Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

U.S. to protect polar bears

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:19 PM EDT 15/05/08

Canadian Environment Minister says he'll consider tougher action after scientific review expected in August ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Brendan Caron from vancouver, Canada writes: And, of course, the local Aboriginals or society in the region makes their living on Polar Bear Hunts and are complaining that the hunters will no longer be able to take their trophy skins back home to the good old U.S.A. Go figger?
  2. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: ..//
    P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A

    The Ice shelf is GROWING and is about average in size:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    The population of the polar bears is fine and growing.

    This is completely false.

    This story was carved out last summer, when the activists expected melting of the ice shelf. well after a colder than average winter and record rate of ice accumulation between Nov 2007 and Jan 2008, the activists couldn't just throw out the story... they just ignored the facts and pretended that the ice shelf melted.

    P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A

    ..//
  3. Steve Church from Canada writes: BibbyBoBob:- http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg That's the one you meant to post showing increased ice, right?
  4. Ryan Ginger from Ottawa, Canada writes: So complex, but a few things comes to mind:

    First, why in the world would the US Fish and Wildlife Service say it will be business as usual for the energy sector (oil) in Alaska? If global warming is identified as the culprit for the low Bear numbers, and if CO2 is the cause of global warming, and if the burning of fossil fuels leads to more CO2... need I continue?

    Second, Paul Okalik, if you have to depend upon American-style trophy hunting to support the Nunavut economy, something is indeed wrong. Nunavut is floundering because of poor administration and a startling lack of leadership.

    Third, if environmental groups wanted to put the bear on the threatened list to curb greenhouse emissions through the 'back door', they sadly failed. The US will apply the Marine Mammal Protection Act to protect the bear--which has absolutely no jurisdiction or influence upon exploration permits. In short, the Bush Administration outfoxed the environmentalists on this one.

    Who loses here? You guessed it, the poorest of all the above: the Inuit. It's always the pawns that get knocked down first though.
  5. Paul Warburg from TO, Canada writes: Funny how this is the same 'science' the global warming believers used. No new data here!

    So rest assured once the un-scientific IPPC assumption of anthropomorphic global climate Armageddon is dismissed, this fallacy will be discarded too.
  6. martha stewart from Canada writes: Article says 'Canada currently gives polar bears its lowest level of protection – a designation of being of “special concern,” which requires no practical actions to safeguard populations.'

    False and misleading. This is the lowest level of listing, not lowest level of protection. This writer makes it sound like nothing is being done to protect these populations in Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Such a convenient error.
  7. Ryan Ginger from Ottawa, Canada writes: FYI: You guys are living in the stone age, the science of global warming is long past where you are. Do your homework. The 'debate' you are talking about is over--actually, there was little debate about the main idea since all scientists agreed that its basic premises were essentially correct.

    If you can't identify what issues are at stake here, then I suggest you stop typing and start reading REAL scientific writing.
  8. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ryan - Polar bears had no protection at all in the stone age. That's why they were so rare when the first explorers reached the Arctic.

    People who rely on the caches of stored game for their survival don't like polar bears. And with dogs they are very easy to kill.
  9. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: martha stewart:-- But, martha, couldn't their shortage have been the result of weather/climate conditions at that time?
  10. Paul Warburg from TO, Canada writes: Ryan, Debate?

    I guess because it was on TV it must be true.

    In fact all the hand selected IPPC group could say was it was %85 likely, based on the computer models they were using.

    You are being non-scientific if you think anything is proven or beyond debate here.
  11. martha stewart from Canada writes: diane marie - No. That 'shortage' was observed throughout the entire period of early exploration, across North America and Eurasia. And the most commonly observed signs of polar bears were their bones at First Nations campsites.

    Moreover, it was much colder during the 1600s and 1700s and most of the 1800s than it is now which theoretically should have made it better for polar bears.

    Finally, think about it. Polar bears have very low reproductive rates. And sustained hunting pressure will reduce their populations. First nations people were far more widely distributed and active then than now. They could easily kill polar bears. And they had every reason to kill them and none not to.
  12. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: martha:-- So, what is your point?
  13. martha stewart from Canada writes: diane marie - My point was to answer your question. I hope it provides some perspective on the state of the polar bear population now.
  14. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: martha:-- Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, but I perceive that you have a habit of pulling your punches. You offer up information but fail to draw any conclusions. Sometimes I have the feeling that you are just trying to muddy the debate. Now, you wouldn't do that, would you?
  15. martha stewart from Canada writes: diane marie - If you read what I wrote the conclusion is clear. Surely you might understand why I might choose not to explicitly state it. It would only provide a quote for someone who chooses not to think realistically to take out of context and use as a weapon. And then I would have to waste endless hours trying to explain it to people who don't want to understand anything but Green mythology.

    BTW, I'm not referring to you specifically. Lots of people read these threads and I'm already getting bashed constantly for challenging the prevailing orthodoxies.

