Polar Bears Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 7–11 June 2016, Anchorage, Alaska Compiled and edited by George M. Durner, Kristin L. Laidre, and Geoffery S. York

Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No.63

Polar Bears Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 7–11 June 2016, Anchorage, Alaska

Polar Bears Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 7–11 June 2016, Anchorage, Alaska Compiled and edited by George M. Durner, Kristin L. Laidre, and Geoffery S. York

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or other participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or other participating organisations.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Copyright: © 2018 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: Durner, G.M., Laidre, K.L., and York, G.S. (eds.) (2018) Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 7–11 June 2016, Anchorage, Alaska. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. xxx + 207 pp.

Citation of chapters: Laidre, K.L., Born, E.W., Ugarte, F., Dietz, R., and Sonne, C. (2018). Research on polar bears in Greenland 2009–2016. Pages 95-111 in Durner, G.M., Laidre, K.L., and York, G.S. (eds.) Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 7–11 June 2016, Anchorage, Alaska. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.

ISBN: 978-2-8317-1900-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.SSC-OP.63.en

Cover photo: A polar bear and her two yearlings on the sea ice in southeast Greenland, March 2015. Photo by Kristin Laidre.

Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org/resources/publications http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/index.html

Contents Foreword ...... vi

Executive Summary ...... vii

List of participants ...... viii

Agenda ...... xi

Minutes ...... xiv

2016 Status Report on the World’s Polar Bear Subpopulations ...... 1

Management on Polar Bears in Canada, 2009–2016 ...... 33

Research on Polar Bears in Canada, 2009–2015 ...... 68

Management on Polar Bears in Greenland, 2009–2016 ...... 84

Research on Polar Bears in Greenland, 2009–2016 ...... 95

Management on Polar Bears in Norway, 2009–2016 ...... 112

Research on Polar Bears in Norway, 2009–2016 ...... 125

Management and Research on Polar Bears in Russia, 2009–2016 ...... 137

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Management and Conservation on Polar Bears, 2010–2016 ...... 151

U.S. Geological Survey Research on Polar Bears, 2010–2016 ...... 172

Acknowledgements ...... 203

Appendix 1 ...... 204

Appendix 2 ...... 207

Foreword Following the First International Scientific Declines in the extent of the sea ice have Meeting on the Polar Bear which was held in accelerated since the last meeting of the group Fairbanks, Alaska in 1965, the Polar Bear in 2009, unprecedented ice retreat in 2012. Specialist Group was formed to coordinate Habitat degradation and loss are already research and management of polar bears. Eight negatively affecting polar bears in some parts of years following the First Scientific Meeting, the their range, and unabated global warming will ‘Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears ultimately threaten polar bears everywhere. and Their Habitat’ was signed by the However, humand-induced threats to polar Governments of Canada, Denmark, Norway, bears will occur at different rates and times the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the across their range, meaning that conservation United States. Article VII of the Agreement and management of polar bears will be even states: “The Contracting Parties shall conduct more challenging in the future. Previous national research programmes on polar bears, proceedings included a Status Report for each particularly research relating to the of the world’s subpopulations, which focused conservation and management of the species. largely on the known or unknown status as it They shall as appropriate coordinate such related to harvest. In the Status Report of these research with research carried out by other 18th Proceedings, we follow the path set by the Parties, consult with other Parties on the 15th Proceedings in providing a comprehensive management of migrating polar bear assessment of all threats to the status of each populations, and exchange information on polar bear subpopulation. research and management programmes, research results and data on bears taken.” A note on the use of the terms population As part of their commitment to fulfil and subpopulation the intent of the Agreement, representatives of all five signatory nations, together with invited Following the usage adopted in the 14th specialists, attended the 18th Working Meeting Proceedings, we use the term population for all of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group the polar bears in the Arctic. This decision is that was held 7–11 June 2016 in Anchorage, based on their biology, as polar bears roam over Alaska, and hosted by the Alaska Unit of the large areas and genetic structuring is low even United States National Park Service. In this between areas far apart. However, in earlier regular working meeting, representing research issues and in several publications, population and management efforts by the signatory has been used to term more local management nations for the years 2009–2016, the Specialist units. Here those are termed subpopulations. Group reviewed overall progress since the The boundaries between these subpopulations previous regular working meeting will always be based on current knowledge, thus (Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009), and identified boundaries may change as more complete priorities for future studies. knowledge on their ecology becomes available. As with the previous 17 proceedings, This is especially so in less studied areas such as the 18th Proceedings of this regular working the Russian Arctic, where our view of what the meeting demonstrate a continued international real subpopulations or management units are, effort by representatives from each of the and to what degree they interact or are a part of Range States to increase knowledge and inform the neighbouring nations’ subpopulations, may management decisions needed to conserve change in the future. polar bears in a changing Arctic. The group confirmed the conclusion from previous The Editors: meetings that the greatest challenge to G.M. Durner conservation of polar bears is ecological change K.L. Laidre in the Arctic resulting from climatic warming. G.S. York

vi

Executive Summary During 7–11 June 2016 members of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), and invited specialists, including scientists and managers from Canada, Greenland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the United States, met in Anchorage, Alaska, USA, for the 18th regular working meeting of the PBSG. The material within these Proceedings represents a summary for 2009–2016 on the state of knowledge and conservation concerns for polar bears throughout their range. The difficulties in studying a species that ranges widely, at low densities, and in one of the world’s most remote and environmentally challenging regions is evident in these proceedings. Of the 19 polar bear subpopulations recognized by the PBSG, estimates of population size were available for 14. Of the 19 subpopulations, 5 appeared to be stable, 1 may be increasing, 2 were decreasing, and 11 had insufficient data to estimate a trend. However, information derived from field studies of polar bears and analyses of remotely-collected environmental data help fill gaps in our understanding of how they are responding to a changing Arctic. Since satellite imagery of sea ice extent began in 1978, the summertime extent of sea ice has declined from 2.3–20.5 % per decade, depending on the subpopulation. Empirical data collected from field efforts is revealing the mechanisms that climate warming driven sea ice loss is having on polar bears. The nature and timing of these mechanisms is not uniform across their pan-Arctic range. Neighboring subpopulations experiencing similar sea ice declines have responded differently, likely due to regional variation in productivity of the underlying biological oceanography, the energetic costs for occupying drifting sea ice, and sub-optimal habitats. Regardless, unabated sea ice declines as projected through the 21st century, are expected to negatively impact all polar bear subpopulations over the long-term. Other factors are also presented that must be considered when assessing the status of polar bears. Polar bears continue to be an important species for indigenous peoples of Greenland, Canada, the Russian Federation, and the United States, providing them with spiritual, nutritional, and economic subsistence resources. Increasing industry, tourism, and commerce in the Arctic brings humans and polar bears into closer proximity and increases the potential for negative interactions. Industrial and agricultural pollutants from southern latitudes show their far- reaching effects on the health of polar bears through atmospheric and oceanic transport of contaminants into their environment. Changing sea ice has also altered the behavior and distribution of bears, bringing them into increased contact with humans, terrestrial wildlife, and novel diseases. Few polar bear subpopulations occur entirely within one jurisdiction. Hence the challenges and benefits of co-management, as was recognized at the First International Scientific Meeting on the Polar Bears, is now more than ever an integral part of polar bear conservation. In the following pages, the reader will hopefully come to a better appreciation of the current and future challenges in understanding the response of polar bears to a warming Arctic, and the conservation efforts needed to ensure their survival.

