The "Plight" of the Polar Bears, Revisited
During my poetry challenge last year, 
OceansEdge requested a poem on the plight of the polar bear. I complied, with the little information I had at the time. However, I should have done my research; new data has updated my thinking about this mighty carnivore.
My take: Despite the large number of articles talking about the "coming extinction" of polar bears, it seems not to be happening, and the changing sea ice might actually be helping the bears.
I've just read a research paper on polar bear populations[ population], which reinforces the difficulties of counting them, but clearly their numbers dramatically increased in recent decades.
First, a little history: Polar bears have not been around the "million years and more" I rhymed about, having diverged from the common ancestor to the modern brown bear only about 500,000 years ago and separating into a clearly distinct species about 200,000 years ago. They continue to diverge -- the last polar bears with brown bear-style molar teeth died out within the ten thousand years or so[evolution], in favor of the more shearing sort of teeth more suitable to their prey.
Since separating, they've made many other adaptations to the cold climate, but cross-breeds with brown bears are apparently still possible[hybrid] (much like lions and tigers, this almost never happens in the wild). And some modern brown bears, the "barren grizzlies," are still comfortable in the frozen Arctic and even hunting seals on the ice[grizzlies].
The population of polar bears has increased several hundred percent in the last half-century, from a low of less than five thousand around 1960 to an estimated 22,000 to 27,000 now.[history] There are a half dozen sub groups of polar bears divided into thirteen populations. Two of the populations are thinning, and eleven of them are increasing in number[overabundance].
Most of the estimated 150,000 polar bears at the time of human arrival had been killed off, producing the low point of less than 5,000 around 1960. The International Polar Bear Treaty of 1973 was an effort to conserve the species, though it still allowed limited hunting by local populations. This was apparently successful, in fact; the population has recovered to about five times that level now. Biologists are concerned about overpopulation of some groups of them.[hunting]
In 1994, President Clinton signed a bill allowing US hunters to take 500 "trophy" polar bears per year.[ACSonline]
Much has been made of a National Geographic article[NGheat] that suggested that polar bear populations had changed dramatically and were in danger of extinction. This article was wrong, according to polar bear biologist Mitchell Taylor of the Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut (and the lead author of the study above on polar bear populations). He explains:
May 1, 2006.
Tim Flannery is one of Australia's best-known scientists and authors. That doesn't mean what he says is correct or accurate. That was clearly demonstrated when he recently ventured into the subject of climate change and polar bears. Climate change is threatening to drive polar bears into extinction within 25 years, according to Flannery. That is a startling conclusion and certainly is a surprising revelation to the polar bear researchers who work here and to the people who live here. We really had no idea.
The evidence for climate change effects on polar bears described by Flannery is incorrect. He says polar bears typically gave birth to triplets, but now they usually have just one cub. That is wrong.
All research and traditional knowledge shows that triplets, though they do occur, are very infrequent and are by no means typical. Polar bears generally have two cubs - sometimes three and sometimes one. He says the bears' weaning time has risen to 18 months from 12. That is wrong. The weaning period has not changed. Polar bears worldwide have a three-year reproduction cycle, except for one part of Hudson Bay for a period in the mid-1980s when the cycle was shorter.
One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good.
Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.
It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population (Davis Strait) may actually be over-abundant.
I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.
This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist,
Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut
I am sure that he gets no end of unhappy email from true believers, but he is often quoted (with very limited excerpts) by GW enthusiasts as an expert, often unaware of his real opinion.
But even the StopGlobalWarming.org folks have to admit things are not entirely bleak:* * *
Other experts see a healthier population. They note that there are more than 20,000 polar bears roaming the Arctic, compared to as few as 5,000 40 years ago, before Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to strong restrictions on trophy hunting in the 1970's.
Some scientists say northern polar bear populations are safe from global warming, and those farther south might well find ways to adapt or simply migrate north.
Mitchell Taylor, manager of wildlife research for the Nunavut government, said warming trends had so far seriously affected only western Hudson Bay, just one of 20 areas where polar bears live. He acknowledged that over-hunting could be a problem in Baffin Bay, between Canada and Greenland.
"In other areas, polar bears appear to be overabundant," he added. "People have to quit thinking of polar bears as one big continuous mass of animals that are all doing the same thing."
I agree. However, people are quite determined.
There is some evidence that the slight warming of the Arctic helps polar bears; this makes sense, given that they rarely use "multi-year ice"[population].Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. But, their own data on polar bear populations contradict claims that rising air temperatures are causing a decline in polar bear populations.
According to the WWF there are some 22,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide. Only two bear populations - accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total - are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region. By contrast, another two populations - about 13.6 percent of the total number - are growing and they live in areas were air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.[SlattsNews]
There is a powerful lobby working to list polar bears as "endangered" -- they specifically site the reason for this as stopping the construction of new power plants in the US. Consider:If the polar bears are given protection, federal agencies will be required to consider how their decisions affect polar bears. For example the listing of polar bears could impact a coal plant seeking federal permission to emit heat-trapping gases or an automaker seeking to sell a gas-guzzling car.
