Conservation and management of Canada’s polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in a changing Arctic1This review is part of the virtual symposium “Flagship Species – Flagship Problems” that deals with ecology, biodiversity and management issues, and climate impacts on species at risk and of Canadian importance, including the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), and caribou (Rangifer tarandus).

2011 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 371-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Peacock ◽  
A.E. Derocher ◽  
G.W. Thiemann ◽  
I. Stirling
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Sea Ice ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Atlantic Cod ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Charadrius Melodus ◽  
Land Claims ◽  
Conservation And Management

Canada has an important responsibility for the research, conservation, and management of polar bears ( Ursus maritimus Phipps, 1774) because the majority of polar bears in the world occur within the nation’s borders. Two fundamental and recent changes for polar bears and their conservation have arisen: (1) the ongoing and projected further decline of sea-ice habitat as a result of climate change and (2) the implementation of aboriginal land claims and treaties in Canada’s North. Science has documented empirical links between productivity of polar bear population and sea-ice change. Predictive modeling based on these data has forecast significant declines in polar bear abundance and distribution of polar bears. With the signing of northern land claims and treaties, polar bear management in Canada has integrated local aboriginal participation, values, and knowledge. The interaction of scientific and local perspectives on polar bears as they relate to harvest, climate change, and declining habitat has recently caused controversy. Some conservation, management, and research decisions have been contentious because of gaps in scientific knowledge and the polarization and politicization of the roles of the various stakeholders. With these ecological and governance transitions, there is a need to re-focus and re-direct polar bear conservation in Canada.

Flagship Species – Flagship Problems: recovery of species at risk and the conservation of biodiversity in Canada1This introduction is part of the virtual symposium “Flagship Species – Flagship Problems” that deals with ecology, biodiversity and management issues, and climate impacts on species at risk and of Canadian importance, including the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), and caribou (Rangifer tarandus).

2011 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 369-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Sherman Boates ◽  
M. Brock Fenton
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Gadus Morhua ◽  
Rangifer Tarandus ◽  
Atlantic Cod ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
Flagship Species ◽  
Piping Plover ◽  
Species At Risk ◽  
Charadrius Melodus

This is an Introduction to a series of review articles, entitled Flagship Species – Flagship Problems, that identify, review, and address key problems, solutions, and contradictions linked to conservation and recovery of four iconic species at risk in Canada (polar bear, Ursus maritimus Phipps, 1774; Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua L., 1758; Piping Plover. Charadrius melodus Ord, 1824; caribou, Rangifer tarandus (L., 1758)), as well as one review article dealing with the more systemic impacts of habitat loss and degradation. The reviews are cast in the context of the broader challenge of maintaining and restoring biodiversity.

scholarly journals Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan J Crockford
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Population Size ◽  
Habitat Loss ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Population Decline ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Population Declines ◽  
Sea Ice Decline

The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the first species to be classified as threatened with extinction based on predictions of future conditions rather than current status. These predictions were made using expert-opinion forecasts of population declines linked to modeled habitat loss – first by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List in 2006, and then by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), based on data collected to 2005 and 2006, respectively. Both assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent rapidly reaching 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population, while the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by 67% (including total extirpation of ten subpopulations within two vulnerable ecoregions). Biologists involved in these conservation assessments had to make several critical assumptions about how polar bears might be affected by future habitat loss, since sea ice conditions predicted to occur by 2050 had not occurred prior to 2006. However, summer sea ice declines have been much faster than expected: low ice levels not expected until mid-century (about 3-5 mkm2) have occurred regularly since 2007. Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis. Data collected between 2007 and 2015 reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline remained stable and five showed increases in population size. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice. As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected, a result that indicates the ESA and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened based on future risks of habitat loss were scientifically unfounded and that similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed. The lack of a demonstrable ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears also potentially invalidates updated survival model outputs that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.

scholarly journals Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan J Crockford
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Population Size ◽  
Habitat Loss ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Population Decline ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Population Declines ◽  
Sea Ice Decline