vii

List of participants

PBSG Members Amalie Jessen Department of Fisheries and Hunting Jon Aars Government of Greenland Norwegian Polar Institute 3900 Nuuk, Greenland N-9296 Tromsø, Norway E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Kristin L. Laidre Steven C. Amstrup Polar Science Center Polar Bears International Applied Physics Lab, University of 810 N Wallace, Suite E Washington Bozeman, MT 59715-3020, USA 1013 NE 40th Street E-mail: [email protected] Seattle, WA 98105, USA E-mail: [email protected] Todd Atwood U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Nicholas J. Lunn Center Wildlife Research Division 4210 University Drive Science and Technology Branch Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA Environment and Climate Change Canada E-mail: [email protected] CW-422 Biological Sciences Building University of Alberta Stanislav E. Belikov Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada All-Russian Research Institute for E-mail: [email protected] Environment Protection Znamenskoye-Sadki Moscow, 113628, Martyn E. Obbard Russian Federation Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources E-mail: [email protected] DNA Building, Trent University 2140 East Bank Drive Andrew E. Derocher Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, Canada Department of Biological Sciences E-mail: [email protected] University of Alberta Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada Elizabeth Peacock E-mail: [email protected] U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center George M. Durner 4210 University Drive U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA Center E-mail: [email protected] 4210 University Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA Eric V. Regehr E-mail: [email protected] Marine Mammals Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Morten Ekker 1101 East Tudor Road, MS-341 Norwegian Environment Agency Anchorage, AK 99503, USA P.O.Box 5672 Torgarden E-mail: [email protected] N-7485 Trondheim, Norway Current affiliation for Eric V. Regehr: E-mail: [email protected] Polar Science Center - Applied Physics Laboratory Box 355640 University of Washington

viii

Seattle, WA 98105-6698, USA E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Current affiliation for James Wilder: Marine Mammals Management Evan Richardson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Research Division, Science and 1101 East Tudor Road, MS-341 Technology Branch Anchorage, AK 99503, USA Environment and Climate Change Canada E-mail: [email protected] Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada E-mail: [email protected] Geoff York Current address for Evan Richardson: Polar Bears International Wildlife Research Division, Science and 810 N Wallace, Suite E Technology Branch Bozeman, MT 59715-3020, USA Environment Canada Winnipeg, Manitoba E-mail: [email protected] R3C 4W2, Canada E-mail: [email protected] Invited Specialists Karyn D. Rode U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Kyle Armour Center University of Washington 4210 University Drive School of Oceanography, Department of Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA Atmospheric Sciences E-mail: [email protected] Box 351640 Seattle, WA 98195-1640, USA Ian Stirling E-mail: [email protected] Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta Thea Bechshoft Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9 University of Alberta Canada Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Current affiliation for Thea Bechshoft: Gregory Thiemann Aarhus University Faculty of Environmental Studies DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark York University E-mail: [email protected] 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada Marsha Branigan E–mail: [email protected] Environment and Natural Resources Government of Northwest Territories Fernando Ugarte P.O. Box 2749 Greenland Institute of Natural Resources Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0, Canada Box 570, Nuuk 3900, Greenland E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] David Douglas Dag Vongraven U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Norwegian Polar Institute Center N-9296 Tromsø, Norway 250 Egan Drive E-mail: [email protected] Juneau, AK 99801, USA E-mail: [email protected] James Wilder Shoshone National Forest 808 Meadowlane Ave Cody, WY 82414, USA

ix

Sybille Klenzendorf Nicholas Pilfold World Wildlife Fund Recovery Ecology, Institute for 1250 24th Street, N.W. Conservation Research Washington, DC 20037, USA San Diego Zoo Global E-mail: San Diego, CA 92112, USA [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Péter Molnár Vicki Sahanatien Department of Biological Sciences, Department of Environment University of Toronto Scarborough Government of Nunavut 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, ON M1C 1A4, Igloolik, NU X0A 0L0, Canada Canada Current affiliation for Vicki Sahanatien: E-mail: [email protected] Nunavut Wildlife Management Board P.O. Box 1379 Randi Meyerson Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0, Canada Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Toledo E-mail: [email protected] Zoo Toledo, OH 43614, USA Tom Smith E-mail: [email protected] Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University Megan Owen 5050 LSB Recovery Ecology, Institute for Provo, UT 84602, USA Conservation Research E-mail: [email protected] San Diego Zoo Global San Diego, CA 92112, USA Harry Stern E-mail: [email protected] Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington 1013 NE 40th Street Seattle, WA 98105, USA E-mail: [email protected]

x

Agenda of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 7–11 June 2016, Anchorage, Alaska Meeting venue: United States National Park Service, Alaska Unit headquarters

Closed session Nomination of the co-chairs Tuesday, 7 June 2009 Members 9:00 1 Opening welcome and call to Financial order (D. Vongraven) Other matters 2 Formal matters 11:45 Lunch break Media requests (discussion led by D. Vongraven) 7 Website (discussion led by D. Vongraven) Press release (discussion led by D. Vongraven) 13:17 Decisions on co-chairs, amending the TOR, electing Agenda and proceedings for chairs and members the meeting (discussion led by D. Vongraven) 15:15 Break Resolutions (discussion led 15:30 More discussion on financial by D. Vongraven) matters 3 Report from the Range Wednesday, 8 June 2016 States meeting in 2015 9:00 8 Status table (discussion led (discussion led by D. by E. Peacock) Vongraven) 9:00 Executive meeting on the 9:46 4 Requested Advice to the PBSG website Range States (discussion led by D. Vongraven) 10:45 Break 10:25 Break 11:07 Continued discussions on the status table 10:57 More on PBSG’s role with the Range States (discussion 12:41 Lunch break led by D. Vongraven) 14:00 Continued discussions on 5 Capacity issues (discussion the status table led by D. Vongraven) 14:24 9 CITES (discussion led by D. Funding for support of a Vongraven) program officer for the 15:00 10 Effects of handling polar PBSG (discussion led by D. bears (presented by K. Vongraven) Rode) 6 Terms of Reference 11 Discussion on elections and (discussion led by D. new members (discussion Vongraven) led by D. Vongraven)

