extent influences numbers is based on data collected by scientists.
The PBSG does not agree on every issue, but on the influence of sea ice extent on polar bear numbers I think they do agree. Their field data support it and they quote a number of publications in the report of the 14th Proceedings.
And, if you think about it, it’s a logical assumption even without any data, simply drawing upon our knowlege of the species biology. A greater area of sea ice gives the species a much greater hunting range, changing what is difficult habitat for them to move around and hunt in (open water) into a much easier hunting environment. In the absence of sea ice, how many seals would be caught by bears in open water? Not many in my view. I expect the seals would escape most attacks.
It is true that young cubs appear to benefit in their first year from a reduction in sea ice cover as this makes it easier for them to catch seal pups….but all the experts in the PBSG consider this is a temporary advantage only.
Russell,
I am happy to refer to subpopulations rather than populations.
I am interested in key likely influences on the subpopulations.
If there have always been 19 subpopulations and if there were once only 5,000 bears then each population was on average once only 263 bears while they are now 1,315 bears. I think this is likely to be significant.
A lot of work has been done on the Churchill/Hudson Bay subpopulation but my understanding is that its ecology is different to other subpopulations. in particular this subpopulation is the only one that hibernates and has the most southern range of any polar bear subpopulation.
So I am hesitant to extrapolate/generalize from this bear population.
Jennifer, I suspect that a lot of the grenades which have been hurled at you on the PB issue, by Pinxi and others have come from the armory of the World Wildlife Fund. In promoting the “threat to polar bears from AGW”, the WWF has shown no regard for truth or fact whatsoever.
The “expert scientific opinion”, on the threat to PB’s, is mainly on the payroll of the WWF and similar well funded extremist groups.
Research have been focused on the Churchill/Hudson Bay subpopulation and we have not mentioned the Russian populations.
Vast areas are involved but Norwegian scientists have found that global warming, contaminats and illegal hunting pose threats to the subpopulations.
Actually, a study carried out by the Norwegian Veterinary Institute, indicated that contaminants in polar bears in Russia were at least 6 time higher than in Svalbard.
An interesting note. It is common belief that humans are the only threat to polar bears, but it seems like orcas as well as walrosses have killed polar bears.
Beluga whales might as well be on the polar bear diet.
Anne,
Belugas are on PB´s diet – there´s some well documented details from Canada on semi stranded belugas ( tidal bay )predation. I´d estimate that Killer whale predation on PB´s to be very low though .. low enough as to be little to no threat at all …
Russell,
You wrote, “my asumption that sea ice extent influences numbers is based on data collected by scientists. The PBSG does not agree on every issue, but on the influence of sea ice extent on polar bear numbers I think they do agree.”
So on what basis do they all agree?
I have read:
1. the early break up of sea ice is thought to impact on condition of animals within sub population at Hudson Bay, (this same population is a major tourist attraction and there are lots of tundra buggies driving all over the stuff all winter)
2. I then read things like “poorer survival of animals in those age classes was directly related to reduced availability of sea ice (Regher and others, unpublished data)
3. I assume “reduced availability” relates to early break up?
I have previously looked for information/studies that show a correlation between the distribution of polar bears/subpopulations and sea ice:
1. I have read that the distribution of polar bears is influence by the type of ice, with bears tending to seek out thick first-year sea ice found in large ice floes.
2. Subpopulation density of polar bears does not correlate with, for example, the population density of ringed seals or extent of sea ice.
So it would seem reasonable to assume that within at least one large subpopulation (at Hudson Bay/Churchill) the early break up of ice potentially has an impact, but that there is no overall shortage of sea ice at the Arctic.
————————
Ann,
You have commented that there is a relationship between less sea ice and fewer ringed seals.
This is not consistent with what I have read. Do you have a link or reference?
The initial breakup of ice probably provides more hunting opportunties. The future will be very different as the ice fragments more and more.
If you want to get to the policy option you have make some projections on likely habitat – and the interaction with food supply short term and long term.
Luke et al.
Let’s get some agreement by what is meant by reduced extent of sea ice.
There is at least one study that suggests early break up impacts a large subpopulation of polar bears.
But where are the studies that suggest the overall extent of sea ice is a problem?
What do you mean by increased fragmentation? Where exactly is this happening?
If you want to talk policy options … the most likely potential impact of a US listing of polar bears as endangered, would be NO more culling/hunting. This will potentially impact on the size of subpopulations. What would this mean to overall population size and long term survival prospects?
As we have mentioned Sterling in some other posts , this might be OK ?
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2005.tb01212.x
Jennifer another link to Nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061225/full/061225-2.html
Some random Googling on polar bears threw up the following abstracts. While I focussed on papers that showed the adaptability of PBs (cherry picking, if you want to be unkind), there was no shortage of material.
The Southern Beaufort Sea population increased from ~500 females to 1,000 females between 1967 and 1998. (http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1085-7117&volume=006&issue=02&page=0221)
Female PBs cover an area of 7264 to 596 800 km2 per year. That’s a big variation. Presumably food availability has something to do with the variation in range. (http://rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/rparticle/AbstractTemplateServlet?journal=cjz&volume=78&year=&issue=&msno=z00-016&calyLang=eng)
During ice free periods, PBs live on land and conserve energy. (http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=2397089&q=%22Polar+bears%22&uid=789758738&setcookie=yes).
They will sometimes use supplementary food sources such as rubbish dumps while on land. They’re adaptable. See also below for more evidence of adaptability.(http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=1199619&q=%22Polar+bears%22&uid=789758619&setcookie=yes)
PBs adapt to ice free areas and variable sea ice conditions by increasing their range. (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1461-0248.1999.00090.x/abs/)
PBs vary their diet according to what’s available. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/e49c5gn2ev15q88c/)
Even though climate change may be beneficial to PBs (in the short term), and the effects of climate change are very variable, they aren’t expected to survive it, according to this pessimistic paper, which seems to ignore the adaptive abilities of PBs documented in many other papers. (http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1668%2F1540-7063(2004)44%5B163%3APBIAWC%5D2.0.CO%3B2)
If Global Warming leads to the growth of more berries further north, this may help PBs, as they are known to forage on berries. (http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=3050633&q=%22Polar+bears%22&uid=789758738&setcookie=yes)
PBs exhibit “behavioural plasticity in response to a novel prey item”. (Translation, they eat reindeer). (http://www.springerlink.com/content/0n6f9lv46d30c644/)
Jen – I asked previously how polar bears feed.
From my knowledge they are an ambush predator on the ice. Doing things like knowing to cover their noses etc to not disclose their presence (black patch). They nab seal near air holes. Do they chase seals across open water swimming? Can they sneak up on seals in rocky shore type terrain? And we’re not talking “in exception” – we’re talking in general.
The policy option is the end point of this discussion surely :
(1) bears are fine – invest scare enviro funds elswhere and greenies are ning nongs
(2) they seem fine at the moment but stress cracks in the ecosystem and bear health are appearing – more info, research and observation needed
(3) bad situation – extinction possible – panic – major research and funding needed
If they are endangered one could consider a small take by Inuits depending on population dynamics and easily compensate for hunting income losses. Surely Canada and the USA can afford it ?
We are projecting an ice free Arctic in 30-40 years based on current melt rates.
Oil drilling is beneficial to PBs.
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=1885816&q=%22Polar+bears%22&uid=789758738&setcookie=yes
From the reading I’ve done (post in moderation), PBs are very adaptable. While the computer models show an ice free Arctic in the near future, predictions of PB demise don’t seem to acknowledge the adaptability that is already extensively documented in the literature.
Luke,
Who’s predicting the Arctic will be ice free in the next 30-40 years?
According to the IUCN:
“Sea ice has declined considerably over the past half century. Additional declines of roughly 10–50% of annual sea ice are predicted by 2100.
“The summer sea ice is projected to decrease by 50–100% during the same period…
“The effects of sea ice change are likely to show large differences and variability by geographic location and periods of time, although the long term trends clearly reveal substantial global reductions of the extent of ice coverage in the Arctic and the annual time frames when ice is present.” http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/22823/summ
So much is made about the importance of ice to the prevalence of polar bears that one is invited to conclude that the bears cannot live without it.
However, polar bears don’t eat ice, nor do they otherwise need it to survive. They do quite well on dry land. On the other hand, the bears make nearly no use of terrestrial food sources, even when they are highly abundant.
That is because the bears are not dependent on ice for survival, but on the ocean’s food supply–primarily, on seals. Thus, distribution of seals correlates with the distribution of bears.
From this it is reasonable to conclude that the abundance and distribution of seals, and not of ice, is the primary determinant of polar bear populations.
Other factors may enter in as well, such as cannibalism and infanticide among bears, or to a much lesser extent, infectious disease.
I am sure everyone here is aware that AGW theorists have exerted themselves greatly to make polar bears the poster children for the looming horror of melting icecaps by positing ice as the sole habitat and only determinant of polar bear populations. These assumptions appear false, and perhaps intentionally so; furthermore, there is good reason to believe that other factors such as food supply (!) are far more important.
Quotes and cites below.
“There is little doubt that polar bears will have a lesser AOO [area of occupancy], EOO [extent of occurrence] and habitat quality in the future. However, no direct relation exists between these measures and the abundance of polar bears.”
“Ursus maritimus,” 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/22823/all
“Large home ranges occur when variable ice cover is associated with more seals but also a more unpredictable distribution of those seals.”
“Determinants of Home Range Size for Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus),” Ecology Letters, Volume 2 Issue 5 Page 311 – September 1999, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1461-0248.1999.00090.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ele
“Accordingly, the amount of food that polar bears consume from terrestrial food webs appears negligible, even though some bears spend 1/3 or more of each year on land during the seasons of greatest primary productivity.”
“Polar bears make little use of terrestrial food webs: evidence from stable-carbon isotope analysis,” Oecologia (1991), http://www.springerlink.com/content/v58t1935h800h468/
“Infanticide of dependent polar bear offspring by adult males may be more common in Svalbard than in other populations because the population is close to carrying capacity or because geographic features reduce spatial segregation of age and sex classes.”
“Infanticide and Cannibalism of Juvenile Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in Svalbard.” Arctic (1999), http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic52-3-307.pdf
Ann, Thanks for the two references. I wonder how many seals in total are harvested by Eskimos each year?
Be my guest Jen….but warning, one Canadian told me that Eskimos don’t want to be called Eskimos, they prefer Inuits!
No more comments for me today… however, I have another 2 articles that I want to translate from Norwegian on polar bears and the ice free Arctic scenario. Tomorrow…
“If there have always been 19 subpopulations and if there were once only 5,000 bears then each population was on average once only 263 bears while they are now 1,315 bears. I think this is likely to be significant.”