    Now, if you read what I wrote I'm sure you must know what it adds up to. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. How do you think today's polar bear population might compare with the one 400 years ago? Why?
  16. kevin joncas from Canada writes: So the ice on which the bears hunt their main prey ,the seals, will be gone. Where will the seals go? I presume to the shoreline, just as they do in the rest of the world. Where will the bears go? My guess is to the shoreline as well ,where the seals will hang out in large herds and be a lot easier to catch. Just a wild guess , but I think this is extemely advantageous to the bears,and their population should increase considerably. Unless of course they get fat and lazy.
  17. Kevin Chew from Germany writes: As 100% proof is never possible in science (new evidence could always come to light to disprove old hypotheses), I demand that we also challenge other so-called 'facts'. How about that gravity BS, for example?
    On another note, it is sad that once again Canada has had to wait for the US to take the lead -- however reluctantly in this case -- before doing something itself. When will my home and native land once again be blessed with leaders rather than followers?
  18. jack sprat from Canada writes: Bab omimo...soon you will be able to grow whatever you are smoking, in the Arctic.

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/04/22/arctic-melt-sun.html
  19. martha stewart from Canada writes: Or... 'SSRC is currently an international leader in the field of climate change study regarding the solar physics of the Earth-Sun relationship and the use of the recently announced Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity' developed by the SSRC. This relational cycle theory or simply the 'RC Theory' is a new innovative theory that yields a scientific explanation for the frequent and periodic reversals from global cooling to global warming and back to global cooling that have dominated the Earth's thermal processes for thousands of years. ----- An important prediction available from the RC theory states that there will be a major drop in the sun's activity measured by an historic reduction in sunspots and other indicators of the sun's behavior. Accompaning this lower state of the sun called a 'solar minimum' by the solar physics community, will be a prolonged cold era according to the SSRC. This next climate change to many years of a slowly cooling Earth environment, is predicted by the SSRC to begin within the period 2010 to 2021 with lowest temperatures during the bottom around the year 2031. The SSRC refers to this dramatic change in climate as a 'solar hibernation' because of the depths of cold that are associated with it based upon many hundreds of years of repeating cycles with similar recorded cold eras, as discovered by the SSRC.' ------ http://www.spaceandscience.net/index.html
  20. Mike McFae from Canada writes: Agree with Paul. Scientists say the population has doubled since the 1960's. If those alarmists who deny climate change is natural must use select scientific statements to support The Warming , then how do they explain a growing Polar Bear population that requires new protection ? Politics gone amuck in an election year . Should make for an interesting book in a few years in the same vein as the Y2K hysteria. Reminds me of Paul Watson's convuluted logic that since the oceans are in trouble ( ? ) then everything in ( and around ) them needs to be protected ( by him ).
  21. Mike McFae from Canada writes: Kevin , if we blindly follow the US , then we ARE followers , just like lemmimgs. Canada can be a leader by following scientific advice as opposed to crass politics.
  22. Ryan Ginger from Ottawa, Canada writes: martha stewart writes: 'That 'shortage' [of polar bears] was observed throughout the entire period of early exploration, across North America and Eurasia.' Martha - the first studies of polar bear populations were in the late 20th century. Which early explorers observed a 'shortage' of bears?

    You also add that 'it was much colder during the 1600s and 1700s.' The so-called 'Little Ice Age' was in fact negligibly warmer than now--by about one degree. Is that your idea of 'much colder'? The temperature change in the past 50 has years has exceeded the 'Little Ice Age' drop. (By the way, I know how much you hate, you know, REAL science, but much the same science that determined the arctic is warming today also determined there was a 'Little Ice Age' from about 1600-1850. Go figure.)
  23. Commander Groovechild from Toronto, Canada writes: I believe the polar bear will go the way of the woolly mammoth and the saber-tooth tiger. It is just such a large creature living in a hostile environment with low food levels. I also think there is some truth to the assertion that the ice caps rather than shrinking are in a process of dynamic change where some parts are growing. In any event, everybody will have an opportunity to improve the environment as gas prices radically increase and manufacturing capacity all but disappears in Canada. Along with low-paying assembly line jobs we also lose engineers, industrial designers, electricians and other skilled tradespeople. Meanwhile Europe wants to sell us carbon credits and build our nuclear-power facilities. We should freeze the bank accounts of these researchers and find out where they are getting their cash.
  24. Greg Ohio from Cleveland, United States writes: It should probably be noted that this 'protection' is the least they could get away with. They could have listed the bear as 'endangered' which would have resulted in mandatory action. Instead they listed it as 'threatened' and attached what is essentially a signing statement that nothing affecting the energy industry would be done.

    As for the remaining global warming skeptics, oilman-in-chief Bush has conceded that it's proven. He and his cronies have moved on to trying to thwart any action to correct it. Hungry people in China and India should forgo buying tractors rather than Americans do without Hummers.
  25. otto von abbatoir from Los Angeles, United States writes: What better justification to throw out illegal immigrants? They're killing the polar bears! Go back to your lean-to where you emit so much less CO2.
  26. Voice of Reason from Canada writes:
    martha stewart: 'I'm already getting bashed constantly for challenging the prevailing orthodoxies.'