Responsibilities of the co- chairs

xi

Open session 12:00 Lunch break Thursday, 9 June 2016 13:00 15 Nation reports on management 9:00 Arrival of invited specialists and observers Canada (presented by N. Lunn) 9:04 12 Nation reports on research Canada (presented by A. Greenland (presented by A. Derocher) Jessen) Greenland (presented by K. Norway (presented by M. Laidre) Ekker) Norway (presented by J. Russia (presented by S. Aars) Belikov) Russia (presented by S. United States (presented by Belikov) E. Regehr) 12:27 Lunch break 16 Putting the “eco” in eco- toxicology (presented by 13:30 Continue nation research invited specialist T. reports: United States Bechshøft) (presented by E. Regehr, T. Atwood, G. Durner, K. Saturday, 11 June 2016 Rode) 9:00 17 The Red List process 13 Discussion of the boundary (presented by E. Regehr) change in the Beaufort Sea 18 Human-polar bear conflict (discussion led by invited working group specialist M. Branigen) Update from the Range Closed session States Nomination of chair and Conflict Working Group co-chair, Red List (presented by V. Sahanatien coordinator, members and G. York) (discussion led by D. Vongraven) Efficacy of bear deterrent spray on polar bears Open session (presented by J. Wilder) Friday, 10 June 2016 Bear attacks in North 9:00 14 Sea ice session America (presented by Recent patterns of sea ice invited specialist T. Smith) conditions (presented by invited specialist H. Stern) 13:30 Potential impacts of human recreation (presented by Assumptions and uncertainties invited specialist J. Fortin) associated with sea ice 19 Updates from zoos and other projections (presented by facilities (presented by invited invited specialist D. Douglas) specialists R. Meyerson, M.

Owen and N. Pilfold) Climate change uncertainty

and commitment (presented Closed session by invited specialist K. Armour) 15:22 20 Revisiting TOR and

xii

resolutions (discussion led 17:24 22 Closing remarks and by E. Regehr) adjournment (discussion led 21 Elections by D.Vongraven)

xiii

Minutes of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 7–11 June 2016, Anchorage, Alaska Closed sessions effective for the PBSG to continue writing press releases on important topics but to then put them on the web site rather than using the Tuesday, 7 June traditional press release route. This would mean that the material could be readily available 1. Welcome to both the press and the public for an extended period of time. There was general agreement Introductory remarks on placing releases on the website.

th The 18 Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Agenda and Proceedings for the meeting Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG; hereafter Group) was called to order by D. Vongraven, Chair Vongraven asked for comments on the Chair of the Group, at 09:00 in Room 309 of meeting agenda. No additional comments were the Headquarters of the Alaska Unit of the made and the agenda, as distributed ahead of National Park Service building in Anchorage, the meeting, was accepted and a schedule for Alaska. No observers or invited specialists rapporteurs was established. T. Atwood were present. volunteered to coordinate the reports from the individual rapporteurs (J. Aars, S. Amstrup, A. 2. Formal matters Derocher, G. Durner, A. Jessen, N. Lunn, M. Obbard, E. Richardson, K. Rode, I. Stirling, G. Request for media attendance Thiemann, F. Ugarte, J. Wilder, and G. York) from all the sessions into a single document for Chair Vongraven reported that there was one the Proceedings. At the special meeting in 2014 media request for permission to attend and (Fort Collins, Colorado) it was agreed that the report on the meeting (Erica Goode, New York Proceedings of the PBSG meetings would Times). Ms. Goode had also contacted include minutes, status table, and reports on individual members about interviews as she is research and management in a single document. apparently working on an extended article It was also agreed that it would be most useful about polar bears. A large majority of the to continue publication of the Proceedings in members voted to allow her to attend the open the IUCN Occasional Paper series, as has been sessions with the invited experts and observers. the practice following past meetings. The tentative goal for completion of the contents Press releases for the Proceedings was set for October. Additional material for possible inclusion in the Chair Vongraven asked if members felt the final Proceedings, such as Resolutions, will be PBSG should issue press releases. N. Lunn discussed as the issues come up through the noted that in the past the Group has prepared meeting. G. Durner agreed to help with press releases, but it was noted by others that coordination of the final document for eventual these tended not to be widely picked up by the publication as the Proceedings of the meeting. media. A. Derocher suggested it might be more Wilder stated that the Range States occasionally Resolutions needs reminded to act on aspects of the Circumpolar Action Plan, and perhaps a Chair Vongraven asked whether there were any resolution from the PBSG would help to issues requiring a resolution from the PBSG. J. maintain their engagement. E. Regehr and

xiv

Chair Vongraven suggested revisiting the need States, while needed, are simply too large to for resolutions at the end of the meeting as expect individual scientists, or groups of additional issues are likely to come up in scientists, to be able to achieve the tasks in their subsequent days. spare time. Successful completion of some goals will likely require new budgets and 3. Report from Range States meeting significant staff commitments. Several in 2015 members commented that there needs to be communication to the Range States that the A summary of the 2015 Range States meeting PBSG does not have the financial or staff was presented. N. Lunn noted that the capacity to take on unfunded tasks. extensive list of tasks from the Range States Two particular priorities the Range States comprised a huge commitment and is, in reality, sought advice on were further clarification of the work of the Range States and not simply the so-called “Arctic Basin subpopulation”, and “advice” from the PBSG. The tasks are an estimate of the costs of implementing the abundant in number and many are quite large priorities in the Circumpolar Action Plan. In (although there is some overlap) and it would examining the Arctic Basin question, A. require a very large effort on the part of Derocher noted the importance of looking at individuals, or groups of individuals, to data on movements of satellite collared bears complete. As such, it would be better done by from subpopulations such as the Northern the Range States themselves and the PBSG Beaufort Sea, Southern Beaufort Sea, Chukchi could consider providing advice on how they Sea, and Barents Sea as it is clear that some of might proceed, or possibly advise on the final the time, bears are distributed well north of the product. K. Laidre noted that the Range States presently recognized northern boundaries of list is long but the PBSG did not formally agree those subpopulations. This suggests that the to take on the tasks at the 2015 meeting. area of this hypothetical subpopulation is probably much smaller than shown on present maps and likely does not contain many, if any, 4. Advice to the Range States resident bears. A. Derocher, G. York, and G. Thiemann will review the available information To date, the PBSG has been the official on the movements of bears from relevant scientific advisor for the Range States, but subpopulations in order to provide a brief members agreed the relationship needs report on what might be needed to enhance our revisiting in order to achieve positive results for understanding of this issue. It is important to both parties. With regards to the 2015 Range address this reasonably soon because there is an States meeting, several members felt the PBSG impression held by some groups outside of the needs to prioritize tasks identified by the Range PBSG that there are more bears within the States and then suggest how to approach the Arctic Basin subpopulation than may be the most important ones. Specific knowledge gaps case. need to be identified as part of the prioritization The subgroup reporting on human-polar exercise. J. Wilder, E. Regehr, K. Laidre, K. bear conflicts has forwarded an interim report Rode, and E. Richardson agreed to form a back to the Range States but the final report has subgroup to assess the work that would be not yet been completed. needed to actually accomplish the tasks using It was agreed that, if practical, all the the information base already in existence. subgroup reports done in response to the Additionally, they will make a general estimate Range States request should be parts of a single of how much work will be required to address report back to Range States. the tasks. The Range States need to recognize that a high level of commitment will be required to achieve the highest priority goals, such as the need for specific contracts and prioritizing work formally into staff and agency annual plans. The objectives set forth by the Range

xv

5. Capacity issues noted that it will be difficult to both find a single sponsor for such a project or to find and Funding for support of a program officer administer a larger number of smaller for the PBSG supporting groups.