That’s nothing more significant than simple division. I can’t see it’s useful to assume valid or useful info from such an average if there are different movements in different subpopulation areas (as indicated in reports above). Roughly averaging it just wipes out evidence of potentially important indicators from long-term surveys (uncommon) and areas which are affected most by human factors. A biologist would know that.
“Also, i’m no expert on polar bears and i’m happy to revise my position/my opinion if Pinxi or others have good information…”
You demanded information of me Jennifer and I provided. see 3.40 pm above. We haven’t got better data than that so far (apart from link I gave you above). Have you found any better? Was the IUCN link I gave you the same source you’d used originally (I assume it was)? Now what do you suggest doing with this data, reworking the IUCN figures then moving toward risk assessments?
Stirling did research between ice & ringed seal popns as per Ann’s posts. I’m not about to go digging it up though, done more than my fair share of digging already. Over to you Jennifer.
http://www.itk.ca/environment/wildlife-ringed-seal.php
Hunting techniques :
http://www.cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13817017
Pinniped.org :
Ringed seals are one of the most important subsistence prey for native hunters throughout their range, but it is difficult to determine the extent of this hunting. Available figures show however that the annual kill in Alaska was about 3,000 seals in the 1990s, 50,000 per year were killed in Canada in the 1970s and 1980s, 50,000 – 70,000 are killed each year in Greenland, and 7,300 were commercially hunted in Russia in 1988. It has been reported that Inuit natives from the Canadian territory of Nunavut, in a move towards commercial rather than subsistence hunting, are planning to undertake a hunt of up to 2,000 ringed seals a month, mostly for export to Japan, China and Taiwan. Plans have been announced to market sealskins as well as to process ringed seal meat into food products, organs and bones into health products, and to render fat into oil capsules for sale as a dietary supplement. A pilot hunt was planned for the summer of 1999, the seals being shipped to Newfoundland for processing until a plant could be built in the Arctic. In a related move it was reported that the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Nunavut government are working together to overturn the section of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act which bans the import of sealskins from Canada. Hunting may have an affect on the viability of local populations.
etc etc etc ..
And for what its worth, ( and to keep luke happy )
PDF from Greenpeace on the canadian seal hunt … ( thats the non-animal welfare GP )
http://www.greenpeace.to/publications_pdf/seals2005.pdf
On rate of Arctic Ocean melting:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L23503, doi:10.1029/2006GL028024, 2006
Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice
Marika M. Holland
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Cecilia M. Bitz
Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Bruno Tremblay
Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA
Abstract
We examine the trajectory of Arctic summer sea ice in seven projections from the Community Climate System Model and find that abrupt reductions are a common feature of these 21st century simulations. These events have decreasing September ice extent trends that are typically 4 times larger than comparable observed trends. One event exhibits a decrease from 6 million km2 to 2 million km2 in a decade, reaching near ice-free September conditions by 2040. In the simulations, ice retreat accelerates as thinning increases the open water formation efficiency for a given melt rate and the ice-albedo feedback increases shortwave absorption. The retreat is abrupt when ocean heat transport to the Arctic is rapidly increasing. Analysis from multiple climate models and three forcing scenarios indicates that abrupt reductions occur in simulations from over 50% of the models and suggests that reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions moderate the likelihood of these events.
Received 30 August 2006; accepted 19 October 2006; published 12 December 2006.
NYTimes story on same:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11cnd-arctic.html?ex=1168059600&en=0934611b50c53c6c&ei=5070
We still all need to agree that starting point before jumping ahead or declaring opinions, remember. Don’t just throw up links, esp if you haven’t bothered to read them.
“Also, i’m no expert on polar bears and i’m happy to revise my position/my opinion if Pinxi or others have good information…”
What position Jennifer? I thought we had to abandon our preconceived notions before we could assess the evidence.
Is this all a game for us to try and change your opinion? Yeah what idiot would play that game? Oh oh look at all of us idiots!
I asked above if “A key criticism appears to be that I have not acknowledged that polar bear numbers have been predicted by experts to decline dramatically in the future.” meant you acknowledge this now?
“… that because there is a likelihood the situation might deteriorate into the future, we can’t acknowledge the good news now.”
Does this mean you now acknowledge that PB populations could be facing threats?
Can you assume a neutral position as a starting point? If not, I’d suggest taking the IUCN position in good faith (blog standard) and accepting it’s findings unless you can conclusively show they’re wrong.
Roger Pielke Sr on Arctic Sea Ice, September 14th 2006:
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/14/arctic-sea-ice/
A NASA Press Release On Arctic Sea Ice Areal Extent
Filed under: Climate Change Metrics, Climate Science Reporting — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 6:15 am
There is a NASA press release on arctic sea ice trends that requires comment on Climate Science. The press release is entitled “Arctic Sea Ice Hitting Major Lows in Wintertime”, and includes the statements,
“The maximum amount of sea ice in the Arctic winter has fallen by six percent over each of the last two winters, as compared to a loss of merely 1.5 percent per decade on average annually since the earliest satellite monitoring in 1979. This is happening as summer sea ice continues its retreat at an average of 10 percent per decade.”
“‘This amount of Arctic sea ice reduction the past two consecutive winters has not taken place before during the 27 years satellite data has been available,’ said Joey Comiso, a research scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. ‘In the past, sea ice reduction in winter was significantly lower per decade compared to summer sea ice retreat. What’s remarkable is that we’ve witnessed sea ice reduction at six percent per year over just the last two winters, most likely a result of warming due to greenhouse gases.’”
“According to Comiso, if the winter ice retreat continues, the effect could be very profound, especially for marine animals. ‘The seasonal ice regions in the Arctic are among the most biologically productive regions in the world,’ he said. ‘For example, sea ice provides melt-water in spring that floats because of low density. This melt-water layer is considered by biologists as the ideal layer for phytoplankton growth because it does not sink, and there is plenty of sunlight reaching it to enable photosynthesis. Plankton are at the bottom of the food web. If their concentration goes down, animals at all tropics level would be deprived of a basic source of food. A continued reduction of the Arctic winter ice cover would be a clear indicator of the warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It would at least confirm our current understanding of the physics of the Arctic climate system that has been incorporated in our models,’ said Comiso”.
A graphic is presented on the NASA site which shows the annual cycle of Arctic sea ice coverage since 1980.
This study is to be published in Geophysical Research Letters later this month.
There are several comments on this press release, however. First, a press release before a paper is published and available to the scientific community inappropriately shortcuts the process of permitting scientists to scrutinize the research before it is broadcast to the media and public.
Secondly, the NASA press release fails to recognize that the current sea ice anomaly has returned to nearly its average value (see the University of Illinois “The Cryosphere Today” web site on this subject). According to this web site, while there has been a clear decline in Arctic sea ice areal coverage, this year it did not fall below its record value. Moreover, the date of the minimum area in 2006 is well before the record year of 1995.
NOAA’s National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) is another excellent source for this type of information. This web site also shows the long term reduction on Arctic sea ice extent, but illustrates in its spatial anomaly maps that the negative values are concentrated in the eastern Arctic, with the western Arctic close to its long term average at present (this is yet another example of why we need a regional perspective on climate variability and change). The web site also shows that the Antarctic sea ice extent remains very close to its long term average.
The University of Illinois and NSIDC web sites illustrate that when one examines the data in depth, the interpretation of sea ice variability and trends is much more complex than presented in the NASA press release. The statement in the NASA press release, that the two years of lower than average winter sea ice extent,
“…would at least confirm our current understanding of the physics of the Arctic climate system that has been incorporated in our models…..”,
clearly grossly overstates our understanding of the Arctic climate. If the NASA statement were accurate, then, for example, the current near average anomaly of sea ice, its regional variation, and the long term trends in the Antarctic sea ice coverage also need to be explained. We also have an implied prediction for this coming winter, as the study clearly indicates that the winter maximum sea ice extent should continue to fall. This is an appropriate test of the study’s hypothesis, and we will be following sea ice anomalies this coming winter.
well that’s inconvenient, how to feed such complexity into our PB population blog model? Our uncertainty factor will be wider than a well-fed PB’s arse.
Polar Bears have survived the ‘Holocene Optimum,’the ‘Roman Warm Period,’ ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ and will no doubt survive the current warm period, while it lasts:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
Um… a PB biologist? PB related evidence? Jumping ahead a bit there. We’re still trying to discover if we can abandon preconceived notions so we can consider the evidence.
Imagine if this thread, a PB thread, actually turned into a climate change denial thread instead.
Comment deleted as contained information not relevant to this thread and not factually correct. if carbon sync wants more information on the IPA (www.ipa.org.au ) and AEF (www.aefweb.info ) he can find it at their respective websites and Max Rheese has recently written an article explaining the relationship between the two groups published at OLO on about Tuesday and also available at the http://www.aefweb.info site click on articles .
I am proudly associated with both organisations, neither organisation sponsors this web log.
Jennifer
Someone silly wrote: “Imagine if this thread, a PB thread, actually turned into a climate change denial thread instead.”
Climate changes, that’s what climate does – hence the Holocene Optimum, RWP, MWP, LIA. Deny that.
Well,
as usual, the argument does not really move forward, but rather becomes entrenched in pre-determined positions.
But, ever the optimist, I proffer the following assessment of the relationship between sea ice and the number of polar bears.
Firstly, there are a number of references to the requirements of polar bears for sea ice.
They are cited in the IUCN document oft quoted in this thread and I see no reason to do others homwwork for them.
Some have made the point that the relationship is really between seals and polar bears and not polar bears and sea ice, because polar bears do not eat ice -this is partly true. Actually they do eat ice, but not for nourishment. Seems that polar bears also use sea ice for raising cubs in dens, and not just for hunting seals.
They are not totally dependent on sea ice and can make use of other resources that are not related to sea ice.
However, the current population size is dependent on sea ice as it greatly expands the areas that polar bears can use for hunting seals and raising young. Is anyone of the skeptics seriously postulating that in the absence of sea ice, polar bears will easily be able to switch to other resources and maintain the current population size?
If that were true, then why is it the case that many of the polar bears that come ashore at the end of the sea ice period in some areas lose weight? Are we to believe that the terrestrial resources are abundant enough that polar bears could simply switch to these without any impact on their population size, or that of other organisms using the resources?
Does not appear likely to me, as the adaptive strategy employed by the bears looks like a very good example of exploiting a niche not available to other species and thereby reducing competition for resources.
