Arctic Wildlife

Importance of Polar Bear Maternal Dens

7/22/2010

By Tom S. Smith, Ph. D., Professor and PBI Scientist
                                                                                                                                                       
Unlike the other two species of North American bears (grizzly and black), only pregnant polar bears dig snow dens in which they remain for months. This means that male polar bears and females not carrying cubs never den up—and why should they when they can hunt nutritious seals year-round? Of course, whenever arctic winter storms render travel and seal hunting impossible, polar bears may dig into drifts to escape, but these are just temporary places to hole up until the storm has passed. On the other hand, a maternal den is one in which cubs are born. For this reason, they're very important in the polar bear's life cycle. Before I began my field work, very little was known about polar bear denning habits, and so I've been studying them for the past ten years to better understand the role they play in maintaining healthy polar bear populations.

 

Each February I travel to Alaska’s North Slope where bitter winter weather greets me and my research team as we began a new season of study. Howling winds, drifting snows, and temperatures hovering around fifty below zero are not uncommon. Yet out on the Arctic landscape—nestled snugly in ice dens made dark and silent by a thick blanket of wind-driven snow—polar bear mothers and newborn cubs sleep. Because cubs are born with their eyes unopened and little more than white fuzz for insulation, it’s critical that they remain undisturbed for months in the relative warmth of their dens. Clearly, disruptions during this critical post-birth period can be life-threatening. Such small cubs could not endure the harsh arctic environment for long. Wildlife managers have long known that denning is a critical time for polar bears and that disturbance must be minimized at all costs, but at what point do human activities become intolerable?

 

Because so little has been documented about the length of time bears remain in their dens, how long they remain around the den site after breaking out in spring, what sorts of activities they pursue, how often they emerge and for how long, no one can really say what “normal” den site behavior is or when it’s been unacceptably disturbed. For these reasons we've been carefully observing bears – to determine what normal behavior is, why families stay or leave as they do, and how they respond to human activities.

 

But aren’t most polar bears in isolated areas of the Arctic far from human influence? They used to be but for two reasons they are not any more: oil and climate change.

 

Dramatic increases in the global demand for oil have stimulated exploration and production activity in Alaska. Alaska’s North Slope is the one of the largest producers of domestic oil in America with approximately 640,000 barrels produced daily. New technologies (e.g., three dimensional seismic modeling, sea water injection, and directional drilling) have enabled oil companies to find and extract more oil than previously thought possible, thus extending the life of Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay oil field decades beyond initial estimates.

 

At the same time that demands for oil have spiked, dramatic decreases in polar ice extent and thicknesses have occurred. Polar bears have had to adapt to diminishing arctic sea ice. As the ice extent and thickness decrease, polar bears respond by selecting den sites on land rather than unstable sea ice, thereby increasing the chances for bear-human conflicts on the North Slope. To address concerns regarding the potential for conflict between denned bears and ongoing oil industry activity, I began my research with Dr. Steven Amstrup in 2002. Our specific research objectives include:

l  Documenting the timing of den breakout and abandonment

l  Estimating the activity budgets of polar bears at den sites

l  Documenting the response of polar bears at den sites to human disturbances

l  Determining variables that influence patterns of activity at den sites

 

Without baseline knowledge of the activity patterns of undisturbed polar bears at den sites, it's impossible to accurately assess polar bear responses to human activity. Hence, without the information provided by this research, the following questions cannot be answered:

 

l  When do undisturbed bears normally emerge from their dens for the first time?

l  How long do undisturbed bears normally remain at their den sites before abandoning them?

l  How do undisturbed bears spend their time when at the den site?

l  Which bear behaviors are responses to disturbance?

l  What are the likely consequences of disturbance?

 

Although this study cannot definitively answer every question, it will provide a basis for meaningful discussion. Besides helping us better understand polar bear denning ecology, this research can foster more effective management of human activities near polar bear den sites.

 

So how do you document what bears are doing when the weather is so extreme? Over the years we’ve developed automated camera systems that monitor bear dens before, during, and after they break out in spring. Later we download video data from these cameras and analyze the footage to answer the questions above. In this manner we are learning about bear ecology, what disturbs bears, and how we can minimize our activities so as not to disturb polar bears during this crucial time in their lives.

 

 

[ 0 ] Comments

---

A Changing Arctic

4/29/2010

By Barbara Nielsen, Polar Bears International

Five years. That’s the amount of time that remains to reverse the build-up of CO2 and save polar bears and the Arctic. The crisis is now well-known: The sea ice is retreating. Polar bears are thinner. Polar bears are drowning. Fewer cubs survive. Time is short, but scientists emphasize that it is not too late to meet the challenge and save these remarkable animals for future generations.

 Here are some thoughts from some of Polar Bears International's Advisory Council scientists on how the Arctic has changed:

 Dr. Steven Amstrup
“The Arctic is a different world than it was in 1980 when I first went up there. The sea ice now retreats way off shore in the summer time. It used to be right along the shore. We could see seals and polar bears on the ice from land, while standing on the shore. These changes are having a profound effect on polar bears – on their condition and the survival of their young.”

 Dr. Andrew Derocher
“The sea ice is now breaking up about three weeks earlier in summer than it did just 20 years ago. For polar bears, that means shorter hunting time on the ice – their survival is based on how much fat they can store on their bodies.”

 Dr. Thomas S. Smith
“I’ve worked with polar bear maternity dens for the past 10 years. What we’re finding is that female bears that once denned on the sea ice are increasingly turning to land. I suspect they can tell by the sounds of the ice that it’s not as thick and stable as it used to be.”

 Dr. Ian Stirling
“There’s been a steady decline in the health of the bears over the last 30 years. There’s a direct relationship between the date of the sea ice break-up and the survival rate of cubs.”

Polar Bears International’s Advisory Council scientists are among the top experts in the polar bear world. PBI relies on them for guidance and support – and PBI helps underwrite their research so they can document what is happening with the bears and share this information with policy-makers and the public.

 At the same time, PBI’s strategy to save polar bears includes assembling a front-line “sustainability” team. These individuals are developing plans to help polar bears that are struggling to survive in a changing Arctic, from orphaned cubs to injured or starving adults. Our goal is to ensure that enough bears remain to repopulate the Arctic.