At the special meeting in 2014, members 6. Terms of Reference discussed whether there was a need for a Program Officer who could manage and do E. Regehr led a review of a document drafted much of the important, but time-consuming, in advance of the meeting that contained work required of the PBSG. It was noted that revisions to the current Terms of Reference the PBSG membership simply does not have (ToR; to add more structure and clarity). The the capacity at the moment to address the redrafting was led by E. Regehr and involved a numerous requests being made by the Range small group of members – J. Aars, A. Jessen, K. States. It was estimated that the total cost of a Laidre, N. Lunn, M. Obbard, I. Stirling, D. Program Officer would be in the vicinity of Vongraven, Ø. Wiig, and G. York. US$150,000/year for 5 years and a request for this support was made to the Range States. The Responsibilities of the chair and co-chair Range States were able to commit to approximately US$20,000–30,000/year. It was The document drafted by E. Regehr included noted that it may be difficult to convince the wording (replacement text to the existing ToR) Range States of the need for a Program officer that the PBSG would be led by a chair and a co- at the PSBG because it may be difficult to chair, where the co-chair would report to the quantify the direct benefit to the Range States. chair and should be more appropriately called a There was discussion of the possibility of deputy chair. The Group recognized the soliciting funding/sponsorships from the benefit of additional help for the chair but private sector. The general consensus was that focused on whether this would be best met with several lines of funding would likely be needed a chair/deputy chair model or a co-chair model to support a Program Officer position and where both co-chairs had equal standing within acquiring those funds would require substantial the PBSG and also with IUCN. effort. The Group preferred the co-chair model G. York noted that a formal proposal (equal standing) but felt that there must be clear identifying tasks that groups like non- delineation of responsibilities/roles of each so governmental organizations (NGOs) might be that there was no confusion either between the interested in addressing was not drafted after co-chairs or among the members. It was agreed the 2014 special meeting. He suggested that if that the ToR would reflect a co-chair model but the goal of a Program Officer is to be achieved, that wording should be retained to allow for a it will likely need to be shaped toward an NGO single chair to avoid having to redraft the ToR. option rather than governments, and this may It was also agreed that while the responsibilities be a role for NGOs to help. Members of the co-chairs need to be clear, there should expressed a need to more clearly identify the be a degree of flexibility retained to allow co- roles of this position in such areas as chairs to take on responsibilities for areas of communications, coordination, and related particular interest to them rather than a tasks. Additionally, it was suggested that a structure that commits one co-chair to be working group be established to develop an responsible for “A”, “B”, and “C”, and the outline for the position, using the previous other for “D’, “E”, and “F”. working document as a starting point. A working group was not named. Nomination of the chair and co-chair A. Derocher suggested that a trust account managed through a non-profit The members discussed proposed replacement organization or a university is a possibility for text on the process and timing of nominations. administering the position. Chair Vongraven There was a general view that the Group is

xvi

small enough that it is not necessary to overly The formation of a subcommittee to help formalize processes to allow for some identify/review potential candidates would be flexibility. While it was encouraged that of benefit. While it was agreed that it would be nominations for co-chairs occur 14 days in important for a subcommittee to assist in the advance of the meeting, there was agreement selection process of members, it was less clear that there was no need to make this a strict whether this subcommittee should work with requirement. There is an intention to allow the co-chairs in advance of the meeting so that members not present to be able to vote via the incoming co-chairs have a list of candidates email and thus there needs to be some cut-off to appoint or whether this subcommittee and point for nominations. There was consensus the new co-chairs start the process after the among the members that nominations would election of the co-chairs. There was general close at the start of the meeting. agreement that there would be benefit to having There was discussion on the election a list prepared in advance. It was recognized process and whether there is a need for it to be that only the outgoing co-chairs would fully organized by a subcommittee. It was know the contributions to the Group made by considered important that the election process each member, thus there would need to be be run by a group of individuals that do not considerable reliance on the outgoing co-chairs include nominated members. However, it was for recommendations. felt that this could be facilitated by an ad hoc So long as individuals were qualified and subcommittee rather than by creating a the membership was not at maximum, it was formalized subcommittee. agreed that new members could be added at any While the members agreed that there time and not be restricted to the IUCN should be a limit to consecutive terms that an quadrennial cycle. individual could be co-chair, there was While there was no language in the difference of opinions as to whether co-chairs suggested new text, the members agreed it was should be limited to one consecutive term or important to include some wording to the two. There was agreement that this was a very effect that PBSG members are appointed important issue and a vote of members in because of their expertise and not to formally attendance was held by a show of hands: a represent Range State countries. It was majority of members voted for co-chairs being recognized that wording is critical because limited to two consecutive terms. many of the current members are employees of Range State countries that support their Members participation. It was felt that a strong message of what the members represent in terms of their There was discussion on the PBSG expertise and ability to contribute is far better membership regarding proportional than a statement of what jurisdiction the representation of each country. A graph of members represent. members from each country was presented and E. Regehr indicated that he would revise it was suggested that the membership section of the document to reflect the discussions and that the ToR may need to be adjusted to consolidate the wording is not intended to change the requirements for membership, selection of new fundamentals of the ToR but rather to tighten members, and participation. up the language. He planned to revise the The members reviewed new text for the language and recirculate the document during ToR with respect to the process of new the meeting for the members to revisit on the candidate members. There was a general view final day. that there should not be a time limit with respect to identifying or appointing new Financial members when vacancies exist. The entire membership is dissolved following the IUCN A new ToR section regarding financial matters quadrennial cycle but there may be a need(s) for of the Group was discussed. While the co- additional members outside of this 4-year cycle. chairs are responsible for the financial