Clearly at times in the past, sea ice has waxed and waned, and presumably the polar bear population has as well if the declines in sea ice area have persisted over a number of years.
However, until recently they had no other pressures – now they do, they are called humans who are increasing in numbers and in recent history have shot many bears with high powered rifles and continue to do so.
If the sea ice does contract this time, where will the bears go? Will they stay out at sea, swimming and catching seals in open water -no chance.
They will have no choice other than to spend more time on land where, although they can make use of resources, they perhaps are not as well equipped as the other species in those habitats (you can also find some references on this in that IUCN report).
I think it is unlikely the number of bears will remain the same if that scenario occurs, partly because of competition with other species, and also partly because many more of them will be shot by humans.
This study looked at den use in western Hudson Bay, as proxied by growth anomalies in black spruce.
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic55-2-151.pdf
Den use is presumably an indication of population, greater den use = more bears. Den use increased during the 20th century, and correlated to a decline in hunting (and also to distance from the York Factory, a hide processing/trading enterprise).
Den activity was not correlated to climate.
“Climate, Hunting, and Denning Area Disturbance Rates
The temperature of the region has been recorded regularly since 1931, and the climate has been estimated through dendrochronology back to 1715 (Scott et al.,1988). During 1820 – 1920 the climate was very cool, which we know from modern analogue situations can be favourable for polar bears (Stirling et al., 1999). The warming that began in the 1880s increased after 1920 and
reached a peak in 1930 – 43. Subsequently there was a slight cooling through to the late 1970s, after which the weather records show a clear warming trend through to 1999 (Skinner et al., 1998). Overall, the 20th century was much warmer than the 19th. The three periods we selected
correspond to unregulated hunting and cool climatic conditions (1850 – 99), partially regulated hunting coinciding with a gradual warming trend (1900 – 53), and prohibited
hunting during a warm period, with a significant warming taking place after 1980 (1954 – 93). Overall, bear disturbance rates at the den sites increased from the 1920s until the late 1970s; since that time, they have fluctuated around
a similar average level. In general, there does not appear to be a relationship between the climate trends and the rates of den disturbance during the overall 1850 – 1993 period.
Although our samples are limited in number, size, and geographical distribution, we believe that changes in the frequency and pattern of disturbances at den sites may be related to the pattern of hunting and trading of hides at
York Factory during the 19th and early 20th century.”
Just thought this 1995 Canadian population data might be useful as a comparison to newer data if it can be located.
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic48-2-147.pdf
“The sum of polar bear population estimates within or partially within Canada is approximately 12 700. However, the available data were insufficient to quantify the precision and accuracy of some population estimates.”
Someone silly wrote: “Imagine if this thread, a PB thread, actually turned into a climate change denial thread instead.”
Climate changes, that’s what climate does – hence the Holocene Optimum, RWP, MWP, LIA. Deny that.
BUT that is the point – it is implicitly about AGW – that AGW won’t have a major impact on the Arctic ecosystem. That’s the implicit undercurrent in the debate on PBs across the net.
Themes:
(a) polar bears are both adaptable and ubiquitous
(b) there’s lotsa polar bears so what’s the problemo
(c) it’s all happened before (melting)
(d) or it isn’t melting at all
(e) lets argue about the rate of melting
(f) let’s argue about the impact of melting
Make no mistake this is a strategic issue.
Agendas at stake:
AGW policy
Arctic oil exploration
Game hunting
Someone somewhere probably cares about that bears too. The policy decision is to invest in these critters or walk away.
Climate changes – mmmm – and for reasons too.
Where is this thread-ship going? Slow down, I can see a huge iceberg looming in the mist.
Russell your posts indicate that you have read the relevant literature. Who else has? The thread is a bit directionless above with the jumping ahead with isolated quotes, lists of links, general mentions of climate and adaptability that don’t specifically relate to any PB findings, etc.
What should our starting point be? We still haven’t agreed to each drop preconceived declarations in order to consider the findings in an objective manner. We’re kidding ourselves if we think we’ve compiled data of a depth anywhere near questioning the IUCN findings. Until we do that we can take them in good faith (blog rule).
Russell you write ‘there are a number of references to the requirements of polar bears for sea ice. They are cited in the IUCN document oft quoted in this thread and I see no reason to do others homwwork for them.” Some of these were raised at the previous PB thread but not acknowledged by those who claim PBs are fine and not dependent on sea ice. This situation continues. You might find however there has been a reaction, which is to extend the claim that PB numbers are unrelated to ice extent (let alone thickness, or continuity) to who said ice will completely disappear?
I suggest we can’t move any further ahead on this evidence-seeking quest until we all 1st acknowledge our previously stated opinions and preconceptions on ice and PBs, and on the record, drop them. As blog owner who was trying to lead us on an evidence-based assessment of hte PB situation, Jennifer needs to show the leadership in this (or abandon the quest).
Don’t worry Luke, we can house the spare bears in Sea World.
Anyway, a bit more reading last night. To summarize:
1. Russell has given a good representation of the lit. in regards to numbers.
2. Three major ‘non-natural (used loosely)’ mortality types:
a. Hunting (where it still occurs)
b. Lack of food – related to Arctic. ocillation which is affected by climate change.
c. Toxic pollution build up.
Mix b. and c. together and it’s not good for the poor old bears.
3. Other mortality types:
a. Drowning – probably minor at this stage and related to b. above.
b. Cannibalism – doesn’t change numbers as the cannabilizing bear survives I would guess. Also related to b. above.
Future prospects.
1. If food is harder to come by for a significant part of the warm season, numbers will decline if not ballanced by further reductions in hunting. They may well decline anyway.
It is middle of the night here…and I’m going to sleep…
I have some info from Norwegian polar bear researchers, much is about the thickness of the ice… it has decreased… means problems for the polar bears
Summer hunting time has decreased with some weeks…polar bears can’t build up fat storage…means starvation
More about this in some hours…
Pinx
Someone(s) needs to be brave and write a summary (with references) in Jen’s Wiki.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Main_Page
Reference progress back in the thread. Then fight and edit it out to an assumed unhappy but agreed position on what the literature says.
A fair result is likely to have both sides unhappy (like divorce settlements).
I would excuse poor writing/grammar – be not ashamed – you just need to get some positions written down.
What constructive outcome would that achieve Luke? Summary info is abundant on PB science websites. ‘Jen’s Wiki’ is an oxymoron if you ask me.
The type of info Ann mentions is already in the literature. (Always interesting to ask Ann so good on you, but let’s make it clear if those findings are already available to us and the IUCN).
More spanner in the works. This article published in Science today (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5808/36a).
Could Mother Nature Give the Warming Arctic a Reprieve?
Richard A. Kerr
Basically, there appears to be a strong natural signal that fluctuates around CO2 forcing in the Artic. In the last 10-15 years both the natural and AGW signal have been increasing, causing rapid warming. The natural signal could soon reverse and counter the AGW signal, causing static or only slowly increasing temperatures, before cycling again. So our PBs may get a bit of a short temp reprieve.
Thanks Luke and Pinxi,
I’ve learnt a lot from this thread and there is lots of information and links here for anyone interested in finding out more.
The socratic method, where different views come together and put their best information forward is one way of learning and gathering information. And blogs are particularly well suited to the concept.
It would seem that there is general agreement about a few things:
– not enough good historical data on population numbers
– different subpopulations exist
– numbers in some of these subpopulations were depressed by hunting
– with controls on hunting overall numbers have increased
– polar bears use sea ice for hunting seals
– sea ice is a principle habitat for some large subpopulations of polar bears
– some subpopulations are being impacted by the early breakup of sea ice
– some subpopulations may be close to carrying capacity
The big unknown and point of real dispute, seems to be the extent to which a predicted reduction in the extent of sea ice will impact on polar bear numbers into the future:
– there seems little agreement on the likely extent of the reduction in the area of sea ice
– there seems little agreement on the current influence/impact of the extent of sea ice on polar bear numbers
The focus here has mostly been on the current and historical situation. There is a need for a thread which projects into the future, but it may have to wait until I come back from the beach which will be after next week.
Has the link provided by BobK worked for anyone? It didn’t for me.
Re. the Wiki, it has been sitting there for some time unused and as part of a revamp of the website (this blog had banner changed and colour added a couple of weeks ago) it was going to change to access by request/password only. So your timing Luke, might not be that good. But I will have a go at getting a summary up there, will perhaps copy the attached across and for the moment at least anyone will be able to go in and make changes.
Thanks to everyone for their input to the moment including Schiller, Pinxi, Ann, Russell, Paul, Luke, Bob, Yorkie etcetera …
Jennifer,
I just clicked the link I put in my post and it still works for me. It’s a link directly to the Acrobat Reader pdf file. Not a web page.
I’m using version 7.08 of the reader. I’m in Ct. USA, so it isn’t restricted to only Canadian IP’s.
Other than that I don’t know what to say.
On second thought, I do know what to say. If you still can’t get it I can zip it and email it. Let me know if you want it that way. I’ll check back tomorrow.
Bob K,
It worked second time around. Thanks I’m printing it off now.
Re. the Wiki,
I’ve started a summary at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Polar_Bears
If you visit you will see I have forgotten how to format.
It would be good if someone started formatting this and added to what’s there and perhaps created a summary of all the links/information from this thread.
Thanks for the summary Jennifer. a quick response:
– not enough good historical data on SOME populations (refer subpopulations in IUCN proceedings)
– where long-term population studies have been undertaken there are indications of declining population numbers and deteriorating bear condition (quotes & links for this are above).
– some subpopulations are being NEGATIVELY impacted by the early breakup of sea ice
Pinxi,
Come on, there is a real paucity of information!
So can’t agree with 1.
My understanding is that over the longer term there has been an increase in bear numbers including at Churchill, so not sure how you get to 2. Perhaps we are confusing now with the longer-term?
Agree with 3.
Hope this helps:
1. I don’t know if it’s accurate claim for all subpopulations, do you? Did you read all the subpopn info in the IUCN proceedings? Yes by nature it’s a hard animal to study +other factors. But just taking an overview of total numbers of all popns/30 yrs risks overlooking smaller, potentially emerging or localised patterns. As compromise perhaps you can say ‘we don’t know’ or define: ‘historical’, does ‘population’ mean total population of all PBs & ‘not good enough’ – for what? A bit ambiguous.
