The appearance of this news item on the CBC’s site was especially timely in light of my last post. Some of my readers, I know, are wondering how an animal that has been in the news a lot, as a threatened species, can be hunted. Some of my readers I know, wonder how any animal can be hunted, but perhaps thats a post for another time.
The Polar Bear, as a species, is threatened. As a species it is also thriving in some locations, but despite this is still under threat. In the north Baffin, where I live, populations are growing. Yet the US government is planning on listing the the Polar Bear as threatened, and the Canadian Government has listed it as a species at risk. What’s going on?
The Polar Bear is facing a huge threat these days, one that if current climate trends continue, will see the sea ice, that the Polar Bear depends on, disappear. When the ice disappears, much of the arctic biosphere will disappear with it. There is a possibility, of course, that remnant populations of bears, ringed seals, ice dependent whales such as Narwhal and Bowhead Whales, will survive, adapt, and re-emerge as new populations or species, but the pace of climate change makes that unlikely.
So where does hunting fit into all of this? Really it doesn’t factor into the threat. Current hunting levels, at least in the regions I’m familiar with, are being done at sustainable levels. IQ or Inuit Traditional Knowledge is consistently saying that Polar Bear Populations are increasing. Science is hedging their bets, saying there have not been adequate populations studies done. Opponents of IQ say that Inuit have a vested interest in saying populations are rising, but consider this… Inuit have been saying for years and years that the eastern population of Bowhead Whales was much higher than the estimates given by DFO and increasing. They were largely ignored or scoffed at. Population estimates were in the low hundreds of animals for years. In recent years that estimate was increased to around 5,000, and now estimates number 14,400 (although the DFO prefers to say that they’re 95 percent sure that the population is between 4,800 and 43,000). The Bowhead is a long lived (probably the longest lived animal on the planet, estimated at 200 years, perhaps more) relatively slow reproducing animal. Far too slow reproducing to jump from 300-400 to 14,400 in 10 years.
So should we rely solely on IQ when it comes to wildlife populations? Of course not, just like we shouldn’t rely solely on the scientists when there are people here, very attuned to the land and the wildlife, with much data to contribute. What we need to do is ensure that our federal, provincial and territorial agencies charged with managing our wildlife are better funded than they currently are, and that research into these populations is increased. But I digress.
The current population of Polar Bears here is healthy and growing, however that will matter not a wit when the ice disappears, and hunting or the absence of hunting will not impact on this threat what so ever. By listing the polar bears as threatened the US might be putting processes in place to help combat the threat, but to my mind it is a smoke screen. Give people the impression you are doing something when the real problem is not being addressed.
I’m not being entirely accurate when I say that hunting will not have any impact on the threat, climate change, for it does. It has a positive effect. As much as those of us who live in the north like to think that we tread lightly on the earth, we don’t. The arctic is far from being carbon neutral. All of our electricity is generated by local diesel fired generators. Heating is done by oil furnaces or burners. Our preferred methods of transportation, snowmobiles, ATVs and boats with outboard motors, tend to be at the high end of the polluting scale for combustion engines. Perhaps the biggest impact comes from the shipping of our food.
While some of our dry goods are shipped up on sealift, most of the food – all of the produce, fresh and frozen foods, snack foods like potato chips with a short shelf life etc. – is flown here. A long long way. There is a very big carbon footprint up here for the amount of people.
Some friends who I’ve spoke to regarding hunting, when asked if they are familiar with the 100 mile diet are very familiar with it. Country food is this area’s hundred mile diet. Many people here supplement their store bought food with country food. Some people try to make it as large a portion of their diet as they can. They prefer it. Every pound of country food harvest here is a pound of food that doesn’t have to be flown here from Montreal (or farther). Probably more actually, the nutrition is generally better.
We impact our planet in so many ways, it is impossible for us not to, that there are no easy answers to how best to tread on this earth. You may not like fur (or sealskin) but harvested in a sustainable manner in well monitored populations it probably is better for the environment than that fleece jacket you might be wearing. Recycled or not, it started off as hydrocarbons that took millenniums to make, and energy to create. Everything has an impact, and unfortunately local hunting is not going to be enough to remove the real threat to the Polar Bear, zooplankton, and phytoplankton and the rest of the arctic biosphere that depends on sea ice.
Comments
5 responses
The polar bears survived the last global warming (The Medieval Warm Period) without a problem. I don’t think they’ll have a problem with this one.
Thanks, Clare. This was very informative and put the issue in context. It is much easier for Governments (capital G intended) to put the attention on the species and the hunter than it is for them to address the true issue.
While I agree with your first commenter that this warming period IS likely part of a natural cycle, there’s no doubt that we exacerbate the process and its effects.
Very well stated Clare.
I had wondered about that myself, but your explanation makes sense. The carbon footprint of our diets is becoming a serious issue.
Speaking of narwhals, I just read a report that they might be at more risk than polar bears. That makes me sad, because I have wanted to see one ever since I first learned about them.
It appears I haven’t responded to my comments for some time. Best get at ‘er….
I would hope that they survive, but the MWP was at the most local climate change. The same scientific methodology that is being used (ice core research, pollen sampling etc.) to determine global climatic change has shown that globally the MWP was actually still colder than temperatures from 50 to 100 years ago, and they’ve risen since then. There is little doubt that the world has warmed before, but (again if we know that, we rely on he same technology to tell us the speed of the warming) it has not warmed this fast. What happened in the past, in terms of warming on a global scale, took millennium, now its happening over decades. And that is important in terms of adaptation and survival of species. Speciation and adaptation can happen quicker than we used to believe, but the truth is the event is unprecedented and Arctic populations may not recover.
Narwhal are extremely ice adapted John, and that makes them at risk, just like much of the system. Come visit some June and we’ll go see some.