    Actually, that isn't why you get bashed at all.
  27. BaB OmimO from Canada writes: Ryan Ginger,

    The maunder Minimum ~1700 stimulated the largest exodus of German emigrants from the Rhineland in history at that point. In 1709 there was no summer, prompting 30,000 Germans to petition Queen Ann of England to take pity on them and allow passage to Pennsylvania.

    The Maunder Minimum Ice Age precipitated further emigrations from Europe which resulted in the re-population of Nova Scotia by Germans in 1750, post the Acadian expulsion.

    Diaries of the emigrants discuss the frozen Rhine and the failed grape crops in 1709.

    There was no increased CO2.

    ..
  28. Kevin Chew from Germany writes: Mike McFae from Canada writes: Kevin , if we blindly follow the US , then we ARE followers , just like lemmimgs. Canada can be a leader by following scientific advice as opposed to crass politics.

    I agree Mike. This is an example where Canadian science advice, if it existed, was not heeded until Uncle Sam took action. As if the problem does not exist unless the US says it does. This is what I meant by Canada needing leaders, not followers.
  29. Dean The Machine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: The more pristine our wilderness and wildlife stay's, the better. I for one applaud the US Government for this move. We don't need our wild life to become 'trophies' for rich hunters. I've seen a den full of stuffed large carnivores, bears, wolfs and such. A disgusting practice. If you feel inadequate by a fast sports car.
  30. K St-Pierre from toronto, Canada writes: This is a feint. To protect the polar bears they will start building army bases in the arctic to fight GW there so they don't have to fight it at home. Then, when everything melts, they are pre-positioned to control the arctic and its resources and trade routes. Quite a coup!!
  31. ILS 2007 from Canada writes: I'm not sure why this always has to be about those who believe in global warming vs. those who don't. Let's look at it logically and make a decision based on what we know. There are 2 scenarios...with 4 potential outcomes.

    1) Global warming is false - we do something or we do nothing
    2) Global warming is real - we do something or we do nothing

    If it's false and we spend time and money trying to fix it then nothing is lost, other than scientist pride and some money.

    If it's real and we don't do anything that's a price we'll all pay for the rest of ours, and our children's lives.

    What's wrong with erring on the side of caution. I don't care if some think is propaganda and some don't. I don't know if global warming is real or not but I don't have to. I know through logic that we should do something because it won't hurt us in the long run as bad as not doing anything could.
  32. martha stewart from Canada writes: Ryan Ginger writes: 'Martha - the first studies of polar bear populations were in the late 20th century. Which early explorers observed a 'shortage' of bears?'

    Ryan - Do you know the difference between an explorer and a bear biologist?

    Most exploration expeditions kept daily journals of their sightings. The fur trade era explorers kept particularly detailed accounts of wildlife because that was their business. Rather than list them I suggest you do some homework on your Canadian history, go to a library, and read about how few polar bears they saw. Most saw none where they are common today.

    They also recorded weather conditions. Like others. Thus we have a historical record of the Little Ice Age to substantiate the scientific record. Since the Little Ice Age ended recently - some would argue that it is still ending - we even have photographic evidence of some of the extended glaciers.

    P.S. I only used the word 'shortage' in response to a question which used that word.
  33. Antonio San from Canada writes: And over 70% of people belive polar bears are going to get extinct during their lifetime... One really wonders how Polar bears survived the Holocene optimum of 5,000BC? The Medieval Optimum? Or perhaps the same gullable people believe in spontaneous generation too?
  34. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: 6 million Canadians suffering from various forms of respiratory illnesses due to air pollutants and we are worried about meaningless designations of a polar bear population on the rise.

    What a world.
  35. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: The folks who are worried sick about the Polar bears not being able to adapt to different conditions are oddly the same ones who are ardent supporters of Darwin's' theories.
    Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
  36. Alastair james Berry from Nanaimo BC CANADA, Canada writes: Surely HUMAN beings with guns are the biggest threat to the bears....A couple of years back in N.Alaska 4000 de-capitated walruses were found, presumably killed ay someone who had found a market for their ivory.......Caribou, co-existed with wolves and eskimoes, for ages un-countable, until the latter got high powered rifles and the population collapsed. Polar bears like their lesser cousins have a PRICE ON THEIR HEADS and are unlikely to survive this century.......At $10,000 for a gall bladder and a similar price for a GOOD Skin what chance has a polar bear got? Down here on Vancouver Island some SPORTSMEN killed 20 of the herd of ROOSEVELDT ELK in the Nanaimo river valley and dead BALD EAGLES(befeathered deheaded and de clawed) by the dozens have been discovered in lower BC. Now if PROTECTED SPECIES suffer such slaughter what chance has a polar bear got? Tourism (apart from the Federal and Provincial govt. jobs) provides the main industry and employment, in the North, and the tourists come to see the wildlife in a natural state. The bears and other species MUST be protected and slaughter only permitted in Emergency Conditions.
  37. B.C. Expat from Ottawa-Hull, NCR, Canada writes: Globe and Mail poster logic dictates that if 'the Americans' do it, then it must be bad. So I guess we should start killing all the polar bears, right?
  38. Antonio San from Canada writes: Byron writes: 'Also, 'Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979.' (it used to be measured from aircraft before that).'