2.what’s long-term then, from when to when? If you take the long term during hunting there was a decrease, then an expansion. But this relates to 1. Need to look at movements in subpopulations not just total overall single index.
eg from above, W Hudson Bay decline
from 1200 in 1987 to less than 950 in 2004
As another helpful suggestion (compromise), perhaps the summary info should be divided in OVERALL total trend for total period of time defined (yr approx 3 decades) since hunting stopped & allowed numbers to increase again
v’s
finer grained info:
subpopulations
& long-term population studies (important & cant be dismissed)
Pinxi,
Good ideas.
Given there appears to be most information for the Hudson Bay populations (east and west?) could someone do a summary back as far as we can go (i.e. at least before hunting) to now (2006) for just that population with a focus on numbers, condition and impacts on the same?
PS Perhaps I should clarify and suggest just the West Hudson bay population?
Also SBS where they applied techniques from WHB and reporting similar changes to WHB.
Also “In Baffin Bay, the available data suggest that the population is being overharvested”
Summary, from the reports on WHB:
– decreased reproduction, litters and recruitment
– declining body condition, lowered reproductive rates, reduced survival of cubs, and an increase in polar bear-human interactions
I’d include from 1200 in 1987 to less than 950 in 2004 as that seems to be official WHB position
havent seen much in way of useful figures before then although studies go back earlier (I’m not about to dig further). Off the cuff I think that might be because they dabbled a while to get confident of the reliability of their assessments.
says here
The western Hudson Bay polar bear population has been a focus of research for over 30 years (1966-ongoing)
with lit if anyone interested
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/andrew_derocher/index.php?Page=3245
but perhaps links above are better,
above plus extract from IUCN below support the point on no. 1 (ie about quality of ‘good enough’ data varying by subpopulations):
Western Hudson Bay (WH) polar bear
subpopulation have been the subject of research
programmes since the late 1960s (Stirling et al. 1977,
1999, Derocher and Stirling 1995a,b, Taylor and Lee
1995, Lunn et al. 1997). Over 80% of the adult
subpopulation is marked, and there are extensive records
from capture-recapture studies and tag returns from
polar bears killed by Inuit hunters.
it’s said elswhere these trends are well established.
Also, re total PB numbers I wouldn’t say 25,000 if the IUCN says the range is thought to be 20–25,000 I’d say 20-25,000. (We’ve already acknowledged uncertainty in total counts).
Regarding the starting figure of 5,000 PBs, there’s no verification for that above. Not sure where that figure came from Jennifer or what year/s it’s supposed to represent. I wouldn’t include it without anything to back it. Again if we have a source for a population range (from whatever prior year) then we should show the range (I don’t have such figures).
Everyone,
New Information
I’ve been send an email with information claiming that the reduction in the West Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation has occured because of the fencing of the main garbage dump for the town of Churchill. This was apparently a major source of summer food for the bears.
————————–
Pinxi,
Re. your post of 12.59pm
1. I thought you were going to do a chronology for the West Hudson Bay population?
2. I repeated asked you and others for a starting number at the beginning of this thread… only now you are rejecting the figure of 5,000? And at the same time suggesting there is good historical information?
3. How can we agree with the claim that numbers have increased due to bans on hunting if we can’t agree on a starting number for 1970? This is basic.
3. It is important when collecting information to not jump around too much, to try and be systematic within reason. I lose confidence in a conclusion if key piece of information are disgarded or added late in the process.
Such cheek from you Jennifer! I’ve performed hours of research. You? I said above now over to you to do your fair share. I’ve provided numbers I found at reliable sources (not from casual references).
I did have yet another look after my last post above, but given it’s your claim, I’ll leave it to you to substantiate the 5,000 figure.
Don’t be so cheeky as to pull the ‘only now you tell me’ act seeing that
a) you should verify your own claims, and
b) right up until your summary post I was still saying we hadn’t moved beyond the beginning stage and that the data was insufficient to query the IUCN findings.
We’re not performing or verifying original research here, let’s not kid ourselves. You know to check the 5,000 figure before publishing it so don’t blame me. You’re the only biologist here who has written an article on PB populations so surely you have some researched data to contribute? Readers will wonder if you’re intellectually lazy or don’t know how to research.
3(b) – confidence in conclusion – rejecting new information – huh? You’ve jumped ahead right off the page (please reread my last paragraph). What information have you collected? You admitted yourself that you weren’t sure if your 5,000 figure was accurate. 10,000 has been bandied about somewhere too, but what’s the source? Time for you to do a little research too my dear.
Jennifer will you reject this New Information about fencing of the main garbage dump given that you lose confidence if key information is added late in the process? Or is that a selective rule depending whether the news is convenient or not? You need to verify the 5,000 or 10,000 or whatever it is.
Pinxi,
An important rule, NEVER reject new information.
But sometimes as a consequence of new information you need to start all over again.
So it is better that basic bits of information get sorted out/agreed upon early in a process.
And I’ve come to the conclusion it would be very difficult to teach you the skills associated with what I consider to be good information gathering.
Yes you would need to master those skills first.
But: ” Thanks Luke and Pinxi,
I’ve learnt a lot from this thread and there is lots of information and links here for anyone interested in finding out more.”
Let’s be pals again, it’s nicer that way and we were all making some progress. We’re still open to new evidence from reliable, quality sources. We still need to verify the figures for the starting population. With the greatest possible respect Jennifer I state very strongly that you should produce a referenced 5,000 or 10,000 or whatever it was starting figure and date. Perhaps a sympathetic reader will find a source and email it to you. I’ve done more than my fair share of research and providing info with quality supporting references while you haven’t provided any at all which is a bit odd considering that you’ve written on the topic before.
Gals: This obsession with numbers disturbs me. I bet we could find a similar stroke by stroke class competition on any S&M site.
Damn the bears hey!
it is taking a while to scroll all the way down here. How about we hypotheticaly agree that:
1- Approx 5000 PBs 1970. 10000 if it means that much to you.
2- over 20000 in 2007
3- some bears hunt from sea ice
4- some bears live on land/land ice
5- polar bears eat.
where to from here? Assuming humans could reverse global warming,will china and india with a third of the worlds population, who seek some of the western lifestyle, give more than a passing thought about whether or not the sea ice is a bit thin in the arctic.
How many PB’s are enough? Do we interfere or let them reach some sort of equilibrium naturally.
Do we concern ourselves that the bears can’t get an easy meal from a tip somewhere, or that millions of children around the world don’t get adequate sustainence.
The “facts” are getting us nowhere fast,how about some solutions . What do we want to see as our goal(year 2100 for arguements sake) and work back.
I’ve emailed Environment Canada to see if they have a reference for earlier PB numbers that we can access.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/envhome.html
There is a reference summarising population studies done in Canada, but I don’t know how to get the actual paper.
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=1024201&q=&uid=786716532&setcookie=yes
Here’s a couple of worried looking guys who think Global Warming is A Very Bad Thing!
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/content_contenu/images/bearours1.jpg
>And I’ve come to the conclusion it would be very difficult to teach you the skills associated with what I consider to be good information gathering.
I can’t believe you wrote that Jennifer. La Pantera Rosa has put in a lot of work following up information (as have other contibutors), but I have seen sweet FA from you. In fact we were going to have a Part II of this discussion where you informed us why you thought this species was not going to be threatened in the future. Seems Part II is not forthcoming now?
I fail to see how you have presented YOUR argument in a professional, scientific manner, yet you manage to rudely dismiss the work another has done, not to mention the real researchers out there who have done the work in the first place! You earn respect Jennifer, not have it given to you automatically when the University VC shakes your hand.
Looks to me like Jen has the far stronger argument Travis.
Pinxi is just a garden variety troll if you ask me. And has been well and truly bettered.
Here’s a fact sheet on PBs, text by I Stirling (but dated 2002). Not considered endangered then, have things changed so much in 4 years?
http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=99
Of course the scientific fact that 97% of all known species to have existed are now fossils would probably be an inconvenient fact?
Figure out what causes mass species extinctions and the appearance of new ones first before wailing over polar bears.
Jennifer:” I’ve been send an email with information claiming that the reduction in the West Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation has occured because of the fencing of the main garbage dump for the town of Churchill. This was apparently a major source of summer food for the bears. ”
Yeah, Churchill, Canada, is THE polar bear town.
It is the town in the whole world that is most visited by polar bears. They really are a nuisance…
There are patrols out every day to collect the polar bears and then driving them out of town again with lorries…
So why are they visiting Churchill?? Is it scarcity of food or are they just comfortable ,finding it easier to look for food on a garbage dump?
Once again it must be mentioned that polar bears are specialized in seal hunting from the ice edge…
I’m not gonna post the Norwegian articles since much of this info has already been discussed here.
>Looks to me like Jen has the far stronger argument Travis.
And what argument is that Paul? There is inconclusive and conflicting information here, as always, depending on which side of the debate you want to perch yourself. However, real science is about remaining objective, no matter how precious your theory is, until ALL the facts are in and can be preferrably peer-reviewed. It’s obvious from you Paul that Jennifer is getting her fan club to do the peer-reviewing on this occassion.
Louis, I thought 47% of statistics were false, or was it 83%?
Happy New Year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
Is that new information on Churchill from a rubbish source or does it meet our standards for evidence? Any reason to believe the researchers overlooked it? Will you share the new information Jennifer?
Paul W about a decade ago they were reporting declining trends in breeding, litters, recruitment, weight … if such trends continue, population ages, and then if there were additional pressures & less food left for cubs to scavange etc .. not optimal. I suggest reading their later research (mentioned above) if you’re interested.
Rojo, Thanks for having a go at getting this thread back on track.
Jen says:
“An important rule, NEVER reject new information.
But sometimes as a consequence of new information you need to start all over again. ”
We should not reject “new information” just because we don’t like it. However it is often almost impossible for the armchair observer to assess the new information in any meaningful way. We really need to wait for the “experts” to critique it. We also need to wait and see if other researchers can replicate the results that led to the “new information”. Until this occurs, “new information” shouldn’t be treated as fact.
Once again Louis gallops into the fray, fires off his trademark couple of irrelevant remarks (err, facts) and gallops off into the sunset.
Who was that masked man we all ask ourselves?
Back to the serious debate.
It ought to be obvious that current population numbers of polar bears are tied to the current expanse of the ice sheet, if it is not then some of your really should read a little more basic ecology – interestingly some of the people adopting this position are those that happily tie the abundance of certain australian fauna to increases/decreases in habitat area whne it suits them.
When the sea ice expands, there are more bears, when it contracts, some will sucessfully make the transition to other prey items in other habitats, others will not and overall numbers will fall.
In my view a serious contraction of the area of ice sheet will have a serious impact on the number of bears. It has happened before obviously as the sheet has contracted and expanded in the past. Nothing new there and the species has obviously survived these events in the past, and presumably could again.