 Finally, PBI invests heavily in education to spread the word that each of us can and must make a difference. Ultimately, to save polar bears we must save their habitat. That means changing human behavior and investing in and using green technology.

 Our scientists emphasize that the situation is critical – but it is not irreversible if we act soon. As Dr. Iain Stirling says, “This is probably the biggest issue the world, as a globe, has ever faced. If we don’t do something, our kids and grandkids are going to live in a very different world.”

 Please join PBI in reducing your personal carbon footprint and supporting its efforts. They are counting on you – and so are the bears. For more information, go to www.polarbearsinternational.org .

 

 

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Will Polar Bears Be 'Up-listed'?

3/25/2010

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Caribou and Climate Change

11/23/2009

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Sea Otters at Risk Due to Climate Change

7/17/2009

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Arctic Species and the Legal System

4/3/2009

By: Jack Lentfer, retired Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologist

Throughout much of my career as a wildlife biologist I have had only limited contact with lawyers and the court system.  Since becoming involved with the effects of global warming in the Arctic coupled with pro-development state and federal governments, I find that in an effort to protect Arctic species and habitats I am deeply involved with attorneys and the court system.

My previous blogs have described how environmental organizations through court action and indisputable science forced the Interior Department in the Bush administration to declare polar bears threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because global warming is destroying critical sea ice habitat.  The Interior Department then essentially gutted the listing with exemptions which did away with protections of the ESA.  This was followed by regulations written in broader language that exempts greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, the leading threats to polar bears, from regulation by the ESA, and then by separate Interior Department rules exempting all greenhouse gas emissions from regulations under other provisions of the ESA.  Conservation groups are challenging these actions with lawsuits.

Other aspects of environmental protection have also involved legal action.  The Interior Department implements both the ESA and a leasing program to develop offshore oil and gas reserves.  It delayed the ESA polar bear listing well beyond its original due date and then finally adopted the listing only after court action set a new due date.  Before the listing the Interior Department leased 2.7 million acres of offshore polar bear habitat in the Chukchi Sea for oil and gas development, thereby depriving polar bears protection under the ESA.  Environmental groups are challenging this action.

After the polar bear listing, five different groups, including the state of Alaska, filed lawsuits to overturn it.  The suit by Alaska under the direction of Governor Sarah Palin ignored the science of global warming and loss of sea ice habitat, and also ignored an evaluation by its own state marine mammal specialists that the basis for the listing was justified.  The Safari Club, a pro-hunting trophy group, also filed a lawsuit to overturn the listing.  As these lawsuits were filed, environmental groups filed to intervene to support the ESA listing.

Environmental groups have reached a partial settlement with the federal government under one of the lawsuits.  The agreement sets deadlines for the Interior Department to designate critical polar bear habitat as required by the ESA listing. 

Conservation groups also filed suits against Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne under the Bush administration for issuing regulations that would exempt oil companies from restrictions on harassment of polar bears and walrus in the Chukchi Sea for a period of five years.  This overturns provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act which prohibit such harassment.  Offshore Arctic oil and gas development can result in harassment from icebreakers, supply ships, aircraft, over-ice vehicles, drilling platforms, and seismic exploration.  Oil spills degrade the marine food web that supports polar bears and walrus.  An overriding concern is that no effective methods exist to clean up spilled oil that collects beneath the ice or is transported by wind and currents through the extensive open-water lead systems in the ice.  Protection from harassment and effects of development is even more important as climate change reduces the amount of sea ice habitat.

After polar bears were listed, environmental groups petitioned for ESA listings for five other ice-dependent marine mammals—Pacific walrus, ribbon seal, ringed seal, bearded seal, and spotted seal.

The Interior Department did not act on a listing petition for Pacific walrus until forced to do so by court action.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now evaluating the petition to determine if the listing process should go forward.

Walrus use sea ice as a platform from which to feed on clams and mussels on the floor of the relatively shallow continental shelf.  As the ice drifts it provides access to new feeding grounds.  Walrus cannot swim continuously and rest on the ice when not feeding.  Females and their young stay with the ice year-around and use it as a platform when young are nursing.  Walrus also depend on sea ice for winter breeding activities.

As the amount of ice is reduced, females and young must haul out on land in dense herds as occurred on the Alaskan and Russian coasts in 2007.  Large groups of animals on land tend to stampede toward the water when disturbed, and high mortality was reported in 2007 because of stampeding at Russian haulout sites.  Walrus calves cannot swim for as long as adults and have been observed abandoned by their mothers at sea, apparently because ice used for resting had been reduced.  Impacts of global warming will become more severe in the future.  If global warming continues at its present rate, summer sea ice will disappear, and winter ice will be thinner and occur in a smaller area for a shorter time period throughout the range of the Pacific walrus.  Also, warming water temperatures and ice loss appear to be decreasing the abundance of bottom-dwelling prey of the walrus.

The case is strong for protecting Pacific walrus under the ESA.  I believe the new Obama administration will make a science-based decision for listing without the need for continuing legal pressure by outside groups.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Bush administration denied a petition by a conservation organization for ESA protection of ribbon seals on the basis that enough sea ice would remain in the ribbon seal’s habitat by the end of the century for the species to survive.  The ribbon seal is an ice-dependent resident of the Bering, Chukchi, and Okhotsk seas off Alaska and Russia.  Ribbon seals rely on the ice edge during late winter and early summer for giving birth and rearing pups.  Sea ice loss and early breakup threaten successful rearing of young by forcing pups into icy water before they are mature enough to survive.  This will become worse if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their present rate.   Rejection of ESA protection for the ribbon sea ignores the science on global warming and will likely be overturned by the courts or the Obama administration.

Another petition by a conservation organization requested ESA protection for ringed, bearded, and spotted seals, all threatened by loss of sea ice habitat because of global warming.  Each species depends on sea ice for giving birth, rearing young, resting, and as a platform from which to feed.

