Polar Bears: Its inclusion in list of Endangered Species in US
The iconic specie of circumpolar Arctic regions which
is known as Polar bears or URSUS MARITIMUS is come under the category of
hypo carnivore mammals, considered to be largest land mammals and has become the
first mammal species to face the 100% habitat destruction due to global
warming. Climate change is the major rival into the lives of polar bears. Starvation,
human inter reference and exploitation and global warming led the polar bears to
the critical stage where the species have experienced alarming rate of
population decline in various arctic regions specially in Canada.
In the year 2005, strong voices have raised to
protect the Polar bears and it became the big headline at that time in United
States. In 1973, the Government of USA has added polar bears to the Endangered
species list but with time the studies and reports have shown decline in
population of bears So, the authorities have decided to add Polar bears to
Threatened species list of ESA. Conservation and protection are well needed
to the bears So that their habitat and population is maintained. At the Cop16
the proposal is submitted by United Sates of America to shift polar bears from
Appendix II list to Appendix I list of CITES, to adopt this proposal they
require two-third votes of CITES parties present at Cop16.
1.1 What is
the controversy
Should
United States add polar bears to the threatened species list of Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Polar bears are found in arctic region which is spread in 5
countries: U.S. Russia, Canada, Greenland, and Norway. In 2005, after examine
the condition of polar bears in Arctic region U.S government has decided to
took step and propose a draft designed
by Fish and Wildlife Services U.S at Cop16 which was previously rejected by
various polar bear countries.
1.2 What is
the genesis of controversy
Controversy emerged
after 2005 when the group scientists, researchers and social workers have
raised a voice against the exploitation of polar bears, and they have demanded
protection and conservation policies for polar bears. They demanded to transfer
polar bears from Appendix II list of CITES to Appendix I list. The other party
involved in this controversy is a group of locals (natives), hunters of polar
regions. They argued that the researchers and scientists are showing false
image of polar bears and their population is stable in various parts of the
arctic region. The locals have quote that “Some biologist have studied bears
for 30 years and how many years they have spent on the ice? Who is the
government going to believe?” The
locals are involved in trophy hunting for years and the polar bear trade is
legal in few parts with exceptions which provides benefit to them. On this
basis they do not want this petition to pass by the parties as they found it a
losing situation for them. As if the polar bears were added to the threatened
species list more attention will be provided to them and more steps would be
taken to preserve them and their habitat.
|
Note:
Appendix I list includes species threatened with extinction, trade of such
species is only allowed under exceptional conditions. Appendix II list
includes those species which are not necessarily threatened with
extinction, trade and other illegal activities must be checked to avoid
over-exploitation of such species. Trophy hunting: Hunting game for human recreation in which trophy is represented as animal body part which is displayed in a community as a piece of success. The conservationist provided following arguments: |
- Melting of sea ice: During the month of September in 2007, average sea ice-extent was lowest on the record. Also, highest loss of sea-ice was recorded that year. With this rate of sea ice melting there is a risk that 70% of total world’s polar bear population will be vanished in next 45 years due to habitat loss (U.S Geological Survey Report)
- Climate Model Simulations: The climate model results show that polar bears population is declining at alarming rate due to Arctic ice decline due to greenhouse gas emission in circumpolar regions. Polar Amplification phenomenon has been observed which was clearly explained in the previous climate models.
- Trade: The United States wants to shift polar bears to Appendix I list as polar bears are affected by trading and hunting in large numbers. Around 800 polar bears were harvested each year in the name of trophy hunting. From 2001 through 2010, an average of 3,200 items made from polar bears were exported or re-exported annually from range countries (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Cop16- Polar-bear- proposal-factsheet, Oct-2012).
- Environmental contaminants: They are the potential threats to the lives of polar bears.
- Subsistence and Sport Harvest: The U.S has allowed limited harvest practices of polar bears to native Alaskan Peoples.
- Native to Native Agreement was signed between Alaska and Canada, the harvest rate at Chukchi/Bering sea is highest and was around 150-200 polar bears per year.
Arguments by Localities:
- There are more crucial species in the world than Polar bears who might require this attention and protection.
- The average population of polar bears is increasing and there are no threats to their existence,
- They proposed false climate models which shows growth of polar bear population.