However, this is not the same scenario as before, because the reduced numbers of bears in those other habitats will come into increasing contact with humans and it is likely the bears will lose -it has happened in other times when humans and bears found they do not have much in common, and there is no reason to expect it will not happen again. I certainaly would not want to live in close proximity to hungry polar bears.
If the bear populations are reduced by reduction of sea ice, and then reduced again by contact with humans it is conceivable that the population could fall to such low levels that it does not recover -hence the very reasonable change in listing which is to “potentially vulnerable” and notice that word “potentially”. The listing is a first warning sign -incidentally if you will visit the IUCN site and look at the recent listing changes you might notice that the species immediately below the polar bear in the list has recently had it’s vulnerability downgraded as new information reveals it is not as vulnerable as first thought. Hardly a rabid bunch of greenies over there at the IUCN are they?
And it is not their fault if some lazy journalists interpret that as “ice sheet is melting ergo polar bears will go extinct”.
Just as it is not their fault if equally lazy journalists come up with “bear numbers have increased in last 30 years ergo they will not go extinct”.
Whether or not the bears are vulnerable will depend of course on how long the contraction of sea ice area lasts?
It is the case that there is less sea ice at present, I don’t think anyone here is arguing the contrary. But many dispute whether the ice sheet thinning, melting earlier and being smaller in size is a consequence of global warming, or just typical variation of local climate. If it is global warming the expectation is that the contraction will last a very long time -long enough to put the species in harms way i.e. reduced numbers in close proximity to humans.
Funnily enough, those opposing the idea that sea ice is melting because of AGW are now suggesting that even if the ice is melting it doesnt matter to polar bears.
My view is that it does not matter whether the ice melting is AGW or not, what matters is that a polar bear population dependent on ice to keep it away from humans is now facing a reduction in numbers and closer contact with humans -that can only be a problem for both species.
Much has been made of the fact there are more bears now than in the 1960s and 1970s and by implication therefore they are in no danger. I have not seen anyone demonstrate that the current number of bears is anywhere near the levels that might have been present prior to the advent of the high powered rifle. So to my mind the fact the bears have increased in numbers in the recent past is an indicator that the regulation of hunting has worked. No other conclusion can be drawn from that in relation to the potential of the species future survival.
From the Wall Street Journal (Polar Bear Politics; 3rd January; subscription only):
‘…there are in fact more polar bears in the world now than there were 40 years ago, as the nearby chart shows. The main threat to polar bears in recent decades has been from hunting, with estimates as low as 5,000 to 10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. But thanks to conservation efforts, and some cross-border cooperation among the U.S., Canada and Russia, the best estimate today is that the polar bear population is 20,000 to 25,000.
It also turns out that most of the alarm over the polar bear’s future stems from a single, peer-reviewed study, which found that the bear population had declined by some 250, or 25%, in Western Hudson Bay in the last decade. But the polar bear’s range is far more extensive than Hudson Bay. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain concluded that the ice bear populations ”may now be near historic highs.” One of the leading experts on the polar bear, Mitchell Taylor, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory in Canada, has found that the Canadian polar bear population has actually increased by 25% — to 15,000 from 12,000 over the past decade.
La Panter, not sure what research or PB population you’re referring to. Do you have a link? Thanks.
Paul,
Yes, I have read American papers as well that state observations of polar bears have increased…. but, but Paul, they have been observations by Inuit hunters, who claim this. The ” truth” is that the Inuit hunters want increased hunting permits….
NASA report indicates that increased human observations of polar bears are correlated with decreased ice sheet, means possibilty to observe polar bears have increased….
This polar bear trophy hunting for US mega rich hunters is BIG BUSINESS….
Jen , it was worth a try.
It would appear there is no end goal, so we must be argueing for the status quo. In history few things have remained static so change and adaption is the norm. It really makes little difference now whether 10000 years ago the PB population was larger or lower than today. It is history and is valuable from an interest point of view but little else.
Our concern now (doesn’t really matter about what the population was 30 years ago) is whether or not the current population is sustainable. Is there enough food? Can they find it? What do we do if there isn’t/they can’t.
What is the target number that will trigger real human intervention.
So far we have only been argueing numbers that in effect are meaningless. It is the current population and where it goes from here that is important. Down will be a good thing if food is not sufficient, up will be a good thing if food is sufficient. Well, not for the seals.
Sea ice is but one variable.
“that polar bear numbers have more than doubled over the last 30 years.”
Where is the source of this assertion? Because at least one population is in delcine in the Western Hudson Bay and Amstrup has found another is now as well, but he says getting the mark-recapture data is difficult and is striving for more accurate protocols. You have to supply sources, but I see none at all. Maybe in the archives. I added mine in the last thread.
From : Amstrup
“We analyzed capture-recapture data collected from 1984-2004 by the Canadian Wildlife Service, and handling data for polar bears captured in and around the community of Churchill by the Manitoba Department of Conservation. We used Cormack-Jolly-Seber to estimate survival, population size, and population growth rate. We concluded that the total size of the WH polar bear population declined by approximately 22%, from 1194 (95% CI = 1020, 1368) in 1987 to 935 (95% CI = 794, 1076) in 2004. The correlation between earlier sea ice breakup and decreased survival provides quantitative evidence for a link between climatic warming and polar bear population dynamics. It may also help explain why Churchill, like other communities along the western coast of Hudson Bay, has experienced an increase in the number of bears that come into town prior to freeze-up each fall. The progressively earlier breakup of sea ice shortens the time that polar bears can hunt seals during the critical spring foraging season, thereby reducing their ability to accumulate the fat reserves they rely upon while stranded on land. The WH population is forced ashore earlier, in poorer nutritional condition, and remains food-deprived for a longer time. As polar bears exhaust their fat reserves toward the end of the ice-free period, they are more likely to encroach upon human settlements in search of alternative food sources to sustain themselves until freeze-up. Thus, the increase in polar bear-human interactions in western Hudson Bay probably* reflects an increase in nutritionally-stressed polar bears searching for food, not an increase in population size. Models developed and tested on the WHB project are currently being used for a new population estimation for polar bears of the Southern Beaufort Sea.”
In addition dens have moved off the ice in recent years. Despite the attempts to refute the ice/bear correlation, ice pack extent is key to polar bear survival and is the preferred polar bear habitat. Living at the dump isn’t a rational option.
Polar Bears seem to be threatened by computer models – so simply get rid of the models.
I can confirm that Polar Bears are extinct in Scotland, following the end of the last great ice age. Don’t worry – I’ve started a ‘bring back the ice age’ campaign. Can anyone work out how much I need to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the current 380ppmv to achieve ice age temperatures?
We are proposing the creation of highly sophisticated machines that would be capable of absorbing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere and
converting it to a harmless and preferably useful substance such as Oxygen.
The only waste product would also be harmless and be entirely bio-degradable.
To be aesthetically pleasing, the machines would be relatively small in size and so to be effective would need to operate in vast numbers. So achieve this, the machines would not only be capable of increasing their conversion capacity over time, but would actually be capable of
manufacturing copies of themselves so that they could in time spread across the entire surface of the planet to increase their overall efficiency.
In a revolutionary move, waste material from the conversion process would be recycled as raw material to expand the size and thus the capacity of the machine.
To be as environmentally friendly as possible, the machines would be entirely solar powered, and would require virtually no maintenance.
After much debate the name chosen for these machines is ‘Terraforming Robots Enabling Environmental Stability’, or ‘TREES’ for short.
“- there seems little agreement on the likely extent of the reduction in the area of sea ice
– there seems little agreement on the current influence/impact of the extent of sea ice on polar bear numbers”
There is nothing of the sort. I see confirmation bias with all the so-called global warming false debates.
“Your search – “Paul Biggs” – did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing “”Paul Biggs””.
I’m shocked!
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/brd/STW_BasisResults.cfm?PTS=3210APN.13.1
Paul – don’t plant too many trees in your part of the world or you’ll darken your albdeo. And then you’ll have Motty on your case !
True, dark forests in temperate regions absorb more sunlight, crops tend to be more reflective.
There’s me thinking climate was a simple CO2 thing. Still no takers for a calculation on how much CO2 needs to be removed from the atmosphere?
Damn, my entire publication record from 1981 to 2002 is invisible. Even more invisible if I just posted under the name ‘Paul.’
Perhaps you could link it directly in a CV so people can see? CO2 levels need to be first halted from further increase and then dialed back from there. Perhaps you could work on the solution? How to get powerplants on some other fuel than coal would be a good start. Denying ice loss would be another.
Can you take enough out to cause an ice age?
If you take too much you’ll depress plant and plankton photosynthesis
Anne,
Here´s a pic of a beluga that survived a PB attack
http://www.rspcaphotolibrary.com/zoomPopUp.php?assetPK=10103
There´s a few more here of PB`s preying on belugas –
http://www.rspcaphotolibrary.com/search.php?inc=quickSearch&search=beluga
Mark A York, It must be gratifying to get some responses here. Quick calculations suggest more comment here to your views than on your own website. Why would that be? Don’t we know you well enough yet.
Jennifer asks Luke in one post, which analysis states that the Arctic will be free of sea ice in about 33 years.
It is the Stern report that states this. This report is the basis for for the US government’s decision to try to list the polar bear as threatened by extinction ( I have already mentioned this).
The Stern report is a BIG thing in Europe.
Some conclusions of the report:
It warns that if no action is taken:
Floods from rising sea levels could displace up to 100 million people
Melting glaciers could cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world’s population
Wildlife will be harmed; at worst up to 40% of species could become extinct
Droughts may create tens or even hundreds of millions of “climate refugees”
Clear
BBC article on the Stern report ( by former World Bank CEO, Sir Nicholas Stern):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm
Ooops…Sir Nicholas Stern, is former chief economist at the World Bank
Well Freddy I get some comments, but skeptic centric writers seem to get more. Why do you suspect that is?
“Well Freddy I get some comments, but skeptic centric writers seem to get more. Why do you suspect that is?”
Possibly because of the really annoying MSN passport window that pops up repeatedly when you click on your name link Mark .. it kinda puts me off for one ..
There is nothing of the sort. Blogger has nothing to do with MSN passport.
Mark A, I suspect its because sceptics tend to analyse information and question it differently to those who are dedicated to “bashing the myths perpetuated by the untrained conservative mind”.
It’s the type of language you use and from your response to Lukes comments on your site that differentiates.
Sceptics tend to address the validity of a comment as opposed to the commenter. Perhaps you could try the same. “bring in the clowns” placed a value judgement on being sceptical not the issue they were addressing.