Ringed seals are the most important prey species for polar bears and are a subsistence species for Native coastal residents.  These seals haul out and give birth in snow dens they excavate on top of the ice.  Pups cannot go into the water for several days after birth and require the protection of a den.  Warming temperatures and an early breakup destroy dens, resulting in an increased loss of pups.  A decrease in sea ice also results in less feeding and denning habitat.  Bearded seals give birth in the open on drifting sea ice where young are reared.  Polar bears feed on bearded seals and Natives harvest them for subsistence.  The seals feed on bottom-dwelling organisms in the shallow water of the continental shelf.  Spotted seals give birth on the edge of the sea ice which also serves as a nursery.

The federal government under the Bush administration announced it will do a full status review to determine if ringed, bearded, and spotted seals in Alaska waters warrant ESA protection.  The case is also strong for protection of these species and it is hoped that no further legal action by outside groups is necessary.

Responses to global warming will likely be much improved with the Obama administration.  President Obama has stated that he is supportive of science and science-driven solutions, and his selection of cabinet members and advisors bear this out.  He is pragmatic and solution oriented.  He recognizes that global warming is a major issue that must be addressed with significant action.  Unfortunately, the current economic crisis and overseas war involvement demand so much attention and funding that actions to address global warming may be of relatively low priority for the immediate future. 

The Obama administration must deal with a political system that includes industrial interests that are often profit-oriented and have highly effective lobbyists.  Also, Alaska’s state government and congressional delegation are reluctant to support action that they perceive unfavorable to industrial development.  As an example, Alaska’s Representative Don Young, strongly supported by out-of-state industry, states that global warming is a hoax in spite of the evidence put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other highly accredited groups and individuals.  The need for biologists to work with lawyers and through the court system will continue as long as long-term, influential political leaders such as Don Young remain in office.  The public is well served by conservation organizations with committed attorneys and stratagems that focus on environmental protection.

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Climate Change Affects More Than Wildlife

2/10/2009

By: Jack Lentfer, retired Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologist

Climate change because of global warming is affecting Arctic residents living in permafrost and sea-ice environments more severely than it affects residents of more temperate areas to the south.  Arctic people generally live far from roads and shopping malls, get much of their food from the wild, and depend on snow and ice for travel.  Climate change is making some villages uninhabitable, depleting food resources, changing weather patterns, making travel more hazardous, and affecting a cultural identity.

Shishmaref, an Inupiat Eskimo village of 581 people on the Bering Sea coast of northwest Alaska, is being severely eroded because of thawed permafrost and loss of sea ice which formerly protected it from high storm waves.  Winter sea ice, formerly in place by October, now does not form until December. The cost of moving the village to more stable ground is estimated at $120 million.  Kivalina and Newtok are other northwestern Alaska villages that are also washing into the sea.  All told, severe erosion is affecting about 20 Alaska villages and estimated relocation costs are similar to the cost for Shismaref.

Coastal erosion is also severe in the Barrow area, the northernmost part of Alaska.  A U.S. Geological Survey report suggests that costal erosion rates between 1965 and 2005 were about twice the rates between 1955 and 1985.  Erosion is damaging buildings and roads.  People have inhabited the Barrow village site for more than 1,500 years, and  much of the wide beach that formerly separated the village and the ocean is now gone.  Nuvuk, an unoccupied village site north of Barrow, also dates back more than 1,500 years.  An ancient burial site discovered here in 2000 was mapped by an anthropologist in 2001.  By 2007, erosion had moved the beach and bluff more than 160 feet inland.  Human remains are collected as the land erodes and once a year the Barrow community holds a reburying ceremony at a new cemetery.

Another major environmental change occurs as permanently frozen ground (permafrost), thaws. A new study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Snow and Ice Data Center suggests that 5-to-10 year periods of rapid sea ice loss cause land adjacent to the coast to warm 3.5 times faster than average rates of warming predicted by global climate models for the 21^st century.  This enhanced rate of warming could penetrate as far as 900 miles inland.  Scientists estimate that Arctic soils hold at least 30 percent of the carbon stored in soils worldwide, and thawing permafrost has the potential to add substantial amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

The stable base and foundations for roads, trails, buildings, and other structures disappear as permafrost thaws.  This will affect the location of building sites, construction methods, travel routes and methods, and availability, composition, and abundance of animal and plant food resources.

Climate change is affecting animal and plant foods in various ways.  Bowhead whales are a major food and cultural resource for Alaska’s Inupiat Eskimos.  The whales are traditionally hunted when they migrate north in the spring through narrow leads (open-water channels) between ice attached to the shore and drifting pack ice.  Global warming is causing the pack ice to occur further offshore so whales are not confined to narrow leads close to shore.  This requires more boat travel to find them, makes them harder to hunt, and requires more effort to tow dead animals back to the shorefast ice for butchering.  Eskimos also hunt bowhead whales in the fall when they migrate past Alaska to wintering grounds to the south.  Because of global warming, pack ice is now further offshore and whales are now more widely distributed than in the past.  This requires more hazardous, open-water travel for hunters.

Climate change is affecting distribution and behavior of beluga whales, making them less available to coastal residents.

Walrus normally winter in the southern part of their range in the Bering Sea.  Many males then remain here during the summer, but females, calves, and some males go north with the ice as it retreats from the Bering Sea to the Chukchi Sea and remain with the ice for most of the year.  They feed on clams and other invertebrates on the ocean floor which they can reach from ice over the relatively shallow continental shelf.  In 2008, ocean currents and winds pushed an already smaller amount of sea ice far to the north so that little ice remained over shallow feeding areas.  This caused thousands of walrus to haul out on Alaska’s coast between Cape Lisburne and Barrow, 300 miles to the northeast.  Tens of thousands also hauled out on the Russian coast.  Walrus when hauled out on land in large groups are skittish and tend to stampede toward the water when disturbed.  Stampedes in Russia reportedly killed thousands of animals.   Walrus hauled out on land can deplete their food supply because they can only forage within an area they can swim to.  This does not happen to walrus on drifting ice that moves over new feeding grounds.

Northwestern Alaska coastal residents hunt walrus for food, ivory for carving, and skins for boat covers.  The traditional hunting method is to use boats to approach herds hauled out on drifting ice floes.  Changes in weather, ice, and oceanographic conditions profoundly affect the timing and success of this type of hunting.  More open water also increases the hazards of small boat operation and transporting animals back to villages.