* * *
For Meehan, the biologist, the process is about the polar bears, not the politics. "I care about polar bears. That's why I'm a wildlife biologist," Meehan said. "It's important to me personally and professionally to do the best we can for the polar bears."
Now consider: If, as some evidence shows above, the retreating sea ice is shown to actually be helping the polar bear population, would Meehan & company lobby for the emission of more carbon dioxide? Or will they suddenly turn to other areas?
Side issue: Dr. Mitchell Taylor has been attacked for being on the wrong side (he's the expert on polar bears), and I saw an article calling him "discredited". It's useful to see a bit of background. One polar bear researcher (Krizan) working for Taylor was hospitalized; he'd been shooting himself up with polar bear tranquilizer, which is apparently something like PCP for humans. The fellow complained about Mitchell, who was also dismissed. Then, after an investigation, Mitchell was reinstated with an apology -- and he apparently gave Krizan a second chance; Krizan also was allowed to return to work. The only thing I could turn up quickly was this article, but the details would be intriguing.[tranq]
References:
[population] Paper: Distribution and Abundance of Canadian Polar Bear Populations (pdf)(Univ. of Calgary journal Arctic 1995)
[heat is on] Article: "The Heat Is On" (National Geographic, September 2004)
[evolution] Article: "The Evolution of Polar Bears" (Phil Candela, professor of geology at University of Maryland)
[hybrid] Article: Polar Bear/Grizzly Hybrid Found (National Geographic News, May 16 2006)
[grizzlies] Article: Farthest North Grizzlies Among Alaska's Most Adaptable (Alaska Science Forum, August 14 1997)
[endangered] Article: Polar Bears Being Considered for U.S. Endangered List (National Geographic News, February 10, 2006)
[history] Report:"Polar Bear Status Report" (pdf)(World Wildlife Federation, 1999)
[overabundant] Dr. Mitchell Tayler (letter to the Toronto Star, May 1 2006)
[ACSonline] Article: "Legislative Update: The Marine Mammal Act of 1994" (American Cetacean Society Whalewatcher journal, Vol 28 No1)
[hunting] Article: "Bear Hunting Caught in Global Warming Debate" (reprinted in StopGlobalWarming.org, May 27 2006)
[slattsnews] Article: "Flannery will get you nowhere" (SlattsNews blog, May 16 2006)
[tranq] Article: "Biologist caught using drugs returns to GN job" (Nunatsiaq News, June 30 2000)
===|==============/ Level Head
OceansEdge requested a poem on the plight of the polar bear. I complied, with the little information I had at the time. However, I should have done my research; new data has updated my thinking about this mighty carnivore.
My take: Despite the large number of articles talking about the "coming extinction" of polar bears, it seems not to be happening, and the changing sea ice might actually be helping the bears.
I've just read a research paper on polar bear populations[ population], which reinforces the difficulties of counting them, but clearly their numbers dramatically increased in recent decades.
First, a little history: Polar bears have not been around the "million years and more" I rhymed about, having diverged from the common ancestor to the modern brown bear only about 500,000 years ago and separating into a clearly distinct species about 200,000 years ago. They continue to diverge -- the last polar bears with brown bear-style molar teeth died out within the ten thousand years or so[evolution], in favor of the more shearing sort of teeth more suitable to their prey.
Since separating, they've made many other adaptations to the cold climate, but cross-breeds with brown bears are apparently still possible[hybrid] (much like lions and tigers, this almost never happens in the wild). And some modern brown bears, the "barren grizzlies," are still comfortable in the frozen Arctic and even hunting seals on the ice[grizzlies].
The population of polar bears has increased several hundred percent in the last half-century, from a low of less than five thousand around 1960 to an estimated 22,000 to 27,000 now.[history] There are a half dozen sub groups of polar bears divided into thirteen populations. Two of the populations are thinning, and eleven of them are increasing in number[overabundance].
Most of the estimated 150,000 polar bears at the time of human arrival had been killed off, producing the low point of less than 5,000 around 1960. The International Polar Bear Treaty of 1973 was an effort to conserve the species, though it still allowed limited hunting by local populations. This was apparently successful, in fact; the population has recovered to about five times that level now. Biologists are concerned about overpopulation of some groups of them.[hunting]
In 1994, President Clinton signed a bill allowing US hunters to take 500 "trophy" polar bears per year.[ACSonline]
Much has been made of a National Geographic article[NGheat] that suggested that polar bear populations had changed dramatically and were in danger of extinction. This article was wrong, according to polar bear biologist Mitchell Taylor of the Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut (and the lead author of the study above on polar bear populations). He explains:
May 1, 2006.
Tim Flannery is one of Australia's best-known scientists and authors. That doesn't mean what he says is correct or accurate. That was clearly demonstrated when he recently ventured into the subject of climate change and polar bears. Climate change is threatening to drive polar bears into extinction within 25 years, according to Flannery. That is a startling conclusion and certainly is a surprising revelation to the polar bear researchers who work here and to the people who live here. We really had no idea.
