Polar Bear Conservation in Canada: Defining the Policy Problems

Abstract

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.

Mapping Human Dimensions of Climate Change Research in the Canadian Arctic

“…A major focus of the latter includes the development of community-monitoring networks for tracking environmental conditions including sea ice thickness, trail safety, and permafrost Meier et al 2006;NTK 2008;Tremblay et al 2008;Gauthier et al 2010;Hanesiak et al 2010), and the investigation of governance and resource management bodies and their capacity to manage changing wildlife access and availability (e.g., Armitage 2005b; Clark et al 2008;Dowsley and Wenzel 2008). Despite this trend, of the studies reviewed here, only two had first authors from a political science department, and none from law, economics, or psychology, with the majority of scholars from geography or anthropology background.…”

“…Mental health and vector-and water-borne diseases have received limited attention. Twenty-two percent of articles (n = 26) focus on institutional and resource management, with studies largely examining how resource management regimes can be improved in light of climate change with a focus primarily on Nunavut (e.g., Armitage 2005a; Budreau and McBean 2007;Clark et al 2008). Twenty-one percent (n = 25) focus on infrastructure and transportation, mostly examining the stability and safety of semi-permanent trails on lake and sea ice (e.g., Tremblay et al 2006Tremblay et al , 2008Aporta 2009;Laidler et al 2009;Beaumier and Ford 2010;, with a number of projects examining natural hazards on Baffin Island and in Nunavik (e.g., Manson et al 2005;Dery et al 2009;Hanesiak et al 2010).…”

Interpretations of Polar Bear (<em>Ursus maritimus</em>) Tracks by Inuit Hunters: Inter-rater Reliability and Inferences Concerning Accuracy

“…Polar Bear dynamics are mainly estimated through analyses of population viability using data from aerial capture-mark-recapture (CmR) surveys (Taylor et al 2005;Taylor et al 2006), which are expensive (dowsley 2009), infrequent (government of nunavut 2005*; Taylor et al 2006), and sometimes do not have the full support of local communities (Tyrell 2006;Clark et al 2008;Shannon and Freeman 2009). The lack of accurate information on Polar Bear population dynamics can have regional consequences, ranging from erratic harvest quotas for resident Inuit (Taylor et al 2008;dowsley 2009) to incorrect projection of respons es by Polar Bear populations to climate change and the aggravation of differences of opinion between scientific and Inuit communities (Clark et al 2008;dowsley 2009).…”

“…The lack of accurate information on Polar Bear population dynamics can have regional consequences, ranging from erratic harvest quotas for resident Inuit (Taylor et al 2008;dowsley 2009) to incorrect projection of respons es by Polar Bear populations to climate change and the aggravation of differences of opinion between scientific and Inuit communities (Clark et al 2008;dowsley 2009). A first step to a more affordable and wide-spread monitoring program may be more frequent, less invasive estimates of Polar Bear activity involving local Inuit.…”

Environmental Stewardship: A Conceptual Review and Analytical Framework

“…For many indigenous communities whose cultural identity and harvesting practices are deeply interconnected, the idea of "no-take" conservation may be antithetical to their holistic "social-ecological" worldview (Berkes 1999). Additionally, in a context where local cultural identity depends on the harvest of certain mega-fauna (e.g., sea turtles, whales, caribou, polar bear), the complete closure of these areas to harvesting (even when species are considered vulnerable or endangered) may be deemed unacceptable (Clark et al 2008). Considering what might constitute due and appropriate process for promoting management or conservation interventions in different sociopolitical or governance contexts is also important.…”