Ringed and bearded seals are important subsistence seal species for Alaskan Eskimos.  Global warming reduces the amount of their critical sea ice habitat which provides a platform for resting, giving birth, and going into the water to feed.  As climate change affects oceanographic conditions and the food web supporting seals, they may change distribution and abundance and become less available to subsistence hunters.

Alaska Native hunters also take polar bears, another sea ice-dependent species.  Projections of sea ice loss indicates that ice will have declined so much within a few decades that only a remnant population of  bears will remain.  They will be located in the high Arctic of northeast Canada and northwest Greenland and will not be available to indigenous people of Alaska.

Climate change affects caribou, a terrestrial mammal important to the subsistence of many people in the Arctic.  An increase in insect harassment because of warmer temperatures causes a decline in caribou body condition in the summer.  Thaw-freeze cycles resulting in denser snow that is crusted and has ice layers is an additional energy drain.  Increased snow cover favors wolf predation.  Caribou migration patterns change as rivers and lakes stay ice-free longer.

Fish are another important food and are subject to parasites and disease as water temperatures rise.  Availability of berries and other plant foods declines as melting permafrost and warmer temperatures change tundra plant composition.

Global warming affects Arctic village residents in other direct ways.  Warmer temperatures cause meat to spoil.  Fish do not dry properly.  Ice cellars, used for generations for food storage, melt and flood.  Thinner ice on rivers and lakes endangers hunters and other travelers. 

Global warming is circumpolar and in addition to Alaska residents, it affects indigenous people of Greenland, Canada, Russia, and Scandinavia who also depend on marine and terrestrial animals and wild plants for subsistence and much of their cultural identity.  Effects of global warming are much greater for northern people and ecosystems than for people and the environment in more temperate areas to the south.  Altered subsistence opportunities and cultural lifestyles because of global warming may currently pose the greatest threat of all to the continuity of indigenous Arctic cultures.

[ 3 ] Comments

---

Zoo Guest Blogger: A Day with the Polar Bears

1/19/2009

By : Sarah Bachman, Indianapolis Zoo Senior Marine Mammal Trainer

When my alarm went off it was still pitch black outside and I woke up to the wind blowing so hard that it sounded like the house was going to fall down. I jumped out of bed and quickly put on my several layers of clothes for the day. Even though it was freezing cold outside I was excited because today was another day out on the Tundra Buggies viewing polar bears and other wildlife around Churchill, Manitoba.

We arrived at the Tundra Buggy dock as the sun was rising and started warming up the Buggies and preparing them for the day. All the frost on the windows had to be scraped so that the guests could see out of them. Slowly the guests began arriving in different buses from town. They were from all over the world. Once everyone had arrived the Tundra Buggy drivers introduced themselves and went over what we would be seeing today and a few of the basic rules. It was then my turn to introduce myself. “Hi, I’m Sarah Bachman, a senior marine mammal trainer at the Indianapolis Zoo. I work with polar bears, walrus, sea lions, seals, and dolphins. I’m here as a volunteer for Polar Bears International, a non-profit organization that supports polar bears through conservation and education.” And off we went.

The start of the ride was very bumpy because even though the buggies are traveling on “so-called” roads, they are dirt roads that were used in the early 1900s by the army and are usually filled with a couple feet of water or ice. You could feel the excitement in the air as everyone was perched on the edge of their seats looking intently out their windows for the first bear sighting. After about ½ hour the driver pulled his binoculars out and said, “There is our first bear over there in the distance.” All of the bus inhabitants, about 40 people, run to one side of the buggy, and there in the distance is a speck of white. Everyone started snapping pictures. Little did they know how many more polar bears we would see and that they would be so much closer. 

After the excitement dies down we continue on. The snow has really started coming down and our visibility is not good. All of a sudden a huge male bear appears in front of us walking out from a patch of willows. Curious, he catches us off guard by walking directly up to the buggy. You can see his nose sniffing, see the tags in his ear indicating that he has been marked by the researchers and is part of the population study. His legs are massive, his claws are long and hooked shaped, his skin is black, and his hair translucent. These amazing animals are so well adapted to their arctic environment. The guests, driver, and I are all awed by his beauty. It doesn’t matter how many bears you have seen, it never gets old.

We stop for lunch by a few bears napping in a bed of kelp right by the waters edge. While the guests are relaxing and eating their sandwiches and soup, I begin my presentation about PBI, the research going on in the polar bears natural environment and in zoo settings, the plight of the polar bears, and I throw in some interesting facts about polar bears. But the highlight of the day comes when we approach in the blizzard a mother and her two cubs. At first they are taking a little nap, but then the cubs wake up and get brave. They approach the buggy and stand on their hind legs to check us out. They roll around in the snow and shrubs near by. They wrestle one another. They act like kids. The mother watches attentively near by. Little do the cubs know how tough these next two years will be for them. Cubs typically spend the first two years of their lives with their mothers. Less than 50% will survive their first year. They must learn how to survive in a very harsh environment. The mother we are observing has a collar around her neck. This collar is a GPS system placed on her by researchers so that they can track her and her cubs every movement. The collar should stay on for up to year and the researchers are gaining invaluable information from it about the movement patterns of bears across the decreasing amounts of polar ice. 

As the sun begins to set we head back towards the dock and a snowy owl flies overhead. The tundra is so bare, yet so strikingly beautiful. Everyone sits quietly in their seats thinking about the amazing day they experienced. To see a polar bear in its natural environment is a life changing experience. I want to make a change for the better in polar bears lives and in turn in my life. I will make a difference.

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Zoo Guest Blogger: The Trip That Changed My Perspective

12/10/2008

It was an unseasonably warm 80 degree day in late October here in Indianapolis when I left for Churchill, Manitoba, in Canada.  People were out in their yards enjoying the rare weather for this time of the year, but little did they know that this warm weather here in the Midwest was affecting polar bears too in their arctic environments.  My name is Sarah Bachman and I am a senior marine mammal trainer at the Indianapolis Zoo.  This fall I was extremely lucky to go to Churchill as an in-field lecturer through the Zoo and Polar Bears International.