The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the first species to be classified as threatened with extinction based on predictions of future conditions rather than current status. These predictions were made using expert-opinion forecasts of population declines linked to modeled habitat loss – first by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List in 2006, and then by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), based on data collected to 2005 and 2006, respectively. Both assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent rapidly reaching 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population, while the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by 67% (including total extirpation of ten subpopulations within two vulnerable ecoregions). Biologists involved in these conservation assessments had to make several critical assumptions about how polar bears might be affected by future habitat loss, since sea ice conditions predicted to occur by 2050 had not occurred prior to 2006. However, summer sea ice declines have been much faster than expected: low ice levels not expected until mid-century (about 3-5 mkm2) have occurred regularly since 2007. Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis. Data collected between 2007 and 2015 reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline remained stable and five showed increases in population size. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice. As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected, a result that indicates the ESA and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened based on future risks of habitat loss were scientifically unfounded and that similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed. The lack of a demonstrable ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears also potentially invalidates updated survival model outputs that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.

scholarly journals Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Behavior near Icebreaker Operations in the Chukchi Sea, 1991

ARCTIC ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mari A. Smultea ◽  
Jay Brueggeman ◽  
Frances Robertson ◽  
Dagmar Fertl ◽  
Cathy Bacon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Activity ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Chukchi Sea ◽  
Group Behavior ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Running Away ◽  
Significant Difference

Increasing interactions of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) with human activity, combined with impacts of climate change, are of critical concern for the conservation of the species. Our study quantifies and describes initial reactions and behaviors of polar bears observed from an icebreaker during summer 1991 at two exploratory drilling sites (near sites drilled in 2015) located in the Chukchi Sea 175 km and 312 km west of Barrow, Alaska. Polar bear behavior was described using continuous sampling of six predetermined focal group behavior states (walking, running, swimming, resting, feeding or foraging, unknown) and six behavioral reaction events (no reaction, walking away, running away, approaching, vigilance [i.e., watching], unknown). Forty-six bears in 34 groups were monitored from the Robert LeMeur (an Arctic Class 3 icebreaker) for periods of five minutes to 16.1 hours. Significantly more bear groups reacted to icebreaker presence (79%) than not (21%), but no relationship was found between their reactions and distance to or activity of the icebreaker. Reactions were generally brief; vigilance was the most commonly observed reaction, followed by walking or running away for short (< 5 minutes) periods and distances (< 500 m). Eleven percent of bear groups approached the vessel. No significant difference was found between reactions when cubs were present and those when cubs were absent. Despite the limited sample sizes, these findings are relevant to assessing potential impacts of resource development and shipping activities on polar bears, especially given the sparsity of such information in the face of growing human activity in the Arctic offshore areas. Overall, climate change is leading to longer and more extensive open-water seasons in the Arctic and therefore to increasing marine traffic—more vessels (including icebreakers) for a longer time each year over a wider area. 

scholarly journals Predation of Harp Seals, Pagophilus groenlandicus, by Polar Bears, Ursus maritimus, in Svalbard

ARCTIC ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Smith ◽  
Ian Stirling
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Open Water ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Pagophilus Groenlandicus ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Pack Ice

Harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) that breed in February and March in the White Sea migrate to open water around Svalbard and Franz Josef Land in the Barents Sea, feeding pelagically while following the receding ice edge northward to the edge of the polar pack. Although harp seals are present throughout the area during the summer, they are primarily pelagic and do not appear to be extensively preyed upon by polar bears (Ursus maritimus). However, occasionally, large numbers of harp seals may haul out and rest on the pack ice or feed in the water below the ice and surface to breathe between the floes. When approached by a polar bear while on the ice, harp seals do not exhibit the instant flight response characteristic of the polar bear’s primary prey species, ringed (Pusa hispida) and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). In this situation, polar bears may make multiple kills without either consuming their own prey or scavenging seals killed by other bears. This behavior appears not to frighten other nearby harp seals, whether hauled out on the ice or in the water below the floes. These unusual concentrations of harp seals hauled out on sea ice may be related to the distribution and abundance of fish or other epontic prey. Their lack of an escape response to predators on the surface of the sea ice is probably a result of briefly hauling out in large numbers in spring while whelping on the sea ice in areas where the consequences of potential polar bear predation are insignificant. The rare events of harp seal mortality from bears killing them on the surface of pack ice during the summer do not appear to have a significant impact at the population level of either species.