- The hunting and trading of polar bear is essential to maintain their population and as per their beliefs harvesting two males per female is a sustainable approach for hunting in Canada. According to the Canadian Wildlife Service, they recommend targeting male polar bears as they may mate with more than one female every year, whereas females mate once every two years. “If you want to make sure that you’re not over harvesting, you’d really pay attention to the number of females you’re removing,” (National Geography Article by Rachael Fober, 2019)
2.What has been done to resolve the controversy.
On 14, May 2008, the Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has
announced to the world listing of Polar bears as Threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The decision is taken place while considering two
major issues- Climate Change and Species Protection.
The decision took place purely based on scientific studies
and facts available at that time, so that nobody can argue and challenge the
decision further.
The proposal submitted by U.S Government contains following statements:
- Species facing devastating threat from which the risk of extinction is looming and certain.
- Narrowly restricted endemics that, because of their inadequate range of population size, are susceptible to extinction from elevated threats.
- Species once more pervasive that have been shrunk to such critically low numbers or restricted scales that they are at an elevated risk of extinction due to threats that would not otherwise jeopardize the species.
- Species with still relatively widespread distribution that have nonetheless suffered ongoing major reductions in their populations, range, or both because of factors that have not been subsided.
The US government issued its Final Notice of Intent for the
Chukchi Lease Sale 193 opening approximately 29.7 million acres of the pristine
Chukchi Sea to oil and gas activities.
What has
been ecological impacts of the controversy:
The
over-strained controversial topic will lead to various ecological problems and
has caused detrimental impacts on natural habitat of Polar bears. The natural
habitat of polar bears is unique on the planet and its uniqueness is supported
by various ecological factors. The imbalance created in the system is mainly
caused due to human interventions, exploitation, and inattention.
Climate Change consequences has resulted into:
Loss of Arctic ice would affect the survival rate and reproduction cycle of Polar bears due to following reasons:
· to hunt Ringed seals polar bears, depend upon ice- platforms near the shore as ice melts the platforms are disappearing due to shortening of season in which availability of ice is sufficient.
· the distance between the land and ice-edge is increasing day by day, thereby it has become difficult for female polar bears who prefer land on den, to reach denning regions.
· Less availability of ice dens has become problematic for female polar bears as they need dens for gestation.
Scientists estimate it according to their climate models 1/3 of the polar bears population will be vanished from the arctic regions by 2050.
Survival rate is declining with time, polar bears are starving to death in various parts of the polar regions.
Contaminants, Ecotourism & Shipping ecological impacts:
- Petroleum hydrocarbons, persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals are degrading the arctic ice.
- Shipping in polar regions have negative impacts on the aquatic species.
- Mercury: Magnification and accumulation through food web.
- The United States of America has taken wise decision to control the situation, from long period of time polar bears have been neglected and their basic rights are denied due to various selfish reasons.
- The over-exploitation of polar bears needs to be stopped by adding them into threatened species list has helped their population to get stable and it also increased in various parts.
- The controversy is between the two parties- the supporters demanded protection, conservation rights for the polar bears whereas the opponents are afraid that if polar bears were added to the threatened species list they wont be able trade and hunt the polar bears like they do from long passage of time.
- The arguments by opponents are based on unscientific, false models.
- According to the Geological Survey US there is a threat of habitat destruction for polar bears. And today we can observe those threats in arctic regions.
- Inclusion of polar bears in Appendix I would not affect the subsistence harvest of polar bears by Alaskan natives or the creation of handicrafts using parts of polar bears.
- Inclusion of polar bears in Appendix I, however, could reduce the foreign tourist market for Alaskan native handicrafts because of the difficulty in meeting the permitting requirements for export of tourist items from the United States.
Some suggestions for better conservation and protection of Polar bears:
- Reduce greenhouse emissions: The shipments and oil transported via arctic region sea route must be stopped as it is majorly contributing as the greenhouse gas emission in arctic region.
- Oil and gas leaks must be checked in those sensitive areas and minimization of transport of such materials.
- Protection and special efforts must require protecting denning areas, corridors, resting area in off season of ice.
- Only Sustainable development should be allowed in Arctic region.
- Unplanned ecotourism must be stop in Eco-sensitive zones, sustainable ecotourism practices should be planned to minimize the ecological loss.