xvii

operations, it is important that all members that there will be a new domain name know where funds come from and how they are (www.iucn-pbsg.org) and that it has been spent. A financial subcommittee should be redesigned and rewritten in new script. He created that oversees financial matters. While described it as being more dynamic and using a the members agreed that they wanted to know modern platform but not yet ready for launch. about funds received/dispensed, there was There were questions as to who was some disagreement as to how the funds should going to manage and maintain it in order for the be managed. Regardless of the host institution, site to remain active. It was noted that a website the funds must be managed through an subcommittee had been formed during the auditable account. The Group agreed that the special meeting in 2014 with the objective to financial subcommittee should review and modernize the site, and subcommittee provide recommendations on best option with members could help with keeping it active. respect to institutional options. Additional comments included that member The Group discussed whether or not blogs, especially when new papers come out, incoming funds from any source would need to can make a significant contribution to activity be reviewed by the members in advance of on the site. It was suggested that some sort of acceptance. It was noted that we collectively do rolling new science banner would be beneficial a lot of things on trust and collegial governance. on the home page. It was felt that for most incoming sources there are unlikely to be issues that acceptance would Wednesday, 8 June compromise the Group’s independence. It was felt that the financial subcommittee and co- chairs should be able to determine whether or 8. Status table not incoming funds need to be approved in L. Peacock led a discussion of the PBSG status advance by the members. Before the meeting, table focused on the IUCN/SSC status table Ø. Wiig, who was unable to attend, sent an e- definitions from the Red List Criteria. There mail asking that financial details for use of all was general agreement from the members that funds be provided in a transparent format, as the IUCN/SSC definition of subpopulation is such details so far have not been available to the sufficient for the purposes of the PBSG. members. Members agreed to remove “standard” and “conservation” from the definition for Other matters Methods. N. Lunn suggested that the detailed

text accompanying the status table should The Group discussed additional suggested text include new information on how estimates are with respect to observers and invited specialists. derived. L. Peacock advocated the removal of There was general consensus that while a specifics on genetic exchange. Members number of individuals would like to attend and discussed whether IUCN/SSC definitions observe the meetings, the meetings of the should be followed to the word and the PBSG are not public meetings or conferences. consensus was that the PBSG should use some There was agreement that invited specialists are flexibility on the interpretation of definitions. still important but that the language of the ToR There was extended discussion on should no longer include observers. whether the definitions of “Static”, E. Regehr reiterated his intention of “Increasing”, and “Declining” should be revising the document and circulating to the changed. The general feeling was that the members during the meeting in order that it can definitions were reasonable because they are be revisited while members are in Anchorage. broad indices of subpopulation change that are not dependent on measures of lambda. 7. Website Additional discussion focused on whether changes should be made to the removals Chair Vongraven reviewed the Group’s website columns. Some members felt that while harvest and changes that have been made. He noted needs to be documented, 4 columns for various

xviii

harvest metrics seem excessive. It was agreed previous studies on polar bear movement rates that the 4 columns should remain. (recovery to normal movements), body weight, It was noted that the status table estimate body condition, and reproduction. A recent on abundance used by the PBGS includes all USGS-led study in the southern Beaufort Sea age classes of bears. This differs from the found that polar bear movement rates returned IUCN definition of abundance, which is the to near normal in 2–3 days and were fully inclusion of only adult individuals. normal within 5 days. There was no difference There was discussion about how to in body condition between bears caught once reconcile the status of the Northern and vs. those handled multiple times. Capture as Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulations given cubs did not affect future body size and there the movement of the eastern boundary were no effects of collars on reproduction of separating the two to 133°W. No resolution adult females. Since 1987, when was reached and this sparked a larger tiletamine/zolazepam was adopted as the consideration of how and when subpopulation standard immobilizing drugs, capture-related boundaries should be assessed. mortality rate has been 0.1%. All mortality was The Status Table Subcommittee will related to predation and drowning of distribute the draft status table and revised immobilized bears; no mortality was a direct definitions to members and seek updates to result of the drug solely by itself. subpopulation text sections. The deadline for There was agreement that the USGS comments to status table is 15 August 2016. study was valuable and important. The Group discussed the potentially mortal effects of 9. CITES capture on bears that are severely compromised by age or disease. There was consideration of Chair Vongraven provided an update on recent individual animal welfare concerns vs. developments regarding polar bears under the population-level impacts. The Group Convention on International Trade in discussed the frequency of collaring injuries and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora the need for better collaring materials and sizing (CITES). In May 2014, CITES conducted a standards. E. Regehr suggested that researchers Significant Trade Review and reached the examine trap effects where possible, to conclusion that current international trade was explicitly model survival in the first interval considered to be sustainable. The Chair after capture. informed the Group that no new proposal would come from the United States to uplist 11. Elections polar bears to Appendix I at the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17). A. Jessen The Group sought nominations for the two informed the Group that the European Union new co-chair positions and Red List is considering a motion that would ban coordinator for the next quadrennial cycle. The international trade in all Appendix I and II Group discussed the implications of the draft species, including polar bears. The chair revisions to the ToR and concluded that D. suggested the Group seek input from the IUCN Vongraven was eligible for nomination because on the matter. A. Jessen will obtain and he has not served two full terms as chair. There circulate the draft resolution from the was general discussion of how best to engage European Union (EU). The PBSG will absent members in the nomination and election consider submitting a letter to CITES pending process. review of the draft resolution. The Group decided that the deadline for nominations of Chair/Co-Chair, Red List 10. Effects of handling polar bears Coordinator and new members will be Thursday, 9 June, at the end of the open K. Rode provided a presentation on evaluating session. Voting will be open. The two the short and long-term responses of polar candidates with the most votes will be elected bears to capture and collaring. She reviewed as co-chairs.

xix

F. Ugarte nominated E. Regehr for the Viscount Melville Sound area, where there were position of IUCN Red List Coordinator. E. very few polar bears and seals over multiyear ice Regehr accepted the nomination. J. Aars in 1991. The area today has less multiyear ice nominated K. Laidre for co-chair. K. Laidre and more seasonal ice, but there are still very considered the offer and respectfully declined few seals and polar bears. I. Stirling added that because of workload in upcoming 4 years; the area’s low density of seals and polar bears, however, she noted she was willing to consider despite having more seasonal ice and less the position in the future. A decision was made multiyear ice could be due to the water being to defer taking further nominations for co-chair transported from the Polar Basin, where the until Thursday (9 June) so that an email could productivity is low. E. Richardson commented be sent to absent members to seek additional that Viscount Melville Sound is still a desert nominations. compared with other areas in Arctic Canada. A. A number of potential new members Derocher wrapped up the discussion about were identified. The Group discussed the Viscount Melville Sound by mentioning that possibility of expanding the size of the results from the Beaufort Sea show that old membership but decided, by majority vote, to ringed seals are an important part of the polar maintain the current limit of 35. The chair bear diet. Therefore, if new habitat opens up, suggested that the new co-chairs approach many years are probably needed to build up current members (especially those that are not enough prey for polar bears. active contributors) to affirm they want to K. Rode asked about the potential for continue their membership. G. York bias in the diet study related to prey size and volunteered to contact absent members and ability to detect kills. A. Derocher answered invite them to vote on and add new suggestions that there may be a bias, as a dead bearded seal for members. with multiple bear tracks around it is easier to spot than a ringed seal pup. Open sessions Greenland