Sceptisism is by definition “one who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be knowledge” (maquarie)
Questioning is very different to imposing when it comes to viewpoints.
I eagerly await more “wisdom and punditry”.
“There is nothing of the sort. Blogger has nothing to do with MSN passport.”
Mark, just clicked on your link again – same sh*t … Microsoft net passport and then a login window to something or other …
it´s a pain in the butt …. but then again, maybe I´m the only one getting it :o?
I think so George. I know some of my articles are stored on MSN but I see no reason why this is happening. Check your browser settings. That’s the only expanation I have. It isn’t deliberate I assure you. I’m just a free blogger and don’t pay for web space.
Well, as scientist myself I question things that need questioning. Conservatives frequently operate on automatic belief mode. Of course if you are one that won’t register. Only confirmation bias will. Reason operates in neutral. Doubting a claim in the face of a preponderance of counter evidence is akin to holocaust denial and many lesser unpleasant truths. I just don’t respect that. The sceptics claims are skoffed at because their logically invalid. If they had merit they wouldn’t be. I guess one has to know what the difference is.
http://www.realclimate.org/
To read and discuss. Start with the Al Gore post. Ms. Marohasy, who I’m certain is a smart scientist in her area called it “misguided.” She adds by a “failed presidential candidate.” Well cliamte experts say he gets the science right save for a couple of minor instances. The question you should ask yourselves is who is right?
George yes same thing happens to me with the pop-up. It’s certainly persistant.
Mark A I have not yet seen the movie so cannot comment on whether or not misguided is appropriate. But I will note that misguided does not mean “this movie is completely wrong” perhaps misguided refers to the couple of minor instances.
It is unfair that Mr Gore will be remembered most for a past failure and his ongoing work since then judged on that basis. The only thing is he is a spokesman for the movie because of his past profile. I don’t seem to recall dramatic environmental statements whilst he was running for office.
One doesn’t have to be a scientist to have a questioning mind. Often the language employed denotes how the author is leaning and whether or not they are receptive to alternate views.
“bring in the clowns” in relation to someone who said nothing false,(although presumption is strong) about climate in 50-100 years time, and Ms Marohasy merely pointing out the obvious, suggests a certain lean.
Comparing conservative thinking, whatever that is, to the holocaust simply infers that views contrary to GW evidence are of criminal nature and that any such view will not be judged on it’s merit. I would suggest this is not being open minded.
I think the movie is a sideline to the debate. Instead of taking on the science head-on let’s attack a popularisation of the science. Then we can further sideline by discussing is Gore fair dinkum or not. Let’s then divert to the “I invented the Internet” quip or he owns too much property and off we go! Let’s similarly then attack Crichton on analogous grounds and off we go again.
Reality is that contrarians and denilaists get far too much air-time and publicity for the quality of their arguments. It doesn’t justify 50:50.
However you can see a reaction by the scientists in the new “middle ground” debate to refocus, be clear, and be more circumspect on the uncertainties. Of course groups like RealClimate have retorted “Yep – that’s what we’ve been doing all along”. What’s new?
What’s new is the high level of hysteria in the media and the constant off-on nature of the press – relishing the debate and amplifying confusion. Conflict sells newspapers. Public information and science communication comes second.
Anyway – la de dah (Annie Hall)
While nobody is watching would anyone(s) like write a very short 10 point summary of the above tedious eye gouging episode in terms of what we now know about baaars and the likely threats to their ecosystem/populations. 10 short points is it !
What’s the ducks guts – err baars guts !
Then we’ll never speak of it again.
Luke,
I can try to make a short summary….however,it has to wait a few hours!
Pixie might as well give it a go!
And we won’t tell Jen OK – shhhh – Mum’s the word.
I know nothing ! (Schultz)
OK Lukey, here’s a very short summary. My post is cut in two, due to computer problems. On request I have made 10 points re the threats to their ecosystem/population.
1) Five out of 19 polar bear populations are currently in decline -compared to one population 5 years ago.
2 subpopulations are increasing.
Main threats to polar bears are loss of sea ice, thinning of sea ice, as polar bears are specialist on seal hunting from the ice edge.
2) Earlier ice melting in spring and later formation in autumn makes hunting period shorter and the polar bears will suffer from starvation
3) Illegal hunting ( mainly Russia)
4) Contamination ( Russia, Svalbard)
5) Habitat loss/fragmentation/ poor genetic pool
Continuation.
6) Loss of key prey due to GW ( ringed seals)
7) Overall population has increased since the 70’s, due to hunting ban, but overall trend is negative
8) Polar bear researcher Ian Sterling on Western Hudson polar bears ” the physical condition of both female and male adults have seriously deteriorated”. Cub survival has decreased.
9) Increased cannibalism
10) Polar bears in Svalbard , Norway, will probably have no polar bear cubs this season due to poor ice conditions.
OK – VERY well done Ann – anyone want to edit?
Nope – good.
I reckon record the above in Jen’s Wiki! That will be a reference point and then others disaffected can make edit suggestions. I urge you to make a first mark on the cave wall Ann !
Next list of allowed ONLY 5 dot points – what is your analysis of various stories on Artic melt from global warming and contrarian stories and given you are the Arctic Policy Officer on Duty Watch – what is your advice to the US President and Canadian Prime Minister on PB management (nationally and internationally).
Geeeee Lukey…your questions are getting more and more tricky!!! But OK, will give it a try tomorrow…
It’s a very good list Ann, but I’d suggest an endnote to the sources. Frequently in sceptic circles which are all right-wing politically speaking regardless of country of origin, they refer and parrot one sceptic with some sort of qualifications, like William Gray a hurricane predictor, who choses to deny rising sea surface temperatures. Richard Lindzen of MIT is another and now this polar bear guy in Canada, Dr. Mitchell Taylor. The basic cry is they’re increasing so what’s the big deal. That was the headline here. They big deal is they aren’t in some subpopulations and this is new.
During the temporary cooling period in the ’70s ice pack decrease slowed, and this helped to keep the bears stable during that period.
The reaclimate guys are the real deal. They debunk sceptic views and sources not for political reasons but because the data used to deny AGW is false. Compared to Crichton Al Gore nailed it. Of course it’s the Cliff Notes version. CO2 is the #1 climate forcing and it continues to rise.
I don’t understand the MSN popup window. I don’t get it and don’t know anyone else who does. Can you open the links to the documents on my page? Turn on your popup blocker?
Mark – I had your MSN popup thing once visiting your site, but now cannot reproduce with Live Messenger 8.0 on or off in combination with both Internet Explorer 7.0 or Firefox 2.0 – Weird?
Hi Mark,
No problems here… thanks for your advice! Basically, I just scribbled down what we had previously discussed… agree this Dr Mitch Taylor might pose a problem, however he has only mentioned that one polar bear subpopulation has increased… and how much evidence is there about the Inuit claims that more polar bears have been spotted???
Being open minded doesn’t mean I have to accept alternative universe assertions that are demonstrably false. Media misrepresentation continues to be a problem.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/chinese-whispers-in-australia/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/inhofes-last-stand/
It seems our “former” congressional leadership had to tap OZ to find an “expert” who agreed with them. Not a good sign, and very bad PR.
More sceptic “techniques.”
https://cf.iats.missouri.edu/news/NewsBureauSingleNews.cfm?newsid=9842
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_9241.htm
And the response:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/
“10) Polar bears in Svalbard , Norway, will probably have no polar bear cubs this season due to poor ice conditions”
Polar bears on Hopen, not Svalbard 😉 If I missed the quote about svalbard, then my apologies ..
Mark we protest – he’s originally from New Zealand 🙂
Mark,
FWIW, I´m using IE 7 – I had a look at your source code and Found various references to MSN.com such as this :
http://www.msnusers.com/u8bnch5hllr9ai6o25o60lka27/Documents/Clips%
What I think´s happening ( somehow ) is that those with Microsft NET 2.0 installed are getting the pop ups …( maybe )
My pop up blocker is on BTW .. and I still get the logon windows etc ..
Hi George,
LOL! KNEW you should make this remark… Maybe you can explain for the guys the position of Hopen?
And Mark, unfortunately I don’t dicuss much climate issues… I’m more into whaling and issues like that…
Mark,
It´s these links :
Brothers in Arms: The Colburns of New Egland
Clinton Letter 1.
Clinton Letter 2.
Clinton Letter 3.
All link to an MSN site and hence, the logon thingy …
Hi anne ..
No worries ..
Hopen is an island to the ESE of Svalbard ( maybe 120nm from Edgeoya in the svalbard archipeligo )
http://www.russia.no/regional/svalbard/svalbard-map-4.jpg
its surrounded by pack ice in the winter months .. and is a good area for PB dens usually .. not this year though due to ice breakup or something or other ( it´s linked somewhere in the thread ..)
“and is a good area for PB dens usually .. not this year though due to ice breakup ”
ARGH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t know about the Inuit claims of more bears? Two subpopulations are now show signs of decline according to Dr. Steven Amstrup of our US Biological Survey. The contrarians I fenced with first on this issue just cited 1992 numbers and said Ha!
I’m a biologist myself, albeit in fisheries, but worked in ANWR in 1989. I never saw one bear in my travels but then I wasn’t looking for them either. The decrease appears to be fairly recent and for the first time correlates to lack of pack ice.
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/brd/STW_BasisResults.cfm?PTS=3210APN.13.1
“The correlation between earlier sea ice breakup and decreased survival provides quantitative evidence for a link between climatic warming and polar bear population dynamics.”
Thus,
“the increase in polar bear-human interactions in western Hudson Bay probably* reflects an increase in nutritionally-stressed polar bears searching for food, not an increase in population size.”
This is as far out on a limb as these researchers tend to go, and getting this much is very telling.
Yeah, Luke I don’t get it either. I’m just on IE6 now, but not in Mozilla either. I couldn’t get IE7 to work right. It couldn’t present the pages correctly. Especially my blogger blog. The headers wouldn’t fit in the page, so I removed it. As I said, my linked clips and articles are stored on MSN and that may be related. I don’t know if I stored them on Yahoo instead if it would advertise itself automatically or not. Weird indeed.
Yeah it’s the clip storage on MSN that’s the problem. I’d have to move them to another portal but I can’t do it now. Sorry. Commercialism you know. Noted on the New Zealander, but we have to accept respnsibility for our immigrants.
Yeah lack of ice dependable enough to den on is a part of the problem. In Alaska dens have steadily moved on land where the oil development is in recent years. That’s a separate concern. I’m peddling a novel on all of this, but it’s easier to sell ecoterrorism as the ultimate villain, to date anyway.