Polar bears congregate outside of Churchill every year in late October and early November waiting for the Hudson Bay to freeze over.  95% of their diet is seals, and the sea ice is their hunting platform.  People from all over the world come to see these amazing animals before they go back out to sea.  The Hudson Bay population of polar bears is one of the best studied in the world,  and scientists in the last 30 years have noticed a decline in their population, worsening body condition, and females bearing fewer cubs.  Also in the past three decades the bears have lost 3 weeks of hunting time on the ice due to the earlier melting.

As a representative of Polar Bears International, I went out on the Tundra Buggies every day to observe the polar bears and answer the visitors’ questions.  I also did an informative chat educating them about the research that PBI is doing in zoo settings and out in the field, as well as showing the guests some polar bear artifacts.  I have always considered myself an educated person when it comes to conservation and the environment but immersing myself into the polar bears environment gave me a whole new respect for these amazing animals.  They have adapted so well to their harsh surroundings and are a top predator.  The effects that they are seeing to their environment now are things that we will all see down the road.  To see bears making “day beds” in kelp, males sparing, and mothers nursing their cubs was a dream come true.  But it also made me realize that I can make small changes to my lifestyle here in Indiana that can make big differences to the lives of polar bears in the arctic.  Climate change seems like such an overwhelming problem for one person to fix, but small changes that we all make can together make a big difference for us and the polar bears.  I cannot imagine what it would be like if my children never were to be able to see polar bears and I want to know that I have done everything possible to make sure that it doesn’t happen.

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Re-examining our Values

11/26/2008

By: Jack Lentfer, retired Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologist

 

I would like to inform readers about a thoughtful and comprehensive discussion on conservation of Arctic marine mammals and climate change by Timothy Ragen, Henry Huntington, and Grete Hovelsrud (Conservation of Arctic marine mammals faced with climate change, Ecological Applications Vol. 18 Supplement).  The writers make the following points.

 

·        Habitat loss is the major cause of loss of species and reduction in biodiversity.

·        Climate change as a result of global warming is now the most significant cause of habitat degradation.

·        Human caused greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of global warming and climate change.

·        Arctic marine mammals that depend on a sea ice habitat and its associated productive food web are at special risk. 

 

Standard conservation actions taken for marine mammals such as restrictions on hunting, protection of essential habitat from development, and protection from incidental take in fisheries, are not adequate by themselves to protect animals from the effects of global warming.  They should remain in place, however, and be strengthened as global warming progresses, but they will not stop the loss of sea ice habitat.

 

There is a dilemma regarding climate change and how to address it.  Evidence of change may not be evident until well into the future, and by the time changes are recognized, it may be too late to reverse them.  Consequences of action or inaction now may not be evident for decades or even centuries, and decision makers may have to take action before becoming fully informed.  Not taking action will force future generations to address even more severe consequences of global warming and climate change.  

 

Measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to put in place, given the diversity of cultures throughout the world and real and perceived economic and social costs.  Taking action will become even more difficult in the future as the world’s population increases and adds even more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.  In addition, the per capita output of emissions may increase as developing countries strive to achieve standards comparable to those of more affluent neighbors.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the world's population is estimated to reach 9.2 billion by 2050, an increase of 2.8 billion, or 43 percent of estimates for 2005. 

 

Ragen and his coauthors conclude their paper with the following, “Altering our directions to reduce the factors that contribute to climate change will require re-examination of our values.  It will require a new perspective that places us squarely within ecosystems and willing to live within their natural limitations.  It will require that we critically examine our personal and social choices and aspirations with respect to family size, resource consumption, and lifestyles.  If we are willing to accomplish these, then there may still be hope for Arctic regions and species as we know them.”

 

A major conclusion to be drawn from this paper is that preservation of Arctic sea ice habitat requires an immediate and continuing reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.  I will add that this requires action on an international, national, and individual basis.  Nations need to continue to strengthen provisions of the Kyoto agreement and gain support of countries that are not presently members.  Governments need to encourage and provide incentives for development of alternative energy sources, including wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and nuclear.  Use of coal should be phased out.  Public transportation should be expanded and fuel efficiency standards raised.   Individuals should support and advocate for immediate action by government and industry. 

 

 

  

 

[ 2 ] Comments

---

Palin - no friend of polar bears

10/6/2008

By: Jack Lentfer, retired Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologist

 

Sarah Palin, as governor of Alaska, has expressed views on global warming and its effects on polar bears.  It seems appropriate to review these, given her new role as a candidate for vice-president.

 

In a letter to Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne on Oct. 22, 2007, Governor Palin stated that the listing of polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act was based entirely on highly speculative and uncertain climate and ice modeling.  This is not correct.  Federal studies for listing were based on conservative projections of sea ice loss and related information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), now recognized as the world leader in gathering, analyzing, and reporting on global warming and climate change.  Also, the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors, charged with making recommendations to the Secretary of Interior regarding the Endangered Species Act, stated that modeling used to predict reductions in sea ice and its effect on polar bears constitutes the best scientific information available, and that a strong legal justification exists for listing polar bears as threatened.  Recent studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indicate that sea ice loss is occurring at a greater rate than predicted by the conservative models used for the polar bear listing. 

 

Governor Palin has downplayed the significance of human activities as a cause of global warming and climate change.  This is in contrast to the IPPC which concluded in 2007 that the odds were better than 90 percent that humans were to blame for the current warming.   

 

Governor Palin in an Opinion piece (Anchorage Daily News, Dec. 18, 2007) stated that Alaska’s Beaufort Sea polar bear population has been stable for 20 years.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that condition of bears, cub recruitment, and demographic trends of this population are all declining as sea ice decreases.  Other signs of population stress and instability include a shift toward land-based denning, abandonment of areas with high rates of ice degradation, and starved and cannibalized bears.  Andrew Derocher, one of two leading polar bear biologists from Canada and chairman of the international Polar Bear Specialist Group, said there is very clear consensus that the Beaufort Sea population is not doing well, and that polar bear scientists without exception are concerned about the long-term preservation of the species because of climate change and its effect on sea ice.     

 

Governor Palin has implied that the State of Alaska has an active polar bear program, has enacted a ban on most hunting of bears, and participates internationally to conserve polar bears worldwide.  In fact, the State has not had a polar bear program since the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 transferred management authority from the State to the Federal government.  The only regulations relating to hunting are Federal, not State, and result from the Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.  The State is not a party to international polar bear agreements and is not represented on the international Polar Bear Specialist Group.