Thursday, 9 June K. Laidre presented a summary of research in Greenland carried out by the Greenland The session started with a welcome and Institute of Natural Resources, in collaboration introduction to invited experts and observers. with colleagues from Canada, USA, and The first session consisted of oral Norway. Her presentation focused on the presentations, the contents of which are given nearly finished assessments of Kane Basin and in the National Progress Reports chapter. Here Baffin Bay, however detailed results were not follows a brief summary of the discussion presented for these subpopulations because following the presentations. they had not been publicly released at the time of the meeting. She also detailed new studies 12. National reports on research initiated in southeast Greenland including two seasons of captures in 2015–2016 and a local Canada knowledge interview survey. Her presentation ended with summaries of pollution studies A. Derocher presented summaries of research carried out by the University of Aarhus. in Canada by various institutions in the period J. Wilder asked about the reason for 2009-2016. The presentation consisted of brief lower densities of polar bears close to summaries of published papers. settlements in east Greenland. K. Laidre After the presentation, S. Amstrup asked if answered that this could be explained by bears there were observations from long term studies trying to avoid areas where human activities like indicating that thinner ice is better polar bear hunting are intensive. A. Derocher asked if the habitat for hunting seals than multiyear ice. A. telemetry and genetic data were used to define Derocher answered with an example from the the border between the subpopulations in

xx

Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. K. Laidre times several meters away from the ice edge. E. answered that the assessment is using the Richardson was interested in geo-locator tags current boundary, which is based on genetics and asked whether these have given and telemetry, and that there was no information about early emergence from anticipation of changing the boundary. S. maternal dens. J. Aars answered that the data Amstrup referred to the various studies showed bears leaving dens, but it was hard to showing a high contaminant load for polar know if those were maternity or temporary bears in east Greenland and asked if this is dens. The geo-locator tags should provide up reflected in the condition of the bears handled to 4 years of data, which may help to determine in east Greenland in 2015 and 2016. K. Laidre the frequency of use of temporary dens. answered that the bears she handled were S. Amstrup asked for clarification generally in good condition and F. Ugarte regarding presence of polar bears in Karlsøya added that the contaminant studies are from during years with little sea ice. J. Aars explained northeast Greenland, while the tagging effort that on the island of Hopen, there are polar the past two years was in southeast Greenland. bears only when there is sea ice, while in A question was posed as to whether the Karlsøya there are always polar bears. E. studies will provide information on the Regehr wanted to know the distance swam by a distribution of the East Greenland female polar bear with two cubs, which was a subpopulation. K. Laidre answered that work repeat of the same route used by the female in is ongoing, but there seems to be some years with and without cubs. J. Aars clarified segregation between polar bears offshore in the that the female and her cubs swam about 20 pack-ice in northeast Greenland and those in km, at a third of the speed used by the female the fjords of southeast Greenland. A. Derocher when she was alone. asked if there were plans for genetic G. Durner wanted to know about the comparisons between polar bears in the density of bears observed during the aerial northeast and southeast, and K. Laidre survey over the continental shelf and beyond. answered that the material for the analysis has J. Aars explained that, contrary to what is been compiled and the analyses will be done usually assumed, not all deep-sea areas are soon. characterized by low productivity; he has A. Derocher wanted to know about prey observed productive areas with abundant items observed in southeast Greenland. K. marine mammals over deep water. S. Amstrup Laidre explained that ringed seals, which were asked a final question regarding the visibility present at high densities in the fjords, were the during the aerial survey, compared with the most common prey. Prey items included also previous survey from 2004. J. Aars answered bearded seals. E. Regehr asked about sea ice that there were numerous days with fog and bad models to look at living conditions in the fjords. weather in both surveys, but he was not able to A. Derocher and J. Aars expressed that it is compare the two surveys yet. difficult to obtain sea ice data with good resolution from fjords. Russia

Norway S. Belikov explained that there are three different research groups in Russia. J. Aars summarized the research carried out in Unfortunately, the other Russian members the Svalbard region by the Norwegian Polar were unable to attend, and the presentation Institute and their collaborators, mainly from only included the results of his research group. Canada. The others will hopefully be included later in A. Derocher wondered if killed prey were the proceedings. seen during the aerial survey over the sea ice After the presentation, S. Amstrup north of the Barents Sea. J. Aars explained that mentioned that it was interesting to hear about kills of harp seals were common, as were observations of grey whale carcasses available sightings of harp seals basking on the sea ice, at for polar bears in Chukotka and asked if there

xxi

has been an increase in whale strandings. S. dynamics. E. Regehr noted that there are Belikov did not have data on an increase of sufficient data from some subpopulations to cetacean strandings, but local knowledge adapt this model for application. S. Amstrup indicates that killer whale predation has stated that, for populations with sufficient data, increased and there are more stranded grey the model can help determine key indices to whales. A question was posed about the extent measure in areas where polar bears are very of interactions between brown bears and polar difficult to study. bears. S. Belikov answered that he has not On the topic of denning behaviour by personally observed interactions and believes Chukchi Sea bears on Wrangel Island, S. that locals likely have more information. He Belikov asked whether some denned on the has heard that when interactions occur, brown Chukotkan and Alaskan coasts. K. Rode bears usually displace polar bears. He noted responded that 57–62% denned on Wrangel, that there seems to be an increase of brown 15% denned on the Chukotkan coast, 15% bears along the northern coast, and more denned on the pack ice, and very few on the interactions should be expected. Alaska coast in recent years. K. Rode noted M. Ekker asked if there were Russian that the data presented were collected from plans for aerial surveys in the Russian region of 1986–1995 and 2008–2015 and should account the Barents Sea, as Norway did not get for some annual variation in denning locations. permission to survey Russian waters in 2015. S. Belikov said that there is no opportunity to 13. Discussion of the boundary carry out projects with high financial costs. The change in the Beaufort Sea Norwegian-Russian cooperative group will meet in the fall of 2016 and hopefully provide M. Branigan (invited specialist, Northwest information about a future Russian survey in Territories Department of Environment and the Barents Sea. Natural Resources) gave a presentation titled “Canadian Beaufort Sea Boundary Change United States Process” to explain the background and data used to support the change of the eastern E. Regehr presented a summary of United boundary separating the Northern and States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulations. The studies. T. Atwood, G. Durner, and K. Rode process of considering a boundary shift presented summaries of United States included community meetings to discuss Geological Survey (USGS) research. recommendations and a discussion at the Polar With reference to the demographic Bear Technical Committee (PBTC) meeting in model presented by E. Regehr, L. Peacock 2008, where 3 boundary options were identified asked what types of density-independent effects based on available science. The 3 options were may affect populations. E. Regehr answered presented to communities and they chose the that a density-independent effect could be option that was furthest to the west (133°W), simply that there isn’t enough time on the ice which corresponds to the 50/50% probability regardless of density. S. Amstrup mentioned contour identified in the Amstrup et al. (2004) that density-dependent and density- publication. independent effects are not necessarily In 2009, an analysis was initiated that completely separate. resulted in the Griswold et al. (2010) report used A. Derocher asked if the demographic to adjust the 2004-2006 abundance estimate of model can be used in areas other than the the Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation from Beaufort- specifically in areas where there is less 1,526 to 1,215 individuals. In 2014, the PBTC data available. E. Regehr responded that one of accepted the adjusted subpopulation estimate the primary advantages of the model is that the by including it in the status table. M. Branigan assumptions are explicit. Including density stated that the next step is for the PBSG to dependence in the models provided an reflect the boundary change in the map opportunity to better understand population associated with the PBSG status table. If new