    Sadly Byron could include the reason for this, reason that has nothing to do with AGW. But does he know it? Chances are not.
    Clue: high pressure fields and low cloud coverage, increasing HP southward migration being indeed a simple proof countering the AGW rhetorics...
  39. Antonio San from Canada writes: Byron writes: 'BaB OmimO is unique in being a triple denier: in BaB's world, not only is there NO global warming, but there's no Anthropocentric Global Warming, and no problem with polar bear populations, nor any perceivable threat. Take your pick, BaB sees no warming, hears no warming, speaks no warming. '

    Well Byron learn first what AGW means : Anthropogenic not anthropocentric. Anthropocentric refers to those people who feel human is at the center of the universe and that one generation -specifically the one that is paying taxes now- will save the planet...

    As for warming, since the 30's were warmer than todays temperatures one can reasonably ask what warming are you refering to? So stop barking: Anthropocentric warming? Well that's your bellybutton...
  40. Antonio San from Canada writes: Oh and Byron:

    'Four of the past 5 months are “all-time” records for Southern Hemisphere sea ice anomalies, “unprecedented” since the data set began in 1979 as shown below:
    On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were “unprecedented” for the month of April in over 25 years. Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982. This continues a pattern established earlier in 2008, as global sea ice in March 2008 was also the third highest March on record, while January 2008 sea ice was the second highest January on record. It was also the second highest single month in the past 20 years (second only to Sept 1996).' climateaudit.org
  41. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Antonio San - regarding the first quote, about the low levels of arctic sea ice, you haven't done anything to disprove that fact, apart from deflection.

    I take it you concede that point then, unless you care to show that somehow that data is incorrect. Remember, I referred to ARCTIC sea ice. Please read carefully.

    We'll be waiting for your response.
  42. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Older Arctic Sea Ice Replaced By Young, Thin Ice

    ScienceDaily (Jan. 13, 2008) - A new study by University of Colorado at Boulder researchers indicates older, multi-year sea ice in the Arctic is giving way to younger, thinner ice, making it more susceptible to record summer sea-ice lows like the one that occurred in 2007.    '

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080111100652.htm
  43. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: 'Older Arctic Sea Ice Replaced By Young, Thin Ice

    ScienceDaily (Jan. 13, 2008) - A new study by University of Colorado at Boulder researchers indicates older, multi-year sea ice in the Arctic is giving way to younger, thinner ice, making it more susceptible to record summer sea-ice lows like the one that occurred in 2007.    '

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080111100652.htm

    Concerning temperatures, see the NOAA data in figures 37 and 38 on my website or get the raw data from:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html
  44. J Lee from North Vancouver, Canada writes: It is again patently clear that one doesn't come here to discuss AGW and the science underlying it. The tone, the inanity, the stridency, and the silliness of the comments betray the posters here not only as non-scientists, but not even as students of science. On the other hand one might expect or hope that there would be a political discussion of some of the implications, proposals, mitigations, etc. Alas no, not that either. So what is the point then? Or maybe we really should just go into the night screaming No No No.
  45. Antonio San from Canada writes: Byron, low arctic sea ice thaw in 2007 had nothing to do with AGW and although the globe never published Dr. Walt Meier comments it was widely available on CBC -hardly a denier spot- and yahoo, google news at the time. Learn.
  46. Antonio San from Canada writes: Alan Burke young sea ice must have a brighter albedo since it is not darkened by soot and thus should melt not as easily... but hey even if glaciers were settling over canada you'll still attribute it to Global Warming... too bad IPCC did not predict what's been happening for tha past few years now...
  47. Dead-Eye Dick from Fiji writes:

    Canada the GOOD isn't interested in matching the Great Satin, because it might affect the income of the indigenous peoples in the area. Some would argue this is not a reflection of the GOOD Canadian but rather a reflection of Harper. Yet Canada the GOOD on a per capita basis puts more green house gas into the atmosphere than the average Satanist from the south. Canada the GOOD gives less foreign aid to the world than the US on a per capita basis and opted out of a U.N. proposal to realize the Mike Pearson target of 0.7% of GDP by the year 2010-five other countries signed on, but Paul Martin didn't.
  48. Brian Klappstein from North Bay, Canada writes:
    J Lee:

    '...silliness of the comments betray the posters here not only as non-scientists, but not even as students of science..'