 

In opinion pieces to the Anchorage Daily News on Dec. 18, 2007 and the New York Times on Jan. 5, 2008, Governor Palin stated that her opposition to listing polar bears under the Endangered Species Act is based on comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice, and polar bear experts.  This is highly misleading.  There is consensus among the vast majority of climate, ice, and polar bear experts that the projections, analyses, and predictions on which the listing is based are valid.  These experts include the governor’s own Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists who reviewed the Federal studies that provided the rationale for listing.  The reviewers on the governor’s staff were the director of the state’s marine mammal program and two other experienced biologists with Arctic and marine mammal experience.  They agreed that methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information justify a threatened species listing for polar bears.  In addition, the Division of Wildlife Conservation in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game stated that information on sea ice loss in the current scientific literature represents the best available science, and if ice loss projections are accurate the polar bear will decline significantly across much of its range.

 

Along with her non-acceptance of the effects of global warming and climate change on polar bears, Governor Palin believes they should not be listed as threatened because the listing could slow or block industrial development in polar bear habitat.  As vice-president she would be widely recognized as an Alaskan expert and have considerable influence on how the Endangered Species Act was interpreted and how much protection was extended to polar bears.  She would likely pose a greater threat to polar bears as vice-president than she does as governor of Alaska.

 

 

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Polar Bear Hunting's History

8/28/2008

By: Jack Lentfer, retired Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologist

As global warming destroys polar bear sea ice habitat, other causes of polar bear mortality, including hunting, should be considered and regulated as appropriate. The following provides background information on polar bear hunting in Alaska.

Traditionally, polar bears were important in the subsistence economy and culture of Alaskan native people. Inupiat Eskimos used skins for robes and clothing and meat for food. Inupiat ceremonies and dances were related to the taking of bears, and a hunters' prestige was enhanced considerably by his success in killing bears. After commercial whaling began in the 1850's, the sale and barter of skins became especially important. Before the late 1940's, nearly all Alaskan polar bear hunting was by Eskimos with dog teams, with about 120 animals being taken each year.

Trophy hunting by non-natives, many of whom were not Alaskan residents, began in the late 1940's with the aid of aircraft. Most hunters took bears with the aid of relatively few guides operating from Inupiat coastal villages This trophy hunting with airplanes continued after Alaska became a state and assumed wildlife management authority from the Federal government in 1960.  Nearly all aircraft-assisted hunting was with the use of two small fixed-wing planes, usually Piper Supercubs, flying together.  Guides, who also flew the planes, located bears by following their tracks in the snow on sea ice in late winter and spring.  They could judge the size of a bear from its tracks and concentrated on following larger tracks to trophy males.  Once a bear was sighted, the plane with the hunter was landed on the ice, and the other plane slowly hazed the bear within rifle range.  After the bear was shot, the guides skinned it, loaded it and the hunter back in the plane, and the hunt was over. State hunting regulations became more restrictive as pilot/guides became more proficient in taking bears and more people wanted to hunt.  Between 1961 and 1972, an average of 260 bears was taken annually.  The value of guided polar bear hunting during this period was approximately $450,000 annually.  

Alaska stopped polar bear hunting with use of aircraft in 1972 and adopted regulations to provide for more aesthetically acceptable sport hunting from the ground.  It was hoped that residents of coastal villages could benefit by providing guiding services.  Traveling by dog team or snowmachine and camping out and hunting with a knowledgeable Eskimo guide would have been a memorable hunting experience.

U.S. jurisdiction.  A Native exemption amendment by Alaska Senator Ted Stevens allowed Alaskan coastal Natives to take marine mammals without restriction provided waste did not occur.  Under the Native exemption, hunting could be restricted only after a species has been declared depleted.  Bears have a low reproductive rate and, as a population safeguard, State regulations before the MMPA protected cubs and females with cubs from hunting.  The Native exemption which allowed these segments of the population to be hunted was actually a step backward for polar bear management.  Alaskan Natives did not try to establish guided sport hunting for non-Natives as occurs in Canada, and the take of bears after passage of the MMPA was considered a subsistence use only.  Alaskan Natives have taken an average of about 100 bears per year since passage of the Act in 1972.

Alaska shares with Canada and Russia.  The Alaska-Canadian agreement of 1991 (Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear Management Agreement in the Southern Beaufort Sea) states that bears in dens and family groups of females with cubs shall be protected from hunting.  It allocates annual quotas for allowable take of bears by Alaskan and Canadian hunters and prohibits the use of aircraft or large motorized vessels for taking bears.  The agreement appears to be working well.

U.S. and Russian government members and Alaska and Chukotka Native members.  The Joint Commission, not yet established, will set harvest limits and policy guidelines for polar bear management. 

Russia since 1956 and therefore are not a major subsistence item there.  It appears that the effect on a subsistence life style will be minimal if hunting is curtailed to assist in maintaining polar bear populations as global warming destroys sea ice habitat.

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Polar Bears Aren't the Only Ones

7/23/2008

By: Jack Lentfer, retired Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologist

 

Polar bears have received much attention as a result of environmental organizations forcing the U.S. Department of Interior to list them as threatened because global warming is destroying their sea ice habitat.  Recent papers by Arctic marine mammal specialists published in a special supplement to the scientific journal Ecological Applications, examine the potential effects of climate change on other marine mammals.  I am providing information from that supplement:  K. Laidre, I. Stirling, L. Lowry, O. Wigg, M. Heide-Jorgensen, and S. Ferguson.  2008.  Quantifying the sensitivity of Arctic marine mammals to climate-induced habitat change.  Ecological Applications 18 (Supplement): S97-S25. 

 

The authors describe habitat requirements and evidence for biological and demographic responses to climate change for seven Arctic and four subarctic marine mammal species. They developed a quantitative index of species sensitivity to climate change based on population size, geographic distribution, habitat specificity, diet diversity, migration, site fidelity, sea ice changes, trophic web changes, and maximum population growth potential.  They then rated each species from highly sensitive to least sensitive for each of these criteria.  Summations of ratings or sensitivity indexes are as follows.  Species with the lowest indexes are the most sensitive to climate change.

