Polar Bears In Depth
Management and Conservation
Page 2 of 5
In Canada, where the largest numbers of polar bears are harvested, the take is regulated by a quota system and, with specific exceptions, is limited to Native people (Prestrud and Stirling 1994). Quotas are developed through the best available scientific information and enforced through a system of harvest tags distributed by the local hunters and trappers organizations. Representatives of the hunters groups work with scientists to help set quotas throughout Canada, and are fundamental participants in all managment processes. In some parts of Canada, Native hunters use a fraction of their allotted quota tags to guide sport hunters, who may be non-Native (Prestrud and Stirling 1994). Such hunts generate significant financial returns for small northern communities. Sport hunts also have resulted in smaller harvests and a higher proportion of males in the harvests. Sport hunters are not as efficient as local people in catching polar bears, and they strive for larger bears, which are most commonly males. Both the shifted composition of the harvest and the smaller total take resulting from the use of quota tags for sport hunts benefit the hunted populations. The Canadian quota system, whether tags are used for sport hunts or not, has resulted in strict controls on the size of the harvest and exceptionally high quality reporting of harvest composition. Although the Canadian polar bear harvest is larger than that in any other nation, that harvest also is the most scientifically controlled and the best managed. Vigorous efforts are being made to improve harvest monitoring where it is weak, and to implement quotas in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, where they are not at this writing, in place. Most Canadian management units are being harvested at levels below maximum sustainable yield, and the status of most stocks is thought to be good (Prestrud and Stirling 1994 Lunn et al. 2002).
Hunting in Greenland is limited to "professional" hunters who derive all of their income and sustenance from hunting and fishing. Theoretically, non-Native people could become professional hunters if they established long-term residence in remote areas and gave up all other income sources. In practice, however, this requirement has limited polar bear hunting to Native Greenlanders. The size of the harvest in Greenland is limited only by availability (which is controlled by weather and ice conditions) and the requirement that polar bear hunters use dog teams rather than snow-mobiles to pursue polar bears. In 2000 and 2001, the Greenland Home Rule Government began intensive work with hunters to improve harvest monitoring and work toward harvest limits and a quota system (Amalie Jessen, Vice Director, Greenland Home Rule, Department of Industry, pers. commun. June 2001).
In northern Alaska, the harvest is regulated by agreements among the local users and international agreements between Inupiat hunters in Alaska and Inuvialuit hunters in Canada (Treseder and Carpenter 1989). Current population estimates (Amstrup et al. 1986, 2001) suggest the harvest in northern Alaska is under the maximum sustainable yield. There currently are no restrictions on the harvest by Native Alaskans in western portions of the state, and harvests there largely have been regulated by availability of bears to hunters. A new agreement between Russia and Alaska, however, will soon bring more control and better monitoring to this region (see below).
The biggest threat from hunting may be in Russia. That conclusion is ironic because under Soviet management, hunting was banned in 1956. After the fall of the Soviet regime, however, management of hunting and other uses of renewable resources has suffered from lack of funding and absence of enforcement. So, although shooting polar bears is still illegal, there is nothing to stop such activity when it occurs. This is cause for concern because the economic gains from organized hunting are potentially great and other opportunities to generate income in northern Russia are extremely limited. Also, Russia controls nearly half of the Arctic and much of the world's polar bear habitat. A potentially uncontrolled harvest over such a broad area could be a problem with far-reaching implications.
Risks of excessive take in Russia have been partially addressed by the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the AlaskaChukotka Polar Bear Population. This agreement, signed on 16 October 2000, followed more than 8 years of discussions and negotiations between the local Native people and government representatives of both countries. Although still awaiting congressional ratification, this agreement recognizes the needs of Native people to harvest polar bears for subsistence purposes and includes provisions for developing binding harvest limits, allocation of the harvest between jurisdictions, compliance, and enforcement. Each jurisdiction is entitled to up to one half of the harvest limit. The agreement reiterates requirements of the 1973 multilateral Treaty and includes restrictions on harvesting denning bears, females with cubs, or cubs <1 year old, and prohibitions on the use of aircraft, large motorized vessels, and snares or poison for hunting polar bears. The agreement does not allow hunting for commercial purposes or commercial use of polar bears or their parts. It also commits the parties to the conservation of ecosystems and important habitats, with a focus on conserving polar bear habitats such as feeding, congregating, and denning areas. As with the agreement between the Inuvialuit of northwest Canada and the Inupiat of Alaska (Treseder and Carpenter 1989), the commitment of the users seems likely to assure that in western Alaska and in the eastern Russian Arctic, harvests will be kept within sustainable limits. The remainder of the Russian Arctic is still of concern.