    Speak for yourself J, there are posters here who would qualify as 'students of science'.

    Regards, BRK
  49. Margot Wojciechowski from Chapala, Mexico writes: The media makes it sound like the polar bear is on its way out. This is far from true. There are 20 populations of polar bears globally, and only two are decreasing. This mistake could cost Canada and the USA a lot of unnecessary trouble and expense.

    See http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA566.html
    and lots of other sites if you google 'polar bears' '20 populations'
  50. Margot Wojciechowski from Chapala, Mexico writes: Funny how the left wig ALWAYS falls back on insults, personal attacks, arguement ad hominum. Stick to the facts please. And check out the othe google sites, while you are at it.
  51. Bill Dyer from Canada writes: J Lee from Vancouver writes:

    'It is again patently clear that one doesn't come here to discuss AGW and the science underlying it. The tone, the inanity, the stridency, and the silliness of the comments betray the posters here not only as non-scientists, but not even as students of science. On the other hand one might expect or hope that there would be a political discussion of some of the implications, proposals, mitigations, etc. Alas no, not that either. So what is the point then? Or maybe we really should just go into the night screaming No No No'

    You've pretty well nailed it. There is no point to these 'discussion' threads. The Globe editors don't read them, and have said as much in their periodic on-line appearances. So there is no chance that anything here will affect the paper's editorial content. I suppose people on here might read some of the ads that appear in various places on the Globe's website, so there might be some value to the paper in that.
    Apart from that, though, these threads are for the bellowers and screamers--deaf people shrieking at one another.
  52. Dawn from Minnesota from United States writes: Ryan Ginger from Ottawa, Canada: I agree with all of your points. We have government by smoke and mirrors down here.
  53. j boland from United States writes: I understand polar bears taste like chicken, right? Or, maybe it was they like the taste of chicken. No difference. An inconvenient truth is that da bears are doing just fine.

    Question: do the true believers bow towards mecca or one of the poles? If you Believers really care about the environment--which I highly doubt, any more than does His Majesty El Hypocrit Al Gore--start by picking up the trash along the highways.
  54. Expert Eel from Canada writes: I don't know why the U.S. Government isn't protecting Romulan Bore Worms too, there are the same amount living free and wild in the U.S. as polar bears.
  55. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf * . The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.

    In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. * Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.

    But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say.'

    It is significant news, although it is derided by some of those who do not understand the value of observation and research, nor the 'canary in the coalmine' concept.

    Perhaps in a few decades, we'll be looking back at these decades saying 'why didn't we do something when we had the chance?'
    I hope that doesn't happen, for the sake of the planet and it's inhabitants.

    But surely the strategy of 'do nothing' and 'change nothing' which is implicit in the writings of deniers and extremist skeptics is not the answer.
  56. Steve Church from Canada writes: Poor Anty:- Polar bear drownings - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece The extra distance is extra risk and increased likelihood of drowning or starving. The change in behavior, territory, and diet is exactly what global warming warns about ... and now pro-pollutionists try to use it with the polar bear to refute the threat to the animal. Just another bizarre round of misinformation. The notion that it didn't happen in 2007 because there are no confirmed reports of it belongs in a magic act.
  57. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Threats and uncertainties
    Anthropogenic and natural changes in arctic
    environments, as well as new recognition of the
    shortcomings of our knowledge of polar bear ecology,
    are increasing the uncertainties of polar bear
    management. Higher temperatures and erratic weather
    fluctuations, symptoms of global climate change, are
    increasing across the range of polar bears. Following the
    predictions of climate modellers, such changes have been
    most prevalent in arctic regions (Stirling and Derocher
    1993, Stirling and Lunn 1997, Stirling et al. 1999,
    Derocher et al. 2004), and have already altered local and
    global sea-ice conditions (Gloersen and Campbell 1991,
    Vinnikov et al. 1999, Serreze et al. 2000, Parkinson and
    Calvalieri 2002, Comiso 2002, 2003, Gough et al. 2004).
    Because changes in sea-ice are known to alter polar bear
    numbers and productivity (Stirling and Lunn 1997,
    Stirling et al. 1999, Derocher et al. 2004), effects of global
    climate warming can only increase future uncertainty and
    may increase risks to the welfare of polar bear
    subpopulations. Uncertainty about effects of climate
    change on polar bears must be included in future
    management and conservation plans. In the face of
    climate change, the need for rigorous scientific
    information will increase.
    Persistent organic pollutants, which reach arctic
    regions via air and water currents, also increase
    uncertainty for the welfare of polar bears. Recent studies
    document new pollutants in polar bear tissues... etc etc..

    http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bear-status-report/

    http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/rsrc/Proc_Seattle05.pdf
  58. martha stewart from Canada writes: Steve Church - Polar bears drown. It happens. More often in years when there is more open water which, again, is nothing new.

    The other claim from the alarmists is that The Warming has suddenly turned them into cannibals. Again, nothing new.