Arctic species

Narwhal                        12

Polar bear                     14

Bowhead whale            16

Beluga whale               18

Walrus                          18

Bearded seal                 23

Ringed seal                   25

Subarctic species

Hooded seal                 15

Spotted seal                  19

Ribbon seal                  19

Harp seal                      19

 

The three species most sensitive to climate change were narwhal, polar bear, and hooded seal.  Moderately sensitive species were bowhead whale, beluga whale, walrus, spotted seal, ribbon seal, and harp seal.  The least sensitive species were ringed seal and bearded seal.

 

The sensitivity index identified different types of sensitive species.  Narwhal and walrus were narrowly distributed and specialized feeders.  Hooded seal and harp seal were seasonally ice-dependent species that use the marginal ice zone.  Polar bears mainly relied on annual sea ice over the continental shelf and areas toward the southern ice edge for foraging.  Ringed seals with a circumpolar distribution, large population size, varied diet, and flexile habitat requirements were less sensitive than species more restricted in distribution, less abundant, or habitat specialists. 

 

Sensitivity for whales was influenced largely by high site fidelity, migratory behavior, and low maximum rate of population increase.  For narwhals, small population size, specialized feeding, and limited range and diet resulted in greater sensitivity than for beluga and bowhead whales.  Beluga whales, a widely distributed and relatively flexible feeder, were the least sensitive whale species.  Whales were the least sensitive of all species to effects of sea ice change. 

 

Sea ice changes will probably occur most rapidly along the southern ice edge.  Therefore, polar bears and seasonally ice-dependent seals may be the best short-term indicators of effects of climate warming. 

 

Sensitivity indexes as described here are an excellent first step in predicting effects of climate change on Arctic marine mammals and as a guideline in designing research and monitoring programs.  In some cases, a species may occur as distinct subpopulations with somewhat different habitat use characteristics.  Atlantic and Pacific walrus are an example.  Sensitivity to climate-induced habitat change should therefore be considered on a regional rather than Arctic-wide basis for some species.

 

Arctic marine mammals face potential threats other than climate change.  These include hunting and pollution, and their threats should be considered in conjunction with the effects of global warming.

 

Other papers in the Ecological Applications supplement discuss vulnerability and resilience of these marine mammals to climate-induced habitat change, including potential changes in health and status; their importance to human subsistence cultures; and measures to prevent, mitigate, or minimize climate-induced declines in their status.  

 

 

[ 2 ] Comments

---

Cost of Drilling for Oil is too Steep

7/3/2008

By: Jack Lenter, retired Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologist

Polar bears are in danger of disappearing throughout much of their range because global warming is destroying their critical sea ice habitat.  As global warming and reduction of sea ice affects polar bears, threats from other sources become more significant and should be clearly understood and eliminated or reduced.  One of the most serious threats is coastal and offshore oil and gas development. 

 Offshore arctic oil and gas development results in environmental disturbances from icebreakers, supply ships, aircraft, over-ice vehicles, drilling platforms, and seismic exploration.  Such disturbances may keep bears from good feeding and denning areas and cause bears to desert winter maternity dens.  Polar bear cubs require the protection of a den for the first three months of life and if forced out of the den too early will not survive.

Polar bears interact with humans at oil and gas drilling and transport sites and during seismic exploration.  They are attracted to human sites by their own curiosity and by garbage, and may be killed when perceived as a threat.

Drilling muds and other toxins associated with drilling pose a threat to polar bears and other organisms in the marine food web, including ringed and bearded seals, a primary food of polar bears.

Acute and chronic oil spills can occur at drill sites, at oil storage sites, and when oil is transported by vessels and pipelines.  Spills can occur because heavy drifting ice poses threats not present in offshore drilling locations in temperate climates.  Ice can damage drilling platforms and oil transport vessels and scour pipelines laid on the ocean floor. 

Polar bears can become oiled as they cross open-water leads in the ice or swim through the greater expanses of open water that are occurring because of global warming.  Oil reduces the insulating value of polar bear fur and is toxic when ingested from grooming the fur.  Oil spills also degrade the marine food web that supports polar bears.  An overriding concern about oil spills in polar bear habitat is that no effective methods exist to clean up spilled oil that collects beneath the ice or is transported by wind and currents through the extensive open-water lead systems in the ice.

The outer continental shelf, with its shallower water depth, is much richer biologically and more important for polar bears, ice seals, and the marine food web that supports them than deeper water areas further offshore.    The continental shelf is also the area that is of most interest for oil and gas development, and this exacerbates the critical nature of the effects of oil and gas development on marine biological resources, including polar bears.

One mitigating measure related to development activities in polar bear habitat is the use of forward looking infra-red imagery to detect polar bears in dens.  This technique is a notable achievement developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).  It does have limitations, however, in that detection depends on weather conditions and solar radiation, and some dens are not detected. 

The USGS has also identified polar bear denning habitats on Alaska’s north central coastal plain and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge through interpretation of high resolution landscape photography, which should be valuable in protecting bears in dens.  Neither infra-red imagery nor maps of denning habitat, however,  protect the bears that avoid traditional denning areas because of disturbance and den in less optimum sites with less chance of denning success.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has more suitable denning habitat and supports more polar bear denning than other land denning areas in Alaska.  In spite of the protection denning bears might receive because of advances such as infra-red imagery and habitat mapping, oil development would put some animals at risk.  With global warming, denning success on sea ice will decline, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will become even more important for denning.  The risk to polar bears from drilling for oil there is not justified, given the small amount of oil that might be recovered and the long period before it would be available.

A decision on whether to list polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act was due by the U.S. Department of Interior on January 9, 2008.  The Interior Department delayed the decision and on February 6, 2008, conducted an oil and gas lease sale in polar bear habitat off Alaska’s northwest coast in the Chukchi Sea.  The sale was thus able to proceed without the protection of the Endangered Species Act for polar bears. 

The Interior Department finally released a decision to list the polar bear as threatened on May 14, 2008, to comply with a court order brought on by an environmental organization lawsuit.  Following a pattern of the Bush administration to support development activity at the expense of environmental protection, the Secretary of Interior attached conditions to the listing that would weaken protections of the Endangered Species Act.  This will be challenged in the courts.  The next step in the listing process should be a polar bear recovery plan as required by the Endangered Species Act.  This should provide for an assessment of existing and proposed oil and gas developments in polar bear habitat that is being compromised by global warming.