The evidence for climate change effects on polar bears described by Flannery is incorrect. He says polar bears typically gave birth to triplets, but now they usually have just one cub. That is wrong.
All research and traditional knowledge shows that triplets, though they do occur, are very infrequent and are by no means typical. Polar bears generally have two cubs - sometimes three and sometimes one. He says the bears' weaning time has risen to 18 months from 12. That is wrong. The weaning period has not changed. Polar bears worldwide have a three-year reproduction cycle, except for one part of Hudson Bay for a period in the mid-1980s when the cycle was shorter.
One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good.
Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.
It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population (Davis Strait) may actually be over-abundant.
I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.
This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist,
Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut
I am sure that he gets no end of unhappy email from true believers, but he is often quoted (with very limited excerpts) by GW enthusiasts as an expert, often unaware of his real opinion.
But even the StopGlobalWarming.org folks have to admit things are not entirely bleak:* * *
Other experts see a healthier population. They note that there are more than 20,000 polar bears roaming the Arctic, compared to as few as 5,000 40 years ago, before Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to strong restrictions on trophy hunting in the 1970's.
Some scientists say northern polar bear populations are safe from global warming, and those farther south might well find ways to adapt or simply migrate north.
Mitchell Taylor, manager of wildlife research for the Nunavut government, said warming trends had so far seriously affected only western Hudson Bay, just one of 20 areas where polar bears live. He acknowledged that over-hunting could be a problem in Baffin Bay, between Canada and Greenland.
"In other areas, polar bears appear to be overabundant," he added. "People have to quit thinking of polar bears as one big continuous mass of animals that are all doing the same thing."
I agree. However, people are quite determined.
There is some evidence that the slight warming of the Arctic helps polar bears; this makes sense, given that they rarely use "multi-year ice"[population].Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. But, their own data on polar bear populations contradict claims that rising air temperatures are causing a decline in polar bear populations.
According to the WWF there are some 22,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide. Only two bear populations - accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total - are decreasing, and they are in areas where air temperatures have actually fallen, such as the Baffin Bay region. By contrast, another two populations - about 13.6 percent of the total number - are growing and they live in areas were air temperatures have risen, near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea.[SlattsNews]
There is a powerful lobby working to list polar bears as "endangered" -- they specifically site the reason for this as stopping the construction of new power plants in the US. Consider:If the polar bears are given protection, federal agencies will be required to consider how their decisions affect polar bears. For example the listing of polar bears could impact a coal plant seeking federal permission to emit heat-trapping gases or an automaker seeking to sell a gas-guzzling car.
* * *
For Meehan, the biologist, the process is about the polar bears, not the politics. "I care about polar bears. That's why I'm a wildlife biologist," Meehan said. "It's important to me personally and professionally to do the best we can for the polar bears."
Now consider: If, as some evidence shows above, the retreating sea ice is shown to actually be helping the polar bear population, would Meehan & company lobby for the emission of more carbon dioxide? Or will they suddenly turn to other areas?
Side issue: Dr. Mitchell Taylor has been attacked for being on the wrong side (he's the expert on polar bears), and I saw an article calling him "discredited". It's useful to see a bit of background. One polar bear researcher (Krizan) working for Taylor was hospitalized; he'd been shooting himself up with polar bear tranquilizer, which is apparently something like PCP for humans. The fellow complained about Mitchell, who was also dismissed. Then, after an investigation, Mitchell was reinstated with an apology -- and he apparently gave Krizan a second chance; Krizan also was allowed to return to work. The only thing I could turn up quickly was this article, but the details would be intriguing.[tranq]
References:
[population] Paper: Distribution and Abundance of Canadian Polar Bear Populations (pdf)(Univ. of Calgary journal Arctic 1995)
[heat is on] Article: "The Heat Is On" (National Geographic, September 2004)
[evolution] Article: "The Evolution of Polar Bears" (Phil Candela, professor of geology at University of Maryland)
[hybrid] Article: Polar Bear/Grizzly Hybrid Found (National Geographic News, May 16 2006)
[grizzlies] Article: Farthest North Grizzlies Among Alaska's Most Adaptable (Alaska Science Forum, August 14 1997)
[endangered] Article: Polar Bears Being Considered for U.S. Endangered List (National Geographic News, February 10, 2006)
[history] Report:"Polar Bear Status Report" (pdf)(World Wildlife Federation, 1999)
[overabundant] Dr. Mitchell Tayler (letter to the Toronto Star, May 1 2006)
[ACSonline] Article: "Legislative Update: The Marine Mammal Act of 1994" (American Cetacean Society Whalewatcher journal, Vol 28 No1)
[hunting] Article: "Bear Hunting Caught in Global Warming Debate" (reprinted in StopGlobalWarming.org, May 27 2006)
[slattsnews] Article: "Flannery will get you nowhere" (SlattsNews blog, May 16 2006)
[tranq] Article: "Biologist caught using drugs returns to GN job" (Nunatsiaq News, June 30 2000)
===|==============/ Level Head