The Eventual disappearance of the Manitoban Polar Bear
Hugh Freaking Dillon
Posts: 14,010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breaki ... 52364.html
Manitoba may have just a handful of polar bears by 2035, as the world's leading experts on the iconic Arctic species believe the bears that summer around Churchill are doomed.
The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation of polar bears, estimated at 935 animals in 2004, is expected to decline over the next 25 to 30 years to the point where there are not enough bears to sustain a breeding population, predicts University of Alberta biologist Ian Stirling, who's been studying polar bears for 37 years.
Related Items
Articles
Work set to begin on rescue facility The increasing length of the ice-free season on Hudson Bay will soon reach a tipping point where 20 to 30 per cent of Manitoba's polar bears will begin dying off every year, according to a mathematical analysis released two weeks ago by Stirling's colleague, University of Alberta biologist Andrew Derocher, who's studied polar bears for 28 years.
The predictions mean the province that calls itself the polar bear capital of the world may no longer be able to count the iconic Arctic animal as a resident species within a generation.
The eventual extirpation of polar bears from Manitoba would have disastrous effects on Churchill's ecotourism business as well as the province's efforts to portray itself as a leader in conservation.
"We can say with a very great deal of confidence, sadly, the Western Hudson Bay population will be non-viable within 25 or 30 years," Stirling said in an interview, referring to periodic polar bear counts, an observed decline in the average weight of polar bears, a decline in the weight and number of polar bear cubs and the increasing length of the ice-free period on Hudson Bay.
Unlike bears in the high Arctic, the Western Hudson Bay population spends its summers on land, denning in and around Wapusk National Park east of Churchill. Since almost all of the bears' calories come from seals -- which are only hunted on sea ice -- a longer ice-free period means less hunting and less body mass.
The average polar bear eats 43 ringed seals a year, Stirling said. Missing out on only two of those meals every year is enough to cause a polar bear's body weight to decline to the point where females produce underweight cubs or no cubs at all.
A preliminary estimate of the Western Hudson Bay polar bear population prepared in 2009 suggested there are only 635 bears around Churchill, a disturbingly low number the biologists are dismissing as incorrect. A full count using the same methodology as the 2004 estimate will be conducted later this year, Stirling said.
But an analysis conducted by Derocher and two mathematicians suggests Manitoba's polar bear population will decline rapidly once Hudson Bay's ice-free period gets to the point where bears wind up with too little food to produce viable offspring -- let alone survive meal-free summers on land.
The notion that polar bears can turn to alternate food sources is preposterous, said Stirling, noting the species has evolved to subsist on seals. Claims by Inuit that polar bears are increasing in number are spurious because the animals are merely turning to human settlements in attempts to find food, he added.
The Western Hudson Bay population will decline even with no hunting and worldwide reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, Stirling said.
"Even if we had a magic wand to wave around or could touch a magic button, it's like trying to turn a supertanker around," Stirling said of climate change. "Even if we went back to 1970 greenhouse-gas levels, it will be years before we see a difference."
But Robert Buchanan, president and CEO of educational organization Polar Bears International, cautioned it would be fatal to give up on polar bears, which he describes as a "sentinel species" that draws attention to the plight of the entire Arctic ecosystem.
Canada, which has 65 per cent of the world's estimated 15,000 to 25,000 polar bears, has the potential to lead the world in the fight against climate change, he said.
"We have to provide hope," he said. "If Canada doesn't get it, then the rest of the world won't get it."
Manitoba declared polar bears a threatened species in 2008. Derocher and other biologists are urging Canada to follow suit this year.
Manitoba may have just a handful of polar bears by 2035, as the world's leading experts on the iconic Arctic species believe the bears that summer around Churchill are doomed.
The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation of polar bears, estimated at 935 animals in 2004, is expected to decline over the next 25 to 30 years to the point where there are not enough bears to sustain a breeding population, predicts University of Alberta biologist Ian Stirling, who's been studying polar bears for 37 years.
