Polar Bear Specialist Group Updates

There are now 20 officially recognized subpopulations of polar bears throughout the Arctic, following the June meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group. The PBSG is the principal independent body of scientific expertise on polar bears and provides scientific advice to the governments of those countries (Canada, USA, Russia, Denmark/Greenland, and Norway) where polar bears live. Global pandemics and other unanticipated obstacles permitting, it meets roughly every two years. 

At this year’s meeting, held at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences in Seattle, scientists reviewed a detailed submission from the Government of Greenland requesting recognition of a small number of bears in southeast Greenland, recently identified as among the most isolated and genetically distinct in the world, as belonging to their own subpopulation. What is especially notable about this is that the Southeast Greenland bears have responded to the loss of sea ice by hunting seals from freshwater glacial ice in fjords.

The group also discussed a recent, worrying decision by the government of Nunavut in Canada to change the way they manage Indigenous harvest of polar bears. Having previously followed the sustainable practice of hunting two males for every one female, Nunavut now permits equal numbers of males and females to be harvested, raising concerns about polar bear numbers in some areas.

Geoff York, Polar Bears International’s senior director of research and policy, took part in the meeting. Here he discusses some of its most important conclusions.

Is the big takeaway that after years of stating that there are 19 subpopulations of polar bears, we now have 20?

It’s one of the key takeaways, although there was much discussion about the potentially transient nature of some of these changes in populations, too. Because when you look at it in a broader Arctic sense, we’re starting to see climate-driven changes in habitat use and ranges in polar bears and other wildlife populations. And the follow-up question is: How stable will those changes be?

So this is a reflection of behavioral and ecological changes as a result of global warming and sea ice loss?

That’s the premise. That being said, East Greenland polar bears broadly were the least understood in Greenland, simply because of the area’s remoteness and the cost of working there. So a lot of credit is due to Greenland for making the investment financially and in terms of capacity, to dig into this and then to recognize early on that, “Hey, there’s something happening here. We should look at it more closely.” So they followed up with genetic research and attaching radio collars to bears to figure out their movements. Collars aren’t always very popular these days, but this was a really, really nice case for using them. 

Another important and contentious issue at the meeting was the changes in Nunavut’s approach to harvesting polar bears. Can you explain in layman’s terms what that’s all about?

In Nunavut, communities are experiencing an increase in the number of polar bear encounters and a perceived increase in conflict, which tragically has included a couple of fatalities. And the Nunavut government has responded by deciding to reduce the 12 polar bear populations within its territory, a decision that impacts two-thirds of the world’s polar bears, including some populations, like Western Hudson Bay, that are struggling, and other populations that are shared with adjacent provinces and countries.

On paper, it isn’t unreasonable for a management authority to say, “Based on an increase in the number of polar bears, which has led to some serious and indeed fatal incidents, we’ve decided to reduce populations.” What’s concerning is the approach they took. 

Scientists have long predicted that communities would see more polar bears in a warming Arctic as melting sea ice forced more bears ashore. But seeing more bears doesn’t mean there are more. Nunavut made a “one size fits all” unilateral decision that did not square with available data on population trends. Nor did it set adequate safeguards against overharvest.   

What’s more, going from allowing one female to be killed for every two males to allowing one female for every male is a significant change biologically. If you’re taking a reproductive female, that’s a bigger population impact than taking a male. The number of males is less important from a recruitment standpoint than the number of females in total population success. Females are the main reproductive engine of populations. Hence, taking more of them is a significant management change.

Another factor is that this applies to all 12 subpopulations in Nunavut, regardless of status. Then there’s the issue of, “OK, you’ve made this management decision. You want to lower populations – but by how much? What’s the goal? And when you hit that target, how do you know you won’t overshoot it? Is there a plan to return to a two-to-one ratio afterward?”

But, in fact, there are no clear statements of population targets for each subpopulation. There is no clear and robust monitoring plan to specifically assess the new approach. Especially when you’re making a fairly dramatic change, you’d think that would typically trigger more robust and frequent monitoring, and that’s not yet the case. So all that being said, it raises valid concerns that Canada broadly, but Nunavut specifically, is now managing polar bears in a way that may not be considered sustainable. And that could have a huge impact given that Canada is home to two-thirds of the world’s polar bears.

Another issue that the PBSG raised in its end-of-meeting press release is concern that we’re seeing fewer studies of polar bears that involve fitting them with radio collars and other tracking devices.  This also means less physical capture, which is the only way to assess trends in physical and reproductive condition of population members.  I know some Inuit communities have expressed unease with these studies, because they feel they are disrespectful and may harm the bears; is that pushback what’s behind the PBSG’s concern?

Broadly, yes, though I would say there are people from all regions who express concern around the capture, handling, and tracking of wildlife for research and management. Unfortunately, polar bears uniquely among wildlife species have become a lightning rod for a whole host of issues that have little to do with polar bears. Some of that stems from the growing awareness and subsequent strength of Indigenous rights issues in North America that is also tied to increased political power which is long overdue.  

The answer from researchers and managers responsible for wildlife issues is that, if you want certain information, this is the only way for us to get it. Without that data, we’re really tying our hands behind our backs. We don’t do this for entertainment; it’s dangerous work, and biologists have been killed while doing it, mainly because it involves flying aircraft in remote and unforgiving areas.

Recent reductions in physical capture have resulted in less information about the body condition and overall health of animals within subpopulations. The decline in the use of satellite collars has also led to reduced information on polar bear movements and population boundaries — important data in a changing Arctic. Massive efforts are being made by people in the polar bear world specifically to look at less-invasive and novel methods, trying to minimize the number of captures needed and the number of tracking devices. And recent studies focused on polar bear energetics show promise to inform and project population trends.

But we haven’t found any magic way yet to not need some of the data we get from collars. It’s really critical to how we can answer questions that are important not just for managers and policymakers, but are often important for northern communities to understand populations and what’s happening to them.

Should we be pushed to do as little as possible in terms of capture, handling, and tracking? Sure. And there are ways to look at that. But if you want a really good, precise answer, like how many bears are likely to be in a certain area at a particular time of year, then these kinds of studies are still the most precise way to get that estimate.

Read the press release on this year’s PBSG meeting here.

Kieran Mulvaney is the author of The Great White Bear: A Natural and Unnatural History of the Polar Bear. He is a frequent contributor to the Polar Bears International website and also writes for publications including National Geographic, Smithsonian, and The Guardian.