- International Commercial Trade of polar bears is the biggest threat to their subsistence, efforts should be made with help of government authorities, local people and biologists to handle this issue and steps should be taken to stop such illegal hunting and trade activities.
- Extensive research and studies should be promoted so that polar bears and their habitats can be conserve in more efficient and sustainable manner.
- Integrated conservation approach required to minimize the polar bears survival crisis. The involvement of Government authorities, localities, and scientists. For better result this approach must be taken into considerations.
Has the controversy been resolved?
The controversy had been resolved in 2008, when the United States of America has announced addition of polar bears to the threatened species list of Endangered Species Act (ESA). By this the polar bears were shifted to the Appendix I list of CITES from Appendix II list.
What is the present status of
Polar Bears?
Current population: 22,000-31,000
worldwide population as per IUCN.
§
19 sub-populations of
polar bears are found in different parts of arctic regions.
§
60-80% of polar bear
populations are found in Canada.
Status of Polar bears:
§
International-
Vulnerable
§
Canada- Under special
concern
§
U.S- Threatened
§
Denmark- Vulnerable
§
Russia- Indeterminate,
Rare, or recovering depends vary from region to region and population.
The status of Polar
bear varies in different regions:
- 4 populations are in decline
- 2 populations are increasing
- 5 populations are stable
- 8 populations are data-deficient (information missing or outdated)
Do conflicts continue in US?
When the U.S announced the addition of polar bears to threatened species list under ESA there were two opinions came into light-
- Environmental groups: They were not satisfied and stated that act was violating ESA, and not sufficient to recover or conserve the species
- Localities: They were quite satisfied with the decision of US government and they stated New regulations will lessen the economic impacts of list, Powerful to combat global climate change actions, Northern economic development greater freedom.
So, this led to a great argument between these two groups, but the act
stayed unchanged that time. In 2015, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
released a draft of Conservation Management Plan for Polar bears to
improve their status.
The conflict and controversy officially ended at 14, May 2008 after the
announcement by U.S. government.
2) Will Polar bears survive with present rate of Ice melt
- Polar bears took million of years to evolve from omnivorous, land-dwelling brown bears. Polar bears are well-known for their adaptation ability. These days we observe polar bears changing their food habits, seaweed, birds, berries, moss, grass etc.
- If the arctic ice melt with this rate the survival of polar bear is quite impossible in future as adaptation of climatic change and variation took million of years and present rate of melting ice is comparatively fast, So they do not have much time to adapt the environment changing rapidly.
- Other than that, if polar bears displace from higher temperature region to region where polar icecaps are not melting then there is a possibility of survival for polar bears. So, displacement can be a key to survival for polar bears.
- Polar bears are spread over a wide range in arctic region and covers five different nations. These nations have different polar bear populations and melting of icecaps are uneven vary from region to region.
Survival of
polar bears will be difficult in near future undoubtedly but as per my view out
of 19 polar bear populations few will survive due to uneven rate of melting of
polar icecaps.
What could be done to reverse
the ice melt
Arctic ice is sensitive and easily
gets affected by minute change in air and ocean temperature. Arctic ice is
shrinking at an alarming rate of 9% each year. According to NASA- supported
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) the arctic ice will be going to
experience ice-free summer in 2050.
Efforts and plans designed by scientists to reverse ice melt-
- Physicist Steven Desch came up with a plan to build 10 million wind- powered pumps over the arctic icecaps. These pumps will help in winter season to pump out sea water above the surface where it would freeze and provide thick layer of ice over the surface.
“Thicker ice would mean longer-lasting ice. In turn, that would mean the danger of all sea ice disappearing from the Arctic in summer would be reduced significantly,” Desch
- Seeding the atmosphere with cooling chemicals so that temperature is maintained, and it will minimize the rate of melting of icecaps.
- Reduce Greenhouse emission
- Reduce Carbon emissions
- Minimization of burning of fossil fuels
- One engineer suggested to scatter millions of tiny glass particles in arctic region to reflect the sunlight away, this will help in maintaining the temperature in circumpolar regions.
- Various geoengineering projects are waiting for proposals from government to maintain the polar icecaps.
Comments
Post a Comment