Related Items
Articles
Work set to begin on rescue facility The increasing length of the ice-free season on Hudson Bay will soon reach a tipping point where 20 to 30 per cent of Manitoba's polar bears will begin dying off every year, according to a mathematical analysis released two weeks ago by Stirling's colleague, University of Alberta biologist Andrew Derocher, who's studied polar bears for 28 years.
The predictions mean the province that calls itself the polar bear capital of the world may no longer be able to count the iconic Arctic animal as a resident species within a generation.
The eventual extirpation of polar bears from Manitoba would have disastrous effects on Churchill's ecotourism business as well as the province's efforts to portray itself as a leader in conservation.
"We can say with a very great deal of confidence, sadly, the Western Hudson Bay population will be non-viable within 25 or 30 years," Stirling said in an interview, referring to periodic polar bear counts, an observed decline in the average weight of polar bears, a decline in the weight and number of polar bear cubs and the increasing length of the ice-free period on Hudson Bay.
Unlike bears in the high Arctic, the Western Hudson Bay population spends its summers on land, denning in and around Wapusk National Park east of Churchill. Since almost all of the bears' calories come from seals -- which are only hunted on sea ice -- a longer ice-free period means less hunting and less body mass.
The average polar bear eats 43 ringed seals a year, Stirling said. Missing out on only two of those meals every year is enough to cause a polar bear's body weight to decline to the point where females produce underweight cubs or no cubs at all.
A preliminary estimate of the Western Hudson Bay polar bear population prepared in 2009 suggested there are only 635 bears around Churchill, a disturbingly low number the biologists are dismissing as incorrect. A full count using the same methodology as the 2004 estimate will be conducted later this year, Stirling said.
But an analysis conducted by Derocher and two mathematicians suggests Manitoba's polar bear population will decline rapidly once Hudson Bay's ice-free period gets to the point where bears wind up with too little food to produce viable offspring -- let alone survive meal-free summers on land.
The notion that polar bears can turn to alternate food sources is preposterous, said Stirling, noting the species has evolved to subsist on seals. Claims by Inuit that polar bears are increasing in number are spurious because the animals are merely turning to human settlements in attempts to find food, he added.
The Western Hudson Bay population will decline even with no hunting and worldwide reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, Stirling said.
"Even if we had a magic wand to wave around or could touch a magic button, it's like trying to turn a supertanker around," Stirling said of climate change. "Even if we went back to 1970 greenhouse-gas levels, it will be years before we see a difference."
But Robert Buchanan, president and CEO of educational organization Polar Bears International, cautioned it would be fatal to give up on polar bears, which he describes as a "sentinel species" that draws attention to the plight of the entire Arctic ecosystem.
Canada, which has 65 per cent of the world's estimated 15,000 to 25,000 polar bears, has the potential to lead the world in the fight against climate change, he said.
"We have to provide hope," he said. "If Canada doesn't get it, then the rest of the world won't get it."
Manitoba declared polar bears a threatened species in 2008. Derocher and other biologists are urging Canada to follow suit this year.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I started a grizzly bear thread a few months back and I don't think people understood how badly our populations are hurting up here.
Bears are such beautiful, majestic creatures....
Guess its pointless to reduce the gas emissions then.
Bears are cool.
Al Gore is rich.
Global Warming is for suckers.
I guess so, if you think ruining more of the world's ecosystems beyond repair is a good thing.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
well, let's see. um, you did.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Polar Bears are merely a product of the ice age and have not been around very long. There were around a million years where evolutionary man was around and polar bears did not exist yet.
The collapse of the world eco-system is something we have to watch, although I think man will go before anything really bad happens. We are much fragiler than we think.
They think that they don't need to worry about conservation or sustainability because humans are so high and mighty, or that animals or the planet don't deserve a second thought.. but what they don't realise is that humans are all a part of the circle of things, we're just killing ourselves. Ignorance is bliss, i guess.
Your article said the Poar Bears are declining whether we reduce the grenhouse gases or not.
I don't believe we're destroying the ecosystem b/c I think Global Warming is a scam.
Feel free to disagree, many people do.
I didn't say we're ruining the earth...
YOU did.
it said there is nothing that we can do about it now, because the damage has already been done. it didn't say that greenhouse gases were not the cause.
I don't believe in global warming either, I believe in global climate change. how is it a scam? in whose best interests is it to come up with said scam?
yes, I did, and we are. You don't think so?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
THAT'S WHAT I'VE SAID SO MANY TIMES
people want to believe climate change is a scam, then whatever i guess. but they use "climate change" to encompass ALL the earth's problems!
not that i am surprised by that statement tho, generalizing seems to be their forte.
muslims = bad
pollution = gooood
What is the difference b/w Global Warming and Global Climate Change?
The Climate has been changing every day since the Big Bang or whatever.
Einstein: "Change is constant."
global warming was changed to climate change because people couldn't get their head past the "warming" part. its not just a warming (people go, oh, its cooler than usual this year, global warming MUST be a farce) but a general change in the entire climate.
which is besides the point, because you said you
besides the fact that we're currently witnessing one of the worst oil disasters - and killing an entire eco system in the processes - i don't understand how you can actually kid yourself to believe that we're not harming the planet....
1) global warming is a misnomer because the actual problem is not the continuous rise in temperature all over the globe, it is more drastic temperatures and climate issues on both sides of the dial. Sure, you'll see the melting of the ice caps, but you'll also see record cold snaps and freezing temperatures during the winter months. I live in Winterpeg, I should know. Not to mention strange oceanic current shifts, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc. We're not talking The Day After Tomorrow Here, it's gradual, but that's the problem. Our species basically does nothing about a problem until it's too late.
2) yes, it has, that's obvious. but we as a species are speeding it up, making it worse.
3) so I guess we should just ignore the problem, then, right?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
so you think all of the species that go extinct DAILY has nothing to do with our impact on the planet?
all I can say to that is WOW.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Humans accidentally, or negligently might be more accurate, destroying the Gulf with oil.
OK. THAT is manmade pollution, the destruction of ecosystems.
But I just don't buy that me driving a Tahoe is dooming our future generations.
The National Debt will sink us before the melting ice caps anyways, so who cares?
if you live in a big city, and then go to the woods, you can tell the air is fresher and clean. You can't tell me that inhaling all that exhaust and pollution isn't causing the world (and ourselves) harm.
it's a proven fact that CFC's that man created destroy the molecules that make up the ozone layer. And you don't think that has a direct effect on ecosystems?
typical, "national" debt will sink us before the world ends. The (insert your nation here) is going to shit, so who cares about the rest of the world, right?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I love the Earth- it's amazing.
If there's a cause, I donate money, if there's a vote, I'd vote for it.
But I'm just not losing sleep over it now. The Problem List is too long.
peace.
what kind of mind altering medications are you indulging on?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
reread, then get back to me.
It's called the ostrich tactic. If you just stick your head someplace dark enough, you can pretend nothing is happening. Yes, the climate has always changed, however, those changes were very, very gradual. Unless, we're talking about mass extinctions due to meteor strikes or whatever. The climate changes taking place now are happening at unparralleled rates.
In the minds and data of unbiased experts who actually study this stuff, there is fairly little disagreement on the root causes. However, if you listen to data gathered by "scientists" on the payroll of big corporations, you will believe there is nothing wrong with anything. Now who am I gonna believe?
Please Support My Writing Habit By Purchasing A Book:
https://www.createspace.com/3437020
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000663025696
http://earthtremors.blogspot.com/
Can u please site the "corporate scientist" that falsified research?
I thought it was the UN's scientists.
http://eternian.wordpress.com/2010/02/2 ... sea-level/
polar bear are dying and even breeding with other bears just to survive.
that's a natural thing that happens when a species is in trouble.
we learned this in environmental science class.
i forget which bear it is that is breeding with polar bears.
all in a fight to survive.
but nope, nothing is wrong.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Its the Grizzly.
i've seen it a million times.
btw, why do i sense bullshit in your messages?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
J/K.
I saw a NatGeo special on it- I'm serious. Grizzlies and Polars are mating.
Some hunter shot n stuffed one, and PETA went ape-shit.
Here, I found this:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ars_2.html