xxii

analyses indicate the need for more discussion PBSG boundary is, but it is the boundary used about the boundary, it can be brought forward. in the US-Russia treaty. A. Derocher stated that data suggested M. Branigan stated that if a new the boundary should be further east. There was boundary is being considered on the western an apparent demarcation of the population near side, then a new analysis should be conducted. a polynya. M. Branigan replied that they used The eastern boundary change was based on the the best science available at the time and it took best available science at the time, but a new some time to get to a decision from the analysis should be conducted for any new communities. Now there appears to be some boundary change being considered. change in where it is thought the boundary S. Amstrup noted that there was should be, but a large amount of effort went discussion previously about the western into getting to this decision. There is a lot of boundary. A. Derocher remarked that there ambiguity in the boundary between the was a situation in which a boundary shift was Southern and Northern Beaufort Sea suggested in the absence of data to support it subpopulations. E. Richardson mentioned that but that request was denied. M. Branigan some information on bear movements may not showed a resolution by the PBSG in 2014 that have been weighted heavy enough in the stated Canadian officials had taken unilateral options that were presented to communities. action to adjust the boundary. M. Branigan E. Regehr stated that we do not have a indicated that resolution failed to acknowledge consistent method for dealing with issues like that boundary adjustment was made using the adjusting boundaries. For example, what best available science at the time and by information do we bring to bear on boundary working with affected communities. decisions? How do we deal with seasonality of K. Rode presented maps of bear movements? And how do we deal with locations in the Chukchi and Southern Beaufort consideration of how these boundaries get used Sea subpopulations relative to the northern relative to management versus science. These PBSG boundaries of the populations. S. are important issues to consider. S. Amstrup Amstrup noted that boundaries on maps are noted that it may be the case that decisions not relevant under all circumstances but in about boundaries determined primarily from places where we have analyses that provide community involvement may not agree with probabilities, it allows harvest to be allocated boundaries that are based on other information. after the fact. A. Derocher mentioned that It’s likely that none of the subpopulations other forms of data can be used to inform the currently fit the IUCN definition, and our delineation of boundaries. For example, thinking has to evolve in a climate change genetic and isotopic data that can help inform world. probabilities derived from spatial data. He P. Molnár (invited specialist, University noted that there are a lot of issues and we do of Toronto) asked if a 50% probability contour not have a clear solution. In some instances, we should be the place to draw a boundary do see geographic barriers that influence between subpopulations? Is it possible that distribution. The boundary lines for there may not be any boundary when it comes subpopulations are not arbitrary, but rather are to management? Rather than assigning very much based on fidelity of bears to certain subpopulations based on where they move, areas. base them how much they contribute to the population dynamics of a given subpopulation. Co-Chair nominations He also noted that which subpopulation is harvested from is affected by seasonality. A. Per the decision made on Wednesday, 8 June, a Derocher asked if, for consistency, the western final call was made to members to nominate boundary of the Southern Beaufort Sea candidates for the co-chair positions. The subpopulation should be changed to the nominees were N. Lunn, D. Vongraven, and G. 50/50% probability contour – which is at York. Barrow? He noted that this is not where the

xxiii

Friday, 10 June if analyses were conducted from an ecoregion perspective. H. Stern replied no, all analyses were focused on the subpopulation units. A. 14. Sea ice session Derocher asked about challenges resolving low concentration ice during the melt and freeze-up Recent patterns of sea ice conditions periods. H. Stern discussed some of the issues

associated with discriminating water from ice Harry Stern (invited specialist from the Polar using satellite imagery. Science Center, University of Washington) led off the session with a presentation on the history of sea ice observations and recent Assumptions and uncertainties associated patterns of ice conditions. He noted that the with sea ice projections historical record of ice observations dates back Dave Douglas (invited specialist, USGS) gave a to the earliest explorers, with the modern presentation focused on projections of future record beginning with the advent of satellite- ice extent and assumptions and uncertainties collected imagery in 1979. After 2001, ice associated with those projections. He began to change significantly in the Beaufort – described work to model predictions to assess Chukchi area in summer, which has led to an how polar bears will be distributed at the end of increase in ship transits. He also discussed a the 21st century, including which areas bears are recent analysis of ice dynamics for the 19 PBSG likely to seek terrestrial refugia. Future subpopulations, which used National Snow and distribution will be influenced by emissions of Ice Data Center data, 1979–2014. The analysis greenhouse gases (GHG), prey availability, largely focuses on changes in the dates of sea food web integrity, the ability of bears to ice retreat and advance. He noted that the migrate seasonally, and the distribution of Barents Sea has experienced the largest change terrestrial food. He presented projections (earlier melt and later freeze-up). based on the main Representative K. Rode asked a question about ice Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios, which distribution in winter in Barents Sea. J. Aars reflect a wide degree of possible futures and responded that warm currents routinely affect many possible outcomes. He reviewed the use ice in the Barents Sea, which is now several of ice projections to model future polar bear degrees warmer, which in turn, explains why population status in Amstrup et al. (2008, 2010) fjords in west Svalbard are now open even in and in Atwood et al. (2015, 2016). These winter. V. Sahanatien (invited specialist, modelling efforts highlight the importance of Nunavut Department of Environment) asked if mitigating GHG emissions for conserving sea the analysis also examined potential effects on ice habitat. He noted that several issues with polar bear subpopulations. H. Stern and K. sea ice models, including sometimes extensive Laidre both replied no, the analysis examined variation between individual models and poor ice trends. E. Richardson asked if a break-point spatial resolution of models for some areas of analysis was conducted on the trend data and the Arctic. whether variance in the metrics was examined. K. Laidre suggested that an important H. Stern replied that they did not conduct a extent of the approach would be to examine the break-point analysis, although others have done responses of different “ecotypes” of bears (e.g., so. In some areas, the trend is linear, while those living in fjords). D. Douglas agreed. N. others show a pronounced shift. Lunn asked if Hudson Bay retains habitat E. Regehr mentioned the importance of through the end of the century under the most developing biologically relevant standard optimistic emissions scenario. D. Douglas metrics, specifically those that include linkages responded that ice is projected to be absent for to life history. Population projections need to at least 4 months. A. Derocher asked about evaluate effects of management actions and can whether the approach was able to capture bring biologically relevant sea ice metrics into sufficient variation and, in particular, the analyses to test hypotheses. S. Klenzendorf potential for several sequential bad years. D. (invited specialist, World Wildlife Fund) asked