Conservation of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada: an uncertain future1This review is part of the virtual symposium “Flagship Species – Flagship Problems” that deals with ecology, biodiversity and management issues, and climate impacts on species at risk and of Canadian importance, including the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), and caribou (Rangifer tarandus).

2011 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 419-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Festa-Bianchet ◽  
J.C. Ray ◽  
S. Boutin ◽  
S.D. Côté ◽  
A. Gunn
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Industrial Development ◽  
Gadus Morhua ◽  
Rangifer Tarandus ◽  
Atlantic Cod ◽  
High Arctic ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Charadrius Melodus ◽  
Industrial Activities

Caribou ( Rangifer tarandus (L., 1758)) play a central role in the ecology and culture of much of Canada, where they were once the most abundant cervid. Most populations are currently declining, and some face extirpation. In southern Canada, caribou range has retreated considerably over the past century. The ultimate reason for their decline is habitat alterations by industrial activities. The proximate causes are predation and, to a lesser extent, overharvest. The most southerly populations of “Mountain” caribou are at imminent risk of extirpation. Mountain caribou are threatened by similar industrial activities as Boreal caribou, and face increasing harassment from motorized winter recreational activities. Most populations of “Migratory Tundra” caribou are currently declining. Although these caribou fluctuate in abundance over decades, changing harvest technologies, climate change, increasing industrial development and human presence in the North raise doubts over whether recent declines will be followed by recoveries. The Peary caribou ( Rangifer tarandus pearyi J.A. Allen, 1902), a distinct subspecies endemic to Canada’s High Arctic, has suffered drastic declines caused by severe weather, hunting and predation. It faces an increasing threat from climate change. While some questions remain about the reasons for the decline of Migratory Tundra caribou, research has clearly identified several threats to the persistence of “Boreal”, Mountain, and Peary caribou. Scientific knowledge, however, has neither effectively influenced policies nor galvanized public opinion sufficiently to push governments into effective actions. The persistence of many caribou populations appears incompatible with the ongoing pace of industrial development.

Habitat loss, climate change, and emerging conservation challenges in Canada1This review is part of the virtual symposium “Flagship Species – Flagship Problems” that deals with ecology, biodiversity and management issues, and climate impacts on species at risk and of Canadian importance, including the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), and caribou (Rangifer tarandus).

2011 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 435-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura E. Coristine ◽  
Jeremy T. Kerr
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Habitat Loss ◽  
Gadus Morhua ◽  
Rangifer Tarandus ◽  
Atlantic Cod ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Charadrius Melodus ◽  
Species Dispersal ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Pests And Diseases

In Canada, habitat loss has pushed many more species to the brink of extinction than expected in a region with extensive wilderness. However, species richness gradients depend strongly on climate, so species are concentrated in southern regions, where agricultural and urban land uses are both intensive and extensive. Agricultural pesticide use is associated with increasing rates of species endangerment in the south, but long-range transport of persistent organic pollutants is an emerging issue in remote northern regions. Because their distributions reflect climate so strongly, climate change threatens species throughout Canada. Evidence indicates that species’ distributions, phenologies, and interactions with pests and diseases are changing more rapidly in response to climate change than global mean values. Nevertheless, climate change is expected to impose dispersal requirements that surpass species’ maximum rates. Habitat losses may interact with climate change to impair species’ dispersal still further, creating the potential for widespread disruption of biological systems in the most diverse areas of Canada. New research is urgently needed to address questions, and the ethics, around species translocation, ecosystem engineering to anticipate future environmental conditions, and strategies to facilitate the persistence of rare species in landscapes dominated by human activities.

scholarly journals Iñupiaq Knowledge of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Southern Beaufort Sea, Alaska

