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).

Abstract

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.

Inuit Methods of Identifying Polar Bear Characteristics: Potential for Inuit Inclusion in Polar Bear Surveys + Supplementary Appendix Tables S1 to S5 (See Article Tools)

“…Inuit traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)-ecological observations that are acquired through experience and passed on from one generation to the next (Berkes et al, 2000)-is already considered in wildlife co-management and conservation decision making at territorial (INAC, 1993) and national levels (e.g., Government of Canada, 2002). In Canada, polar bears are managed as 13 subpopulations, using the best available local-in addition to scientific-knowledge (Peacock et al, 2011;Vongraven and Peacock, 2011). In Nunavut, territorial (Nunavut Wildlife Management Board) and regional wildlife boards and community hunters and trappers organizations (HTOs) establish harvest quotas (Tyrrell and Clark, 2014) for each subpopulation (Dowsley, 2009a;Peacock et al, 2011), as sanctioned by land-claim agreements (INAC, 1993).…”

“…In Canada, polar bears are managed as 13 subpopulations, using the best available local-in addition to scientific-knowledge (Peacock et al, 2011;Vongraven and Peacock, 2011). In Nunavut, territorial (Nunavut Wildlife Management Board) and regional wildlife boards and community hunters and trappers organizations (HTOs) establish harvest quotas (Tyrrell and Clark, 2014) for each subpopulation (Dowsley, 2009a;Peacock et al, 2011), as sanctioned by land-claim agreements (INAC, 1993). Malebiased quotas (to protect females and cubs) are allocated to HTOs harvesting the same subpopulation, who distribute tags, usually through a lottery, to individual hunters.…”

“…Beyond the lack of information on most polar bear populations (Peacock et al, 2011;Vongraven and Peacock, 2011), criticisms of both TEK and scientific types of information that inform decision making have also created challenges and barriers to co-management. Other nations have criticized Canada for considering TEK in decision making (Tyrrell and Clark, 2014), perhaps because TEK is contextspecific in nature and actively shaped by the knowledge holder or gatherer (Houde, 2007) and differs from objective, conventional natural sciences.…”

Polar Bear (<i>Ursus maritimus</i>) Behavior near Icebreaker Operations in the Chukchi Sea, 1991

“…Since the polar bear depends on diminishing Arctic ice habitats for feeding and breeding (e.g., Stirling and Derocher, 1993;Amstrup, 2003;Durner et al, 2009), the species has been the focus of international study for the last few decades, particularly with regard to understanding and predicting the effects of climate change (Bromaghin et al, 2015). However, little has been published about the impacts on polar bears of offshore petroleum exploration activities, including shipping and icebreakers (Peacock et al, 2011;Wilson et al, 2014). Icebreaking vessels (icebreakers) are used to break up and manage (i.e., push away) ice.…”

“…Such information is important for assessing potential human-related impacts on polar bears, given the increasing ongoing, planned, and proposed offshore and coastal oil and gas development in Arctic regions (Huntington, 2009;Peacock et al, 2011). Icebreaking operations may disturb denning habitat, affect polar bear migrations, and influence prey availability (Schliebe et al, 2006;Huntington, 2009).…”