xxiv

Douglas replied that variation is captured by replied that while Canada does allow the export using a suite of models, and back-to-back bad of hides from Kane Basin, Inuit from Nunavut years were not explicitly modelled. have not harvested any bears from this subpopulation in the last several years. S. Climate change uncertainty and Klenzendorf asked if there is any land use commitment planning going on in areas of the high Arctic that are likely to function as long-term ice Kyle Armour (invited specialist, University of refugia. N. Lunn responded that there is some Washington) gave a presentation that land use planning in Nunavut, a proposal in highlighted uncertainties associated with future Lancaster Sound for a Marine Protected Area, conditions. Specifically, he discussed the and several other initiatives. sources of uncertainty, when critical ice habitat thresholds may be crossed, and when we may Greenland be committed to crossing those thresholds. He presented projections for western Hudson Bay A. Jessen presented the Greenland using different warming scenarios and the role Management Report. Greenland has decided of aerosols in influencing those projections. He on a Country total allowable harvest (TAH) of also discussed when we are likely to be 140 bears across the subpopulations. A key committed to crossing a threshold of >180 ice- challenge is that Greenland is a vast area to free days. manage and resources are limited. With regards Questions addressed various issues to human-bear conflict, the pertaining to the role of aerosol forcing and Ittoqqortoormiit/Scoresby Sound area is the uncertainty in general for the future. most problematic. S. Belikov asked if defence of life and property kills are included in the 15. National reports on management quota. A. Jessen responded that they are not included in the quotas. Conflict situations are Canada relatively new and if they appear to increase over time then they may be included in the N. Lunn presented the Canadian Management quota. Currently, bears that are killed due to Report. He noted that the PBSG is now conflict are confiscated and the remains are considered a permanent member of the PBTC. burned or given to science. P. Molnár asked S. Belikov asked if it was correct that the polar how often compliance officers discover issues bear hunters in Baffin Bay are from both and how non-compliance issues are handled. Greenland and Canada, but the export of the A. Jessen responded that fortunately problems harvested bears does not take place because of are rare. When they occur all materials are voluntary restrictions. N. Lunn replied that yes, confiscated and meat is given to a different it was a voluntary non-detriment (NDF) finding community. Furthermore, serious infractions by Canada out of concern for the sustainability are referred to law enforcement. J. Wilder of the harvest. E. Regehr asked for clarity on thanked Greenland for the progress on conflict the distribution of harvest numbers for the work, particularly the testing of rubber bullets Western Hudson Bay subpopulation. N. Lunn and bear spray. Quantitative evidence on responded that 4 go to Manitoba and 24 go to deterrents will be a significant conservation Nunavut. The allotment of 4 bears to Manitoba benefit range-wide and he hoped the results is for defence only; there is no harvest in spur other countries to broaden their current Manitoba. A. Derocher asked if there was a regulation of potential deterrents. L. Peacock switch from the 2:1 male:female sex ratio of asked what happens to cubs when sows are harvest in Nunavut. N. Lunn replied that illegally taken or taken in defence. A. Jessen Markus Dyck would be the best person to stated that it is exceptionally rare. Cubs under contact regarding that question. F. Ugarte 2 years old are killed by law enforcement and asked if Canada allowed the export of bears older cubs are released. from the Kane Basin subpopulation. N. Lunn

xxv

Norway involved in conflict with humans. J. Wilder noted that since 2008 there has been a marked M. Ekker presented the Norwegian increase in tourist landings and asked what is Management Report. A new white paper has driving that increase. M. Ekker responded that been released on the development of Svalbard it is clearly not price. J. Aars responded that it that maintains ambitious environmental goals is probably due to more areas with no ice and for the region. Information was provided on increased landing opportunities for ships. resource extraction activities, particularly that oil leases are offered every two years and Russia Norway is in the process of updating sea ice maps and having discussions to restrict leases in S. Belikov presented the Russian Management areas of seasonal ice. Discussions are ongoing, Report. Russia plans to split the Kara and but some leases have been offered in areas with Barents Sea subpopulations when the Russian historical winter ice. S. Amstrup mentioned Red Book is updated. The harvest moratorium that regarding resource extraction/exploration is still in effect for all of Russia, including activity, there was quite a lot of talk in Moscow Chukotka. There are two areas where liquefied during the Range States of significant new natural gas (LNG) is being produced and studies funded by the oil and gas industry in shipped across the Northern Sea Route to the Russia, and asked if there is a status update on east and west (through the southeast Barents those studies. M. Ekker responded that studies Sea and the southwest Kara Sea). S. Amstrup continue and Norway has a very strict asked for clarification on whether it is LNG or protection and monitoring system. Currently, natural gas concentrate that is being produced exploration activities have declined due to the and shipped. S. Belikov replied that it is LNG. low price of oil. Information on tourism activities were discussed, including the fact that United States the number of cruise passengers has doubled from approximately 15,000 passengers in 1997 E. Regehr presented the USFWS Management to 30,000 in 2015. Additionally, winter tourism Report. The next meeting in support of the (including snowmobiling) has doubled over U.S.-Russia Bilateral Agreement will be in recent years. Human removal of polar bears Anchorage, Alaska, in 2016. The USFWS from Svalbard has shifted dramatically from recently published a polar bear deterrence historic highs of 800–900 bears annually to few manual. J. Wilder asked if the manual was in removals in recent years. When defence kills do the public domain. E. Regehr responded that it occur, the skins are confiscated by the is publicly available. The USFWS and the Governor for use by government agencies. A. North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Derocher asked if the strong increase in Management co-fund polar bear patrols in tourism traffic and landings has resulted in a coastal communities. A. Jessen asked what trend towards increasing human-bear happens to bears that are killed due to self- interactions. M. Ekker responded that was not defence concerns. E. Regehr responded that his impression. He noted that in the white the animal is recovered by the USFWS and paper mentioned earlier, there is a discussion of hides are typically used for education purposes. the potential for human-bear conflict to A. Jessen asked if there are no legal limits