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Update - Science or Politics?

5/30/2008

By: Jack Lentfer, retired Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologist

 

Science or politics?  On May 14, 2008, Interior Secretary Dick Kempthorne announced the listing of polar bears as threatened under terms of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  This was 4 months overdue and in response to a court order.  The delay allowed the Interior Department to lease important polar bear habitat in the Chukchi Sea for oil and gas development before Endangered Species Act protections were in place. 

 

The decision to list originated from a petition and subsequent lawsuit by environmental groups.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service then made a compelling and science-driven case for listing because critical polar bear sea ice habitat is decreasing.  The U.S. Geological Survey conducted sea ice modeling studies on the rate of sea ice disappearance and concluded that if “business as usual” greenhouse gas emissions continue, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears and all of Alaska’s polar bears will be gone by 2050.  The observed rate of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, which indicates that assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.

 

The U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, created by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, is charged with making recommendations to the Secretary of Interior regarding the ESA.  The Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors stated that modeling in U.S. Geological Survey reports to predict reductions in sea ice constitutes the best scientific information available, and that a strong legal justification exists for listing polar bears as threatened under the ESA.

 

The scientific and legal justifications for listing are so compelling that Secretary Kempthorne agreed with them in spite of the general anti-environmental, pro-development regime of the Bush administration and the opposition to listing by Alaska’s congressional delegation.

 

Secretary Kempthorne also considered and rejected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s request to oppose the listing.  This is not surprising, given that the State of Alaska’s position, apparently developed by upper level administrators rather than Department of Fish and Game marine mammal or Arctic specialists, is characterized by misinformation and a political rather than scientific assessment.  State administrators have disregarded the analyses of Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists who reviewed the Federal studies providing the rationale for listing.  The biologists  include the director of the marine mammal program and two experienced staff people with Arctic and marine mammal experience who agreed that methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information justify a threatened species listing for the bears.

 

The listing decision included a provision that polar bear trophies taken on sport hunts in Canada could no longer be imported into the United States.  In spite of threats to polar bear sea ice habitat from global warming, Canadian annual hunting quotas were increased from 398 in 2003-2004 to 518 in 2004-2005.  Rationale for the increase was based on indigenous knowledge not subjected to scientific analysis and on a perception that bear numbers had increased in some areas.  This was possibly the result of more bears in coastal areas because climate change had reduced the amount of suitable ice habitat.  Most sport hunting in Canada is by Americans, and the prohibition on importing trophies into the United States should result in significantly fewer bears being killed.  This is especially meaningful because modeling of changes in sea ice indicates that the high Canadian Arctic would be a refugium when surrounding areas no longer provide suitable polar bear habitat.  The remnant population in the refugium should be afforded as much protection as possible, including cessation of guided sport hunting.

 

Stopping the import of polar bear trophies from Canada appears to be the only new protection the listing provides.  Secretary Kempthorne said the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) has stricter standards than the ESA and that a proposed rule would substitute provisions of the MMPA for the ESA.  He said, “This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way.”  This will surely be challenged because the MMPA cannot provide the level of protection that the ESA can.

 

Secretary Kempthorne also said that causal connections do not exist between harm to bears or their habitat and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project, or government action.  This statement has little meaning.  It is well understood that cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions from facilities and resource development projects are a major cause of degradation of polar bear sea ice habitat.  The U.S. government action in refusing to join other governments in agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also harms polar bears and their habitat.

 

Data exist showing how climate change is already affecting two populations of polar bears, one in western Hudson Bay in Canada and another in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s north coast.  Researchers in western Hudson Bay established a statistically significant link between climate warming, reduced ice presence, and observed declines in polar bear physical and reproductive parameters, including body condition and birth rate.  Between 1987 and 2004, the number of bears declined from 1,194 to 935, a reduction of 22 percent.   For the southern Beaufort Sea population off Alaska’s north coast, the body condition of bears, recruitment of cubs, and demographic trends are all declining as sea ice decreases.  Other signs of population stress include a shift toward land-based denning, abandonment of areas with high rates of ice degradation, bears drowning because of more open water, and starved and cannibalized bears.

 

Global warming and its effects on polar bears should be addressed by following the mandates of both the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, including a recovery plan that considers all Alaskan arctic coastal and marine development proposals.  The Congress and Federal administration should do more to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, a major cause of global warming and reduction of sea ice habitat. 

 

Global warming is the most serious environmental issue on the planet.  It deserves far more consideration and should be a major issue addressed by governments, the State of Alaska, and U.S. presidential and other candidates for public office.  Science, not politics, must play a major role.

.

 

 

 

    

 

 

[ 0 ] Comments

---

Will Science or Politics Prevail?

4/18/2008

By: Jack Lentfer, retired Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologist

Alaska’s and two-thirds of the world’s bears within 45 to 75 years.  This assessment may be conservative because sea ice is declining even faster than models predict.

 

The U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with making recommendations to the Secretary of Interior on the Endangered Species Act, states that a strong legal justification exists for listing.  The Commission also states that the modeling used to predict reductions in sea ice is the best scientific information available.

The State of Alaska is opposed to listing. Its position, apparently developed by upper level administrators rather than Department of Fish and Game marine mammal or Arctic specialists, is characterized by misinformation and a political rather than scientific assessment.  

Alaska’s Governor Palin has stated that Alaska’s southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population has been stable for 20 years.  Fish and Wildlife Service and Geological Survey studies indicate that condition of bears, cub recruitment, and demographic trends of this population are all declining as sea ice decreases.  Other signs of population stress include a shift toward land-based denning, abandonment of areas with high rates of ice degradation, and starved and cannibalized bears.

Recent assessments by sea ice and polar bear scientists indicate that a remnant population of bears may remain in the Canadian high Arctic.  As a biologist who has directed polar bear studies for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and has served on the Alaska Game Board and U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, I believe bears would best be served with an Endangered Species Act listing.  Listing will require development of a recovery plan to maintain a population that can repopulate historical range once climate warming is reversed and the range of sea ice habitat expands.

[ 3 ] Comments