Lukey,
http://www.svalbardposten.no/nyhet.cfm?nyhetid=485
It´s in Norwegian though ;op
but ..
” Isforholdene er svært viktig. Vi ser at antallet bjørner observert svinger voldsomt med isforholdene både på Hopen og Bjørnøya, sier isbjørnforsker Jon Aars i Norsk Polarinstitutt.
Ice conditions are very important. We see that the number of PB´s observed swings violently with ice conditions both at Hopen and Bjornoya ( Bear Island ) says blah blah blah
You’re digging a deeper hole George with each post – keep coming. So PBs vary with ice conditions he?
Luke,
Which hole would that be?
I´m offering info for yer perusal lukey –
Ultimately, it´s adapt or die though isn´t it? as it´s always been …
The number of bears observed correlates with the ice conditions – and these conditions vary from year to year .. decade to decade etc etc… your point being?
Articles mentioned have been moved. Thanks for the tip.
Hi mark..
I missed one ..
Federal Resume OF-612
thats also on msn- still getting the login so that must be one as well..
“The number of bears observed correlates with the ice conditions – and these conditions vary from year to year .. decade to decade etc etc… your point being?” – then the extent and quality of the ice conditions are key to their survival. QED. Checked off.
” then the extent and quality of the ice conditions are key to their survival. QED. Checked off.”
The assumption being that they cannot adapt to a reduced ice coverage and or an ice free environment luke? Or that even though they have survived previous reduced ice conditions, they won´t this time because of pollution etc etc ?
Plucky call Luke …
I’ll get right on it. Yes the ice is critical habitat. And this is the concern leading to the threatened status, which is one stage below endangered under the ESA. This means they aren’t endangered, yet.
“or an ice free environment”
Then we’d have Ice-less Bears. We could keep them in big frost-free fridges and feed them watermelons.
Luke asked me to make a short analysis on various stories on Arctic melt from GW and contrarian stories( Geeeez….!!!)
Five dot points. Very short summary.
1) Europe seems to take the Arctic melting and GW issue more seriously than most other countries. It is mostly focused on AGW. Headline news every day.
2) This might be because it is more visible here than in the Southern hemisphere (?)
3) Contrarians alsways talk about previous warming periods— telling us that the ecosystem has adapted and humans have survived. Tending to forget that our planet now is a different society with a huge population that will be affected negatively by global warming.
4) The contrarians always talk about how much it will cost to curb the greenhouse gas emissions, forgetting that the recently released Stern report( Review) indicates how much it will cost the society financially, if we don’t take steps today to curb the greehouse gas emissions.
5) The contrarians are talking about tree-lines, this can not be a good indicator for previous warming periods in for example Greenland( no native trees).
Part II ( Luke’s request on advice to Canadian PM and the US President on PB management)
1) The US President should take steps to stop US polar bear trophy hunters taking home polar bears from Canada.
2) The Canadian PM should take steps to not allow increased Inuit quotas for polar bears, mainly for the tourist hunt.
Both persons should realise and take steps today to curb greenhouse gas emissions that might be responsible for poor ice conditions for polar bears as well for other key prey species.
Advice to take the IUCN report on PB seriously and taking steps to increase exchange of information on PB in different parts of the world.
Poor information on Russian PB .
Ann Novek:
You keep banging on about sports hunts as if they are motivated by cash only. It is not so simple. Bears are food here and only a small portion of the bear quota is assigned to sports hunters. The cash realised from sports hunts directly underwrites the indigegenous food economy through the purchase of gas, spark plugs, nets, bullets etc.
The cash means families eat well and healthy and vital cultural skills and values are passed on and maintained. When one understands that a raw bear hide can fetch around $100 cdn per foot it becomes clear how culture trumps sheer cash when all you have to do is see hunters wearing their Polar Bear storm clothing with pride after their wives have fashioned them using skills going back thousands of years.
Listing PBs in the US will not mean any less bears are killed and eaten in Canada. The only difference a sports hunter makes is that someone else pulls the trigger and gets the hide. The bear still dies and Inuit eat.
Frankly, I’m amazed at some of the mindless comments around sports hunting. Suggestions to branch off into “wildlife watching” simply astound me. Do these folks really think it preferable to bring in hordes of tourists to gawk at animals going through communities with precious little infrastructure. Have they even bothered to think how that impact compares to a sports hunter on a dollar/impact scale?
It seems to me there’s a little too much “values” being projected onto northerners with precious little thought.
Then again, that’s your prerogative; you can afford to and you are not at the margins of political power and economy.
PBs in the US are already protected in the US under the MMPA which is pretty concrete.
Trophies are allowed in under an exemption from populations the USFWS consider able to take the impact and which they consider well managed. This exemption may be allowed to remain even after further listing.
We shall see who lobbies against such exemptions and then we shall know if listing bears is really about forcing the Bush administration to limit greenhouse gases or if this is the same old animal protest industry finding ways to impose their ideologies on peoples whose values they do not share and whose culture they despise.
We already know (but somehow choose to ignore) that the Bush administration does not recognise anthropogenic global warming and only recognises simple global warming. So what makes anyone think this listing is really going to be the catalyst that forces Bush to impede greenhouse gas producing industries?
Forgive my scepticism but seeing as how listing bears is not going to “save” them in any way.
They will either survive the warming phase or not but a further listing will do nothing for them and risks alienating Inuit from their resources and undermining a well functioning management system that allows them to eat and conserve bears.
Frankly, environmentalism is doomed if we always need middle class wesetrners to get their knickers in a twist over photogenic critters to get anything done.
It’s about time we started trusting others to manage their lands and resources just as they have to trust us.
After the amount of time Inuit have spent warning about the dangers of AGW (google Sheila Watt Cloutier and ICC), it’s a complete slap in the face for them to be disempowered (and frankly maligned) in this way.
On the subject of indigenous traditional knowledge, it is becoming more and more a part of worldwide conservation efforts.
There is often a conflict with biologists who feel threatened by the inclusion of local communities and culture into the management mix and that is at the heart of the discrepencies between the reports from the Government of Nunavut which goes out of its way to correlate and include ITK in wildlife management systems and those of say Ian Sterling (who has used ITK in the past but chooses to ignore it now-I wonder why).
The detail and breadth that local knowledge brings to the issue is immense but it is still a struggle to get it recognised. One only has to look at the simplistic (and dishonest)comments about reports of bears being “seen around communities”. Inuit reports are based on their travels all over the land, waters and sea ice of their homelands. They cover one hell of a large amount of land and certainly spend more time observing bears than ANY biologist, not to mention the thousands of years of collective knowledge they have accumulated.
Anyone interested in the conflicts between indigenous knowledge systems and western “conservationsists” might research the creation of the eskimo whaling commission.
In order to understand why many Inuit might see the hand of deception and imperialism in the “values” seeking this listing one might look up a copy of George Wenzell’s “Animal Rights, Human Rights”. Googling “Inupiaq Supercomputer” or picking up a copy of Raymond Bonner’s “At the hand of man” might do some good too.
For my part, Inuit have shown themselves repeatedly to be excellent conservationists and their management systems should be given a chance to prove themselves again without undue interference from those seeking to exploit conservation for political ends.
Luke, your comments about the modern use of guns is a tired old cliche. Guns allow a hunter to spend time at home with the kids. It doesn’t mean he stays out blasting everything in sight.
Also, Inuit traditionally hunted mostly denning bears and cubs (now outlawed but reasons remain unclear-colonial rule has almost always meant conservation regulations are imposed for foreign cultural reasons). Dens are found in the pack ice around the shore line or around ice bergs.
Cheers and here’s to the survival of the bears…and the hunters.
We need them both.
I haven’t had time to read your readers’ comments, but I will rise to your statement that noone has challenged the importance of your data (sources?) that polar bears have increased in numbers over the past 3 decades. By the mid fifties they had been hunted nearly to extinction. International hunting limits established by the seventies allowed them to recover to their current numbers. The current population seems to be the first to be reliably censused, but the condition of the bears is in decline in direct correlation to the polar ice recession.
You do a strange disservice by taking numbers out of context to serve your end, then accusing the opponents of doing so. This is why our students today can’t tell truth from fiction. Please stay within your area of expertise, whatever that may be.
Hi Iceclass,
Thanks for your post…
I’m Scandinavian and I’m quite familiar with indigenous people and traditions as we have the Sami people among us…
Among my friends are some reindeer herders , and I regularly buy reindeer meat from one of those people.
And as far as I have understood the bonds today between indigenous people around the whole world is pretty strong, from the Inuits and Samis to the Yakutis.
As I have pointed out previously, I’m not against a small tradional polar bear hunt…. yes, I support that old tradions must be maintained through generations.
But how does the trophy hunting fit in, in all this?
Don’t remind me, I know all this indigenous peoples tradions are used as tourist attractions as well, and letting money pour into communities.
In my opinion you can keep your traditions alive without the eccentric trophy hunters…
Aren’t there regional economical support for the Inuit communities…I’m sure they are not dependent on the trophy hunters money…
Well, re tourists in the wilderness, don’t you think it is enough for them with a sledge tour with the huskies???
No, Iceclass, if you want my support you must as well have support from people as Ian Sterling and IUCN…
And in this particular case , you are wrong about the NGOs. Actually right now they are very keen on to support indigenous people…
Welcome back for futher discussions!
Yeah, I know about them spelling errors…trying to improve myself!
Hi again Iceclass,
One more comment about the NGOs. I have some knowledge about this as I use to do some work for a major NGO, but nowadays I try to be independent…
Well, anyway , I got this mail right now..
” IFAW provided veterinary care to remote Cree communities in northern Quebec…”
Do you have any thoughts on this ????
Ann, you didn’t take into account any of the points I made.
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and your vision is clouded by your own biases when it comes to your simplistic notions of how life is up here. Your mention of Saami makes that very clear.
As for asking questions about the IFAW, please go and read a copy of the George wenzell book I mentioned above. Greenpeace tried to sue the book out of existence.
NGOs like the IFAW are the problem and not the solution.
Also, I don’t look for your support. I know well enough that folks like you are blinkered.
Once again, you can afford to be ignorant.
Might I also ask why you choose to completely avoid the position of world class Polar Bear biologists like Mitchell Taylor.
Is it simply because his position doesn’t fit your own bias?
Now, now Iceclass, methink you are p****ed at me because you might associate me with Greenpeace!!!
Actually, don’t think you are an Inuit since you made this strange remark about the Saami… if you just knew what discussion I have had with a Saami about NGOs , Brigitte Bardot, seal hunting , whaling, forestry etc!!!!