    A little historical perspective... from traditional knowledge.

    From: Polar Bears. Proceedings of the 2nd Working Meeting of Polar Bear Specialists organized by IUCN at Morges, Switzerland, 2-4 Feb. 1970. Supplementary Paper No. 29, IUCN July 1970.

    From: Vibe, C. The Polar Bear Situation in Greenland (p 17).

    'It is a common belief among the eskimos that old male bears will hunt mother bears with cubs to kill and eat the cubs, and such incidents have often been witnessed.'

    The whole basis for the alarmist speculations about cannibalism comes from one year, one area, three incidents. An absurd jump to grand generalizations. It could have been the work of one killer bear. I'll post the full abstract of that study next.
  59. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Steve Church - yah, it's the same reverse-world logic that led Rumsfeld to attribute an increase in attacks and violence in Iraq to success of the mission.
    The contortions of the human mind are both a marvel and a pity. Self-delusion is one of the greatest of our faults - I imagine that even if global warming continues into the next few decades, there will still be naysayers claiming that it isn't happening, and further wasting everyone's time.

    Taking steps to protect polar bears is prudent; it doesn't require belief in AGW, just a cautious attitude towards stewardship of the planet. Let the research continue.
  60. crime of the century from This is not America, Canada writes:
    Save the polar bears, and save the world too, kill more automobiles.
  61. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: martha stewart - read the observations above. 'Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys. '
  62. martha stewart from Canada writes: I see my last post was inserted out of chronological order. Oh well. There it is.

    Byron Rottweiler - That pollution in polar bear tissue is nothing new. It also shows up in the Innuit. But it sure does show us that we live on a small planet, and that nothing is 'pristine' anymore.
  63. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: martha stewart - your denials are nothing new. That doesn't make your argument convincing.

    The pollution data speak to overall conditions - environmental stresses which affect the health of the bears. That's all. I included it because it gives a good picture of the challenge scientists are facing.

    Whereas deniers can simply ignore what they don't like to hear, researchers have to do the dirty work of raising funds, taking samples year after year, and then endure the heckling of ignorant urban dwellers who don't appreciate the great efforts made by these people.

    Newsflash: Human ignorance is nothing new.
  64. martha stewart from Canada writes: Byron - Maybe by THEIR surveys but it has been documented elsewhere. I'll dig up some references for you later. Far too nice outside to spend more time indoors right now.

    BTW, although I have zero doubt that the more open water recently would indeed increase the chances of there being more drownings, I also fully understand that the increased population of polar bears in that area - check that population's history - would also increase that rate, and so would the increased monitoring.

    How easy is it to find a drowned polar bear without a helicopter?

    But as noted, they have been found before. More later, if this stays open...
  65. martha stewart from Canada writes: Byron - I'm not denying anything. Just addinginformation. The presence of these pollutants in the top-of-the-food chain Arctic species has been known for a long time. Check it out.

    Seems to me that you fit your description... 'deniers can simply ignore what they don't like to hear' in this case.

    I'm not an urbanite, I'm not heckling, and as noted earlier, I will find some references about polar bear drowning later.

    If you would like to address the information I posted instead of just silly name calling, please do. Check it out. Think. To do otherwise will be fitting your own descriptuion of a denier.

    Denier. Such a stupid and loaded word. Completely anti-scientific BTW. Real science invites questions.

    Oh well, enough of this. So nice outside.
  66. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Nothing but an end run by the United States to try and exert authority in the northern parts of Canada. Politics pure and simple.
  67. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Martha - you are denying in this sense: to refuse to recognize or acknowledge

    You refuse to recognize the importance of the observations, even while you have stated them yourself. In fact, you argue the opposite: that the observations are only important in terms of refuting our concerns.

    That is denial of legitimate concerns, dismissing them all as 'nothing new'.

    The whole point of the increase in dead bears was to show a possible effect of reduced ice, in itself an effect of global warming.

    What is it that you mean to prove? You seem to agree with the basic science.
  68. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: I think I have Martha's thesis now: If temperatures increase, it is 'nothing new' because they've increased before. If ice recedes it's 'nothing new' because ice usually melts when things warm up.
    If bears have to swim in open water it's 'nothing new' since there's less ice. If more of them perish it's 'nothing new' because they can't find as much food. And if polar bears eventually become extinct it will be 'nothing new' since other populations have already become extinct.

    OK, so I jest, but all in all, if the ecosystem in the North is severely damaged and we see large die-offs of large mammals, it will all be 'nothing new'.

    But don't use that dreaded word 'denial', oh no. That's off limits, poor form and not scientific.

