Lost in a blizzard
of man’s indifference
Science can identify a problem, right a problem, but cannot state right from wrong
By Georges Dupras and Irwin Rapoport
October 24, 2024
A recent Associated Press article caught my eye regarding the death of a young polar bear in Iceland. CITES Appendix II recognizes the arctic predator as “vulnerable”. I immediately contacted George Dupras, asking him if we could co-author an article and he agreed.
Polar bears are not native to Iceland but the species cannot afford to lose a single individual due to human interaction. The AP article, A rare polar bear showed up on the shores of Iceland. Police shot it tells a chilling story in which the cost of returning the bear to its home was outweighed by the cost of saving it.
If it was just a question of the cost of relocating the bear, funds could have been raised to cover the operation. It’s bad enough that we have “sport and trophy” hunters still taking out polar bears, but to have environmental officials defend the killing is outrageous. Every individual matters to the long-term survival of the species. Nor is there any excuse to kill brown bears, black bears, mountain lions, lions, leopards, cheetahs, elephants, rhinos, primates, elephants, and other species targeted by these “hunters.”
It’s bad enough that we have “sport and trophy” hunters still taking out polar bears, but to have environmental officials defend the killing is outrageous.
Wildlife, be it on land, at sea, or in the air, is seriously threatened. Populations have plummeted due to loss of habitat, poaching, sport and trophy hunting. The historic losses, including ongoing losses, make for disturbing reading. Just a few years ago, authorities in Madagascar stopped a wildlife poacher trying to smuggle more than sixty individuals of a rare tortoise species. As I write, parrots in Central and South America, Africa, and Australia are being targeted with many perishing during the journey, and pangolins in Asia and Africa are being seriously poached to the point where local extinctions are now anticipated unless immediate action is taken.
This deadly assault on biodiversity must end and we must undertake drastic measures to curb it.
At this point, I turn the article over to Georges.
* * * * *
When I was growing up, the polar bear (classified as a marine mammal), was often referred to as the “Icon of the north.” None could match its awesome silhouette, nor its unbelievable ability to swim for days in search of food. Today, this magnificent symbol of the Free North is listed as “vulnerable” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Polar bears live in Canada, the United States, Greenland, Russia, and Norway and can be found as far as Iceland. Initially, biologists feared little for the “Great white bear” because its habitat was hostile to humans and the few hunters that came faced punishing arctic weather.
In addition, there was little to no development on the bears’ vast ranges. Hunting was, for the most part, conducted by indigenous people for sustenance purposes. When I was employed by the Hudson Bay Company of Canada, I was told that a percentage of money earned through the killing of a polar bear went to native communities. I doubt that this is still the case today.
‘Today, this magnificent symbol of the Free North is listed as “vulnerable” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).’
Trophy hunters go to great expense and travel the world for the thrill of the kill and to secure a trophy specimen. Weekend hunters rarely venture far from their home province or state and they either consume all or most of the meat butchered from their victims or pass it on to those less fortunate (so they claim).
Charismatic
The great white bear finds itself in the company of five other charismatic cousins, including the lion, leopard, rhinoceros, elephant and water buffalo. Beyond being the primary tourist attraction of their respective countries/continents, they have much in common, including the loss or fragmentation of habitats, while dealing with issues particular to their homelands. These are global issues and would include Asian pharmacology, political corruption, poaching, trophy hunting and the illegal wildlife trade in parts and/or derivatives.
Climate issues
Unlike the African five, however, the polar bear finds itself on the front lines of global warming. This designation was ridiculed by those who argued that global warming had no basis in science and was merely the rantings of aging hippies. Many of those sub-cultures are now carrying the climate change banners and leading by example.
Population count estimates
Achieving an accurate population count of polar bears is challenging due to limited resources and the remoteness of some dens – it is not always possible to locate the den or access the area. Because of these restrictions, it has sometimes been necessary to input “best estimates”. This can be achieved by recording the count in each accessible den, and then establishing whether the numbers are up or down. That done, you apply the average (plus or minus) to those dens you did not access. Though temporary and not scientific, the counts are a reasonable assumption.
‘As the ice melts, the polar bears must swim further afield for their favourite prey, the gray seal. In so doing, they are investing three points of energy to recover one point of energy.’
The Bering Sea
The Bering Sea, situated northeast of the United States and Canada, compounds the threat that polar bears face. As the ice melts, the polar bears must swim further afield for their favourite prey, the gray seal. In so doing, they are investing three points of energy to recover one point of energy. You do not have to be a mathematical genius or a marine biologist to understand the effects of operating with a negative return.