We can have whaling discussions on another thread…
Actually, if you are satisfied now… I’m actually gonna dig up some info that you mentioned…
The USFWS ruled out sport or subsistence hunting as a cause for population decline. It’s a red herring biologically. You should read the listing on the US federal register and at http://www.fws.gov.
Then there’s this: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070110/1a_lede10.art.htm
Warmest year ever.
“Might I also ask why you choose to completely avoid the position of world class Polar Bear biologists like Mitchell Taylor.”
Because Taylor seems to have a bias himself and only cherrypicks positive data while claiming the others are hysterics and misquoting “gone in 25 years” as their position. That’s bad science and not Neutral POV.
Crichton cites greedy NGO’s as the villains in State of Fear promoting a false crisis for donation money. This is false on the face of it, and wrongheaded logically.
This is a doozy from Amstrup,
“Thus, the increase in polar bear-human interactions in western Hudson Bay probably* reflects an increase in nutritionally-stressed polar bears searching for food, not an increase in population size”.
Since when has any bear needed to be nutritionally-stressed to exploit a plentiful and convenient supply of food that won’t try to escape?
My understanding is that PBs operate on a one in six success ratio when hunting. And this means a lot of wasted energy for each feed. Are we seriously to believe that these intelligent animals have not done the maths to work out that dumpsters are a sure thing?
The more likely case is that each bear at a town dump means one extra place for a bear in the wild.
And Ann, I have been wondering where you got this prediction of 40% of species lost because of GW. And you finally mention Stern as some sort of authority. Next you’ll be quoting Buggs Bunny.
Ian you seem to have thing for animals and dumpsters. Remember the cougars and how a few of us asked you to support your claim, which was unforthcoming?
Your simplistic reasoning about animals being able to adapt is indicative of the way you promote yourself as some sort of expert on anything from right whale entanglements to GW to now bears and genetics.
You seem to know that any bear would make use of a dumpster. Can you back this up with studies? Are the dumpsters easy for the bears to access without getting their furry butts shot at? And the reasoning that one bear at a dump = one place for a bear in the wild? I’d like to see you come up with some actual facts and figures for a change that are the ones pulled out from the amorphous mass between your ears.
I fully expect to be verbally abused by you, as that is the level of your intelligence and capacity to deal with anyone who disagrees with your point of view.
“Now, now Iceclass, methink you are p****ed at me because you might associate me with Greenpeace!!!”
No, you’re just another one who is more than happy to have the Inuit become collateral damage to suit your “values” whilst causing more social and environmental problems that you’ll never have to deal with.
“Taylor seems to have a bias himself and only cherrypicks positive data while claiming the others are hysterics and misquoting “gone in 25 years” as their position. That’s bad science and not Neutral POV.”
On the contrary. Mr Taylor and his work is world reknowned. Our Polar Bear managment system is one of if not the best in the world. Heck, we manage to harvest bears for subsistence and still have healthy populations!
There is simply no incentive for Mr Taylor to risk his reputation or for Nunavut to risk the credibility of its management systems in such a facile way.
It’s been amazing to watch how so many people have been in such a hurry to ascribe dishonest motives to Mr Taylor without backing it up.
The gone in twenty five years comment (which even you have to accept as a massive exageration) was from a Mr Tim Flannery who funnily enough is also trying to flog us a book.
However you seem more than content to see Ian Sterling’s partial study of the lower hudson bay population somehow extrapolated into something comprehensive.
I might add that the Nunavut wildlife management board also funded part of his study yet no bears were counted in Nunavut.
Mr Sterling appears to have limited himself merely to the southern tip of the population in Manitoba.
Some fool lawyer at the NWMB must have forgotten to read the contribution agreement and didn’t know of Mr Sterlings historical antipathy to bear hunters.
Regardless, I’m sure you’ll be thrilled to know that Nunavut plans to complete the study this year as they will for the Davis Straits population.
Just wondering though, seeing as we know that the listing will not result in any less bears being harvested for food and sports hunts and that the Bush administration have said point blank (contrary to the myths being promulgated by the centre for biological diversity) that they do not connect ice disappearance to man made greenhouse gases – and hence bear listing will not create a sea change in how US industry does business: *if* the numbers come back solidly in favour of Nunavut and Inuit traditional Knowledge of current bear populations, will you guys be as loud in calling for the DE-listing of Polar Bears?
I somehow doubt it.
The restriction on selling seal pelts into the US contained within the MMPA was also passed by a moribund Republican administration desperately seeking votes.
At the time, we were told that seals were threatened. Now we know that was a serious exageration but when the US ambassador was last in the neighborhood he merely shrugged and admitted that whilst our seal harvest might be totally sustainable getting an exemption for Inuit pelts would be politically unfeasable.
It appears everyone likes to list animals but are then reluctant to be seen promoting the delisting.
So when do Inuit get justice from the great promoters of free trade and when do we genuinely start embracing the sustainable?
“Crichton cites greedy NGO’s as the villains in State of Fear promoting a false crisis for donation money. This is false on the face of it, and wrongheaded logically.”
Oh puh-leaze Mr York! Are you seriously suggesting that NGO’s don’t exagerate their case or change policy positions to raise more funds?
You can’t possibly be that naive; surely.
Face it guys, this whole threatened listing scenario is an atrocious abuse of the precautionary principle.
The bears are fine today and both Inuit and the various wildlife management regimes will be vigilant for any changes.
Certainly more vigilant than any of you good folks can or would be.
“We can have whaling discussions on another thread…”
Not much interest: the sustainable whaling debate is over save as a fund raiser for Greenpeace and faded sigle issue vaudevillians like Paul Watson and his Sea Schleppers.
The Norwegians are pretty much left alone, the Icelanders are back, the Faroese are promoting organic, local (no food miles) and culturally significant pilot whale snacks and the Japanese are still game because they look different.
But my mention of the creation of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission was to do with a well documented case of the biologists screaming extinction despite indigenous claims to the contrary and then being proven wrong.
Nunavut uses both science and ITK in its management regime and with some degree of success by the looks of it.
Its that traditional knowledge that is missing from all the merchants of doom scenarios.
…and No, Anne, I’m not an Inuk, I just dress like one.
😉
And Iceclass,
Men in polar bear trousers don’t turn me on!
Looks like Ian hasn’t strayed far from a dumpster in his travels. These are the ravings of a loon. And your job is? Kanagaroo surveyor? Pfftt…Doubtful. Very very doubtful.
Inuit are unlikely to call people “good folks” in online discussions regardless how oil-soaked they are. Surely you don’t think I’m THAT naive? Greedy NGO is a false cause fallacy. Compared to oil money, they make chump change from donations for social change. This is as they say “Bollocks!”
Just a contrarian wingnut: ice drip, like the rest. Flannery will have to answer for himself, and the so-called 25 year demise since the study for the listing claimed 50, but I go with the USFWS. Since it’s headed by a sceptic of climate change, the listing data is beyond reproach both Legally and scientifically.
“We can have whaling discussions on another thread…”
No, go back to David’s blog where you belong Ice Class. He is a NZ who wants to be Japanese, and you are a ??? who wants to be Inuit. You share the same obnoxious and repelling attitudes too.
For the record Libby, I did provide that link but it took longer than your motor mouth and you had already started gloating before I posted it. Same old same old.
Good points Ice Class.
Mr Iceglass,
Maybe you think I’m hard on you…but IMO, sorry, you are a bad ambassador for the Inuit people.
I have been open minded and told you that I accept traditional Inuit hunting, but still you hurl out insults!
In my very, very small and insignificant way, I have always supported Inuit culture… and BTW. there are other aspects of culture…you forget to mention handcraft and art.
I use to buy Inuit art postcards. Here’s an excerpt from my Inuit Bird book of postcards:
“Cape Dorset- called Kinngait in the Inuit language, Inuktitut, for the areas high rolling hills- is a thriving community on southwestern Baffin Island, in the Canadian Arctic Territory of Nunavut. The community is renowned for the wonderful Inuit art ….bla, bla bla…
One of my favorites is “Ukpaaraaq” ( Young Owl).
But when I read such comments as yours I must say you make bad PR.
And no more comments from me… maybe only if you post with your real name…
Ooops…Iceglass means a kind of icecream in Swedish….
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/70105_01.html
“For example, the Polar Bear Specialist Group, made up of polar bear scientists and wildlife managers from around the circumpolar world, claim the Baffin Bay and western Hudson Bay populations are each in decline.
As for Davis Strait, they say there’s not enough information about that population to make an informed estimate.
So in January of 2005, when Nunavut increased annual polar bear hunting quotas from 398 to 507 bears, the decision provoked an immediate backlash from a majority of polar bear scientists.
The minutes of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, who met in Seattle in 2005, say many scientists had “a definite high level of uneasiness” with GN population estimates based on traditional Inuit knowledge, as well as with Nunavut’s big increase in hunting quotas.”
Looks like selectively cooked data to support hunting revenue to me, and to the consensus of polar bear scientists worldwide. Self-interest is easy to spot.
“For the record Libby, I did provide that link but it took longer than your motor mouth and you had already started gloating before I posted it. Same old same old.”
Rubbish (dumpster) Ian. Go look up “self-appointed expert” in the dictionary and you will find a picture of yourself.
“The population of Davis Strait polar bears is estimated to be at 2,100, says an interim report of a three-year study.
Ten years ago, Inuit hunters, using traditional knowledge, estimated there were 1,400 Davis Strait polar bears and 1,650 by 2004.
The population in the recently released report includes polar bears in south Baffin, Labrador, Nunavik and southern Greenland.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/01/16/polar-bear.html
“Nunavut must think big, not small, on polar bears”
“Allowing ourselves to remain paralyzed by anger against certain environmental groups only keeps us stuck as victims.”
SHEILA WATT-CLOUTIER
http://www.nunatsiaq.com/opinionEditorial/opinions.html
Davis Strait polar bears flourishing, GN says
“Scientific knowledge has demonstrated that Inuit knowledge was right”
http://nunatsiaq.com/news/nunavut/70202_01.html
global warming is one of evry day fears and now sense all the of are popular varites of polits are very well intrested and now sense evr ones noes about it now we have to do somethin i say we go to antrctic and realy watc and study those little thins becasee evrthing counts
I heard that polar bears are passing in large numbers, I’m very interested in genetic make-up of the polar,If can we geneticly change a polar to be able to su rive artic waters& hunt on land.like the grizzley.combind the two breeds, and then breed back to it’s father or mother. after 3 breedings we should have a succesful new, stronger bear.