In sum, although hunting can still pose a threat to the welfare of polar bears, it is maintained at sustainable levels in most jurisdictions by a combination of regulations and user's agreements. In the jurisdictions where formal agreements or rules are lacking, the need for limits on the take are increasingly obvious and gaining acceptance.
Hunting in Greenland is limited to "professional" hunters who derive all of their income and sustenance from hunting and fishing. Theoretically, non-Native people could become professional hunters if they established long-term residence in remote areas and gave up all other income sources. In practice, however, this requirement has limited polar bear hunting to Native Greenlanders. The size of the harvest in Greenland is limited only by availability (which is controlled by weather and ice conditions) and the requirement that polar bear hunters use dog teams rather than snow-mobiles to pursue polar bears. In 2000 and 2001, the Greenland Home Rule Government began intensive work with hunters to improve harvest monitoring and work toward harvest limits and a quota system (Amalie Jessen, Vice Director, Greenland Home Rule, Department of Industry, pers. commun. June 2001).
In northern Alaska, the harvest is regulated by agreements among the local users and international agreements between Inupiat hunters in Alaska and Inuvialuit hunters in Canada (Treseder and Carpenter 1989). Current population estimates (Amstrup et al. 1986, 2001) suggest the harvest in northern Alaska is under the maximum sustainable yield. There currently are no restrictions on the harvest by Native Alaskans in western portions of the state, and harvests there largely have been regulated by availability of bears to hunters. A new agreement between Russia and Alaska, however, will soon bring more control and better monitoring to this region (see below).
The biggest threat from hunting may be in Russia. That conclusion is ironic because under Soviet management, hunting was banned in 1956. After the fall of the Soviet regime, however, management of hunting and other uses of renewable resources has suffered from lack of funding and absence of enforcement. So, although shooting polar bears is still illegal, there is nothing to stop such activity when it occurs. This is cause for concern because the economic gains from organized hunting are potentially great and other opportunities to generate income in northern Russia are extremely limited. Also, Russia controls nearly half of the Arctic and much of the world's polar bear habitat. A potentially uncontrolled harvest over such a broad area could be a problem with far-reaching implications.
Risks of excessive take in Russia have been partially addressed by the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the AlaskaChukotka Polar Bear Population. This agreement, signed on 16 October 2000, followed more than 8 years of discussions and negotiations between the local Native people and government representatives of both countries. Although still awaiting congressional ratification, this agreement recognizes the needs of Native people to harvest polar bears for subsistence purposes and includes provisions for developing binding harvest limits, allocation of the harvest between jurisdictions, compliance, and enforcement. Each jurisdiction is entitled to up to one half of the harvest limit. The agreement reiterates requirements of the 1973 multilateral Treaty and includes restrictions on harvesting denning bears, females with cubs, or cubs <1 year old, and prohibitions on the use of aircraft, large motorized vessels, and snares or poison for hunting polar bears. The agreement does not allow hunting for commercial purposes or commercial use of polar bears or their parts. It also commits the parties to the conservation of ecosystems and important habitats, with a focus on conserving polar bear habitats such as feeding, congregating, and denning areas. As with the agreement between the Inuvialuit of northwest Canada and the Inupiat of Alaska (Treseder and Carpenter 1989), the commitment of the users seems likely to assure that in western Alaska and in the eastern Russian Arctic, harvests will be kept within sustainable limits. The remainder of the Russian Arctic is still of concern.
In sum, although hunting can still pose a threat to the welfare of polar bears, it is maintained at sustainable levels in most jurisdictions by a combination of regulations and user's agreements. In the jurisdictions where formal agreements or rules are lacking, the need for limits on the take are increasingly obvious and gaining acceptance.