    Denial is 'nothing new'. In fact it's old and boring.
  69. Steve Church from Canada writes: Byron:- Unfortunately, if you check it out this move by the US doesn't add any real protection for the bears - some lip-service at the expense of Inuit trophy-hunting. (That's about 60 bears a year). Claims of rare pre-sport populations is the usual drivel. They were part of traditional Inuit hunting, diet, materials, fuels and clothing. Cave art, and beliefs like the bear ghost-guest Nanuk was common across the arctic (the spirit of your kill lives with you stuff). Experts in the field issued warnings about the drownings and cannibalism, not casual observers. Whether this action you call 'prudent' has any substance remains to be seen. From here it was a cynical leasing handout before the new requirements came into effect.
  70. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: Steve Church - yo, even lip service is too much for some people..
  71. Steve Church from Canada writes: Antonio:- A link to the blogsite would be more than sufficient. It doesn't even have any info ... just a distorted recap and an opinion. No matter how many times it's highlighted, the theme gets hijacked - it's about habitat loss and consequences.
  72. martha stewart from Canada writes: Byron - Hmmm. Since I see you don't actually read posts that disagree with your predetermined conclusions, I won't bother continuing this.

    Steve Church writes: about 'some lip-service at the expense of Inuit trophy-hunting.'

    They all have a 'subsistence' quota. The reduction in bears killed for sport will be compensated by an increase in 'problem bear' kills.

    'Claims of rare pre-sport populations is the usual drivel.'

    What are 'pre-sport populations'? If you mean early historical populations you are completely uninformed. You explain why they were rare, sort of: 'They were part of traditional Inuit hunting, diet, materials, fuels and clothing.'

    'Experts in the field issued warnings about the drownings and cannibalism...'

    Until the recent hysteria took over, experts didn't 'warn' about this. They just knew about it.

    You do understand that some grizzly bears are cannibals too, don't you? So are some black bears. We haven't been 'warned' about this yet.
  73. Antonio San from Canada writes: Steve Church What do you think polar bears were doing during the Medieval Optimum? They adapted so stop making doom and gloom predictions that are already proven false. Unless of course you believe in spontaneous generation...
  74. Steve Church from Canada writes: Antonio:- Don't even pretend you know climate in the arctic during the MWP. You and Marthmellow create assumptive nonsense for your claims. If there's any stretch about anything in the arctic during the MWP, it's the expansion of the Thule culture across the ice fields of the polar region. As for your claim about me making 'doom and gloom' predictions' - it's as false as your expertise about polar bear behavior in the MWP.
  75. Shadow of the Bear from Canada writes: Stop killing us. Is my gall bladder, my head and my fur coat really worth it?
  76. Shadow of the Bear from Canada writes: You should see what they do to bears in other parts of the world. See www.animalsasia.org for information about bear-bile farming in China.
  77. Shadow of the Bear from Canada writes: I think five of the eight bear species in the world are now endangered or 'threatened'. Pleases correct me if I am wrong.
  78. Dawn from Minnesota from United States writes: Environmental groups pushed for the protection of polar bears, not the U.S. government. Their goal was to link the demise of polar bears with global warming in order to legally stop large corporations from polluting. As it now stands, large corporations can continue to pollute beyond established government levels so long as they pay an annual fine to the federal government. The fines are insignificant and are less costly to pay than the price of the devices that the companies are supposed to install. The U.S. government has made clear that the legislation that passed will not be linked to cutting back the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States. Yet, the U.S. government wants to be praised for its concern for the polar bears. President Bush spoke in favor of protecting the polar bears. As I wrote in an earlier post on this article, we have government by smoke and mirrors down here.
  79. Steve Church from Canada writes: Dawn:- Agree with your post. Instead of a conservation/AGW response, the Government actually managed to shift the impact to the sport hunters and the Inuit bear-trophy business. The leases are done, the connection is denied, the environmental assessment process is undisturbed, the environmentalists think they got a W, and the bears get additional habitat challenges. File it under pyrrhic victory.
  80. martha stewart from Canada writes: Dawn from Minnesota writes: 'Environmental groups pushed for the protection of polar bears, not the U.S. government.'

    They actually SUED to force consideration of this listing. As this is the poster child for The Warming it had a lot of political backing. The whole listing process has been similarly politicized and twisted through litigation. Science is now beside the point.

    And now its an election year, and McCain has just turned 'green.' Thus we have this politically correct decision.

    Now the reduction in the number of polar bears killed by trophy hunters will be compensated by the increased number killed as 'problem bears.' The difference is that while trophy hunting is an economic benefit to those communities, problem bears are just problems with costs.

    And the Innuit will now have less motivation to protect them.

    For urbanites who don't get this, how about if we list dangerous burglars as a threatened species.
  81. Steve Church from Canada writes: OISM - The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001. Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed. Funding: Petition was funded by private sources. Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html ... ... I'm sure this has something to do with polar bears ... probably never know unless they hand out new decoder rings ...
  82. Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: Why not build more garbage dumps in Nunavut?

    Polar bears might look like the SUV version of a baby seal, but seals are also their favourite snack.

