The Polar Bear Management Agreement for the Southern Beaufort Sea : An Evaluation of the First Ten Years of a Unique Conservation Agreement

Brower, Charles D. N.; Carpenter, A.L.; Branigan, M.L.; Calvert, Wendy; Evans, Thomas J.; Fischbach, Anthony S.; Nagy, J.; Schliebe, Scott; Stirling, Ian

doi:10.14430/arctic720

Cited by 40 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Along the SBS coast, they are taken frequently in autumn and early winter and again in late winter and spring. Along the CS coast south of Barrow, they are taken almost exclusively in late winter and spring because sea ice for hunting does not persist along the coast until then (Schliebe et al, 1995;Brower et al, 2002). Therefore, we calculated the relative probabilities (p i ) and associated standard errors for each cell on an annual (yearround) basis and for the two seasons during which bears are most frequently hunted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We defined fall as SeptemberJanuary and spring as February-May. To evaluate management ramifications of observed differences between the annual and seasonal p i for the fall and spring seasons, we explored spatial patterns in p i from different populations (Schliebe et al, 1995;Brower et al, 2002), so we did not calculate separate p i for June-August. We tested for differences between annual and seasonal p i by deriving individual test statistics that are similar to a Student's t-test for each cell in the grid:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The text of the Agreement included provisions to protect bears in dens and females with cubs. The Agreement also stated that the annual sustainable harvest from the southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bear population would be shared equally between the two jurisdictions; that harvests were to be reviewed annually in light of the best current scientific information; and that, if necessary, quotas would be adjusted (Brower et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Allocating Harvests among Polar Bear Stocks in the Beaufort Sea

Amstrup¹,

Durner²,

Stirling³

et al. 2010

ARCTIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Recognition that polar bears are shared by hunters in Canada and Alaska prompted development of the "Polar Bear Management Agreement for the Southern Beaufort Sea." Under this Agreement, the harvest of polar bears from the southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) is shared between Inupiat hunters of Alaska and Inuvialuit hunters of Canada. Quotas for each jurisdiction are to be reviewed annually in light of the best available scientific information. Ideal implementation of the Agreement has been hampered by the inability to quantify geographic overlap among bears from adjacent populations. We applied new analytical procedures to a more extensive radiotelemetry data set than has previously been available to quantify that overlap and thereby improve the efficacy of the Agreement. We constructed a grid over the eastern Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea and used twodimensional kernel smoothing to assign probabilities to the distributions of all instrumented bears. A cluster analysis of radio relocation data identified three relatively discrete groups or "populations" of polar bears: the SBS, Chukchi Sea (CS), and northern Beaufort Sea (NBS) populations. With kernel smoothing, we calculated relative probabilities of occurrence for individual members of each population in each cell of our grid. We estimated the uncertainty in probabilities by bootstrapping. Availability of polar bears from each population varied geographically. Near Barrow, Alaska, 50% of harvested bears are from the CS population and 50% from the SBS population. Nearly 99% of the bears taken by Kaktovik hunters are from the SBS. At Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, Canada, 50% are from the SBS and 50% from the NBS population. We displayed the occurrence of bears from each population as probabilities for each cell in our grid and as maps with contour lines delineating changes in relative probability. This new analytical approach will greatly improve the accuracy of allocating harvest quotas among hunting communities and jurisdictions while assuring that harvests remain within the bounds of sustainable yield.Key words: Arctic, Beaufort Sea, boundaries, clustering, harvest allocation, kernel, management, polar bears, Ursus maritimus, population delineation, radiotelemetry, smoothing RÉSUMÉ. La reconnaissance du fait que l'ours polaire est chassé tant au Canada qu'en Alaska a initié la création de l'«Accord de gestion de l'ours polaire dans le sud de la mer de Beaufort». En vertu de cet accord, le prélèvement de l'ours polaire du sud de la mer de Beaufort est partagé entre les chasseurs inupiat de l'Alaska et les chasseurs inuvialuit du Canada. Les quotas pour chaque territoire de compétence doivent être révisés sur une base annuelle à la lumière de la meilleure information scientifique disponible. Une parfaite mise en oeuvre de l'accord a été rendue difficile en raison de l'impossibilité de quantifier le chevauchement géographique des populations d'ours voisines. En vue de quantifier ce chevauchement et d'améliorer ainsi l'efficacité de l'accord, on a appliqu...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Allocating Harvests among Polar Bear Stocks in the Beaufort Sea

Amstrup¹,

Durner²,

Stirling³

et al. 2010

ARCTIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This transition has been a turbulent process not wholly welcomed by the scientific and non-aboriginal managerial communities (Howard and Widdowson, 1996;Gilchrist et al, 2005), whose roles are themselves the subject of much recent critique (e.g., Nadasdy, 2003;Natcher et al, 2005;Brook and McLachlan, 2005;Stevenson, 2006;White, 2006). In the case of polar bear management, this trend has led not only to the groundbreaking 1988 Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear Management Agreement (Brower et al, 2002;Johnson, 2002), but also to one of the most contentious recent decisions about polar bear management. In December 2004, Nunavut's Minister of Renewable Resources announced that harvest quotas for six polar bear populations would be increased, in some cases substantially, based on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ)-a concept that can broadly be considered as the contextual, traditional knowledge of Inuit (Wenzel, 2004).…”

Section: Social and Ecological Trends Conditions And Projected Devementioning

confidence: 99%

Polar Bear Conservation in Canada: Defining the Policy Problems

Clark¹,

Lee²,

Freeman³

et al. 2009

ARCTIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Conservation of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in Canada is based on the goals and principles of the 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and Their Habitat, and has long been considered an exemplar of science-based wildlife management. However, accelerating social and ecological changes in the Arctic raise questions about the polar bear management regime's ability to adapt successfully to new challenges. We apply the analytic framework of the policy sciences to develop a comprehensive orientation to this evolving situation, and we suggest possible ways to define and advance shared goals of stakeholders and other participants. We conclude that the decision process in polar bear management does not sufficiently foster identification and securing of common interests among participants who express multiple, competing perspectives in an arena that has been increasingly fragmented and symbolically charged by issues such as the recent listing of polar bears under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The fundamental challenge for polar bear conservation in Canada is to design a better decision process so that it can constructively reconcile the various perspectives, demands, and expectations of stakeholders.

show abstract

“…Harvest levels also were to be reviewed annually in light of the best scientific information available (Treseder andCarpenter 1989, Nageak et al 1991). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the Agreement during the first 10 years (Brower et al 2002) concluded that the Agreement had been successful in ensuring that the total harvest, and the proportion of the harvest comprised of adult females, remained within sustainable limits. The evaluation also noted that increased monitoring efforts and continued restraint in harvesting females were necessary to ensure continued compliance with the provisions of the Agreement.…”

Section: Southern Beaufort Sea (Sb)mentioning

confidence: 99%