ARCTIC ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-257
Author(s):  
Karyn D. Rode ◽  
Hannah Voorhees ◽  
Henry P. Huntington ◽  
George M. Durner
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Late Summer ◽  
Beaufort Sea ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Ice Breakup ◽  
Pack Ice

Successful wildlife management depends upon coordination and consultation with local communities. However, much of the research used to inform management is often derived solely from data collected directly from wildlife. Indigenous people living in the Arctic have a close connection to their environment, which provides unique opportunities to observe their environment and the ecology of Arctic species. Further, most northern Arctic communities occur within the range of polar bears (nanuq, Ursus maritimus) and have experienced significant climatic changes. Here, we used semi-structured interviews from 2017 to 2019 to document Iñupiaq knowledge of polar bears observed over four decades in four Alaskan communities in the range of the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear subpopulation: Wainwright, Utqiaġvik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. All but one of 47 participants described directional and notable changes in sea ice, including earlier ice breakup, later ice return, thinner ice, and less multiyear pack ice. These changes corresponded with observations of bears spending more time on land during the late summer and early fall in recent decades—observations consistent with scientific and Indigenous knowledge studies in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. Participants noted that polar bear and seal body condition and local abundance either varied geographically or exhibited no patterns. However, participants described a recent phenomenon of bears being exhausted and lethargic when arriving on shore in the summer and fall after extensive swims from the pack ice. Further, several participants suggested that maternal denning is occurring more often on land than sea ice. Participants indicated that village and regional governments are increasingly challenged to obtain resources needed to keep their communities safe as polar bears spend more time on land, an issue that is likely to be exacerbated both in this region and elsewhere as sea ice loss continues. 

scholarly journals Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan J Crockford
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Population Size ◽  
Habitat Loss ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Population Decline ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Population Declines ◽  
Sea Ice Decline

The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the first species to be classified as threatened with extinction based on predictions of future conditions rather than current status. These predictions were made using expert-opinion forecasts of population declines linked to modeled habitat loss – first by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List in 2006, and then by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), based on data collected to 2005 and 2006, respectively. Both assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent rapidly reaching 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population, while the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by 67% (including total extirpation of ten subpopulations within two vulnerable ecoregions). Biologists involved in these conservation assessments had to make several critical assumptions about how polar bears might be affected by future habitat loss, since sea ice conditions predicted to occur by 2050 had not occurred prior to 2006. However, summer sea ice declines have been much faster than expected: low ice levels not expected until mid-century (about 3-5 mkm2) have occurred regularly since 2007. Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis. Data collected between 2007 and 2015 reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline remained stable and five showed increases in population size. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice. As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected, a result that indicates the ESA and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened based on future risks of habitat loss were scientifically unfounded and that similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed. The lack of a demonstrable ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears also potentially invalidates updated survival model outputs that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.

scholarly journals Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan J Crockford
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Population Size ◽  
Habitat Loss ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Population Decline ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Population Declines ◽  
Sea Ice Decline

The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the first species to be classified as threatened with extinction based on predictions of future conditions rather than current status. These predictions were made using expert-opinion forecasts of population declines linked to modeled habitat loss – first by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List in 2006, and then by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), based on data collected to 2005 and 2006, respectively. Both assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent reaching 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population, while the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by 67% (including total extirpation of ten subpopulations within two vulnerable ecoregions). Biologists involved in these conservation assessments had to make several critical assumptions about how polar bears might be affected by future habitat loss, since sea ice conditions predicted to occur by 2050 had not occurred prior to 2006. However, summer sea ice declines have been much faster than expected: low ice levels not expected until mid-century (about 3-5 mkm2) have occurred regularly since 2007. Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis. Data collected between 2007 and 2015 reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline have remained stable and at least one showed a marked increase in population size over the entire period. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice. As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected. This result indicates that the ESA and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened based on future risks of habitat loss were hasty generalizations that were scientifically unfounded, which suggests that similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed, while the lack of a demonstrable ‘sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears invalidates updated survival model outputs that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document