    Go figure... Best Regards.
  83. Dawn from Minnesota from United States writes: There's a War between those who say there's a War and those who say there isn't from Canada, you make good points. The polar bears have become a political football. What can we do to save them? I wonder if some of the population could be relocated. Would it be possible to create artificial islands with the look of ice flows that have features that would benefit seals and walruses?
  84. Antonio San from Canada writes: Steve Church, IPCC keeps changing the date of the apocalypse like a horserace changing the finish line, the handicap of horses -GISS temperature corrections- and is now even opening regional climate study groups, in full contradiction with their own mantras of global warming but indeed proving Climatologists such as Leroux right, of course without the intellectual honesty to acknowledge their debt to him and others...
    I'll take Dr. Ballunias expertise over Al Gore's anytime! You may not like it, it may counter your eco-collectivist plans, but there are many more scientists who do not take '4 polar bear carcasses' for a cull!
  85. Commander Groovechild from Canada writes: The general idea that humans must prevent the extinction of species will prove difficult to support in the longterm. Mass extinctions are a common occurence. One of the reasons we developed as a species is because our competitors and predators became extinct. Some of the most annoying creatures to humans are disappearing - polar bears, tigers and sharks. Nonetheless there are natural corrections that occur with or without human intervention. From a biological standpoint I would be more concerned about aquatic bacterial populations - and of course the bacteria that we cannot study below the surface of the earth. Existence of life on this planet might depend more on these populations than all of the large terrestial and aquatic organisms combined.
  86. martha stewart from Canada writes: There's a War - To answer your questions, sort of...

    COSEWIC, the body that determines the listing status of species in Canada, JUST reviewed polar bears and determined not to change their status. It remains 'Special Concern,' the lowest risk level.

    The US just bumped the polar bear up to 'Threatened' status. Contrary to media misinformation this does NOT mean they are threatened with extinction. It means that, if the worst case scenario trends unfold, they could potentially become 'Endangered' - and that status suggests the threat of extinction. But this doesn't mean extinction period. That means all polar bears would be gone. They really mean 'extirpation' which refers to the polar bears IN the US.

    This listing in the US is NOT based on their current status. It is based on the assumption that the worst case global warming scenario will unfold. In other words, it is based on speculation and driven by politics.

    There are already lots of polar bears in Russia.
  87. Steve Church from Canada writes: The IPCC never predicted an apocalypse in the first place. The Y2k merge correction you referred to made no significant change to the global temps (-.03dC for 1996-2006). The rest of your post is steam. I'm sure you believe the Pacific Legal Foundation reference means something ... it must, right. However, it repeats the numbers game - unsubstantiated recovery numbers now (decent assessment later this year) beside the hunted-out remnant numbers of 5-10,000 in the 60s. The protections of the Oslo Agreement of 1973 reversed the decline. All you've done is highlighted the vulnerability of the species and the potential success protection efforts can have. And the numbers/observations don't show a thriving population - 5 declining, 5 stable, and 2 (special protection) growing. 7 have inusfficient data. http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/
  88. Andrew Toth from Oliver, BC, Canada writes: Question: Should not both the Canadian and the United States of America governments sit down and discuss what can be done for helping the Polar Bear? Look the only winners I see here are the 'None of it'. Because right now they are able to earn $40,000 USD per killed bear. And if both governments could come up with a reasonable program then it appears to me the losers then will be guess who? $40,000 USD is a case for strong lobby for the 'None of it'. That is a lot of lost cash flow.
  89. Andrew Toth from Oliver, BC, Canada writes: )))))))The trophy hunting of polar bears is an important industry in Nunavut, which lobbied against listing the animals to protect the livelihoods of Inuit guides. Although Americans will still be able to kill the bears, for which they can pay up to $40,000, the ban on taking the animal parts home will undermine much of the allure. Sports hunting of polar bears is against the law in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world.((((((((((

    If the polar bear is a protected species then will not the Inuit be upset? I mean $40,000 USD per bear, that's gravetrain for Nunavuit, will be lost. I mean they what 'all of it'; not 'none of it'. Right?
  90. Big Tuna from Calgary, Canada writes: Having read all the above threads, I find that most posters have one thing in common with 99% of Canadians - they've never seen a polar bear in the wild. I have spent ten years working from Inuvik in the west to Igloolik in the east and I have had the opportunity to talk with many of the Inuit who have spent their lives there. My favourite past time was take magazine articles about the Artic written down south by self professed experts and read them to the local workers while staying in camps. Many a time they would bust a gut laughing at some of the conclusions reached by these environmental 'experts'. Over the past few years I have asked everyone of the elders if the polar bear population is falling and not a single one has felt that was true. One fellow had a picture of a polar bear trying to climb in through his uncles bedroom window . If I have to pick one side, I'm going to pick the people who actually live there before I believe the weekend urbanites who leave their university ivory towers to travel and spend a few weeks into an area and return armed with a lifetime of knowledge gained in a few weeks. They then interpret their results to suit their hypothesis and ensure future funding. In the meantime, I got a line on a great deal for a ploar bear rug !