Though some inhabitants of northern settlements are recording more polar bears meandering through their towns and villages, this is more likely the result of compression. The latter occurs when fewer bears seek hunting opportunities on ice found miles away leaving more bears to compete for food left unattended in settlements.
As the seasons pass, the ice caps will continue to recede and the shipping lanes will open, allowing military ships, oil tankers, northern gray whales and orcas to access the Arctic. This will mean more competition for less food. The polar bear is a solitary hunter while the orca hunts in pods. Where does this leave the polar bear? Will the iconic ice bear become prey to the orca?
Shooting bears
Given that we have invaded their habitat, there is no such thing as a nuisance bear. Though user-friendly bear repellants have been developed for black bears, no such application exists for polar bears, to my knowledge. All attractants, such as garbage, composting bins, unclean BBQs and other food substances must be removed from living areas.
‘Given that we have invaded their habitat, there is no such thing as a nuisance bear… All attractants, such as garbage, composting bins, unclean BBQs and other food substances must be removed from living areas.’
Epitaph
Man’s epitaph will reflect a ruthless, greedy, self-serving, hypocritical and narcissistic being. This might be offset by traits of compassion, caring, empathy, love, and anthropomorphism, but then there is still our fascination with violence.
Certainly, our never-ending capacity to rationalize our interest, and perhaps, more accurately, our fear of the unknown, tips the boundaries of our objectivity. Man is intelligent but cannot control that power.
Feature image: Starving polar bear by Andreas Weith, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Other articles by Georges Dupras
Other articles by Irwin Rapoport
Other recent articles in WestmountMag.ca
Georges R. Dupras, member of the International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA), Director of the Animal Alliance of Canada (AAC), Quebec Representative of Zoocheck Canada and past Board member of the Canadian SPCA, worked on the original Save the Seal campaign in 1966 that culminated in the founding of the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Irwin Rapoport is a freelance journalist with a bachelor’s degree in history and political science from Concordia University.
Bears are alway wonderful things provided you don’t have to live with them. I note that the writers are both political – one the director of the Animal Rights AAC and the other a journo. They are entitled to their opinions, but would probably change their minds if a polar bear was in the garden eating one of their chldren. Ethics are indoor human things – bears, like the whole of nature, don’t do ethics. Or rights.
As a retired old ex-bush trader in Africa, I hear the same desk argument about African animals every day. And yes, they too have to deal with climate change – plus human population expansion and rising living standards demanding more land.
Overall numbers of polar bears are apparently no longer declining (after past heavy commercial hunting was stopped) and populations are not evenly spread. So, if you canvas the good people of places like Nunavut, who are up to their wazoo in majestic polar bears in their midst, you discover that there is a small surplus to be removed every year in order to manage the numbers. Since it is their human right to hunt, the answer is simple – they are permitted to hunt a strictly tag-controlled number, agreed by scientists, game dept and local Inuit. Where there are too many bears, they end up looking like the poor creature illustrating this story. Taking the surplus helps the rest.
In turn, a visiting hunter can pay the Inuit tag holder to hunt his surplus tag bear without changing anything, except the Inuit tag holder makes some extra important income. The fur could have been sold anyway, and the meat must go to the tag community by law.
Despite human sentiment, it would not be the brightest thing to capture the surplus bears and put them where they have already disappeared, but, as always, it would be good PR for the NGOs and charities involved.
Man is not indifferent – the Inuit who hunt bears consider them deeply sacred, and the pragmatic game officials devote their lives to the well-being of wild animals.
But, then again, politics and animal rights theory was never strong on pragmatism.
Excellent article…the title says it all. We do not value the natural world and oftentimes, it is wildlife officials and others entrusted with wildlife protection who are only too obliging to snuff out the life of a hapless animal. It all boils down to money and wildlife are at the bottom of the heap in importance.
I have to take issue with John Nash’s comment regarding polar bears that “there is a small surplus to be removed every year in order to manage the numbers” and that there are places “where there are too many bears”. This is the anthropocentric viewpoint that has dominated human thinking for far too long.
We are not the guardians of animals, nor the stewards of nature, we are just another life-form sharing this planet with them. They do not need for us to “consider them deeply sacred” but they do deserve our respect and our consideration to let them be.
An enlightening article that points out some crucial truths. I don’t agree with John Nash, who tries to steer the issue in directions other than the bleak future of the polar bear. Humans should always ask themselves – who was here first, and why do we think we need to manage and control Nature, trying to justify our actions and fear-mongering as we go? There is an urgent need for attitudes to change if we want animals to share our future Earth at all. We must get past the need to make money at the expense of other species. Ignoring the writing on the wall and continuing to do harm to something so beautiful and vulnerable reeks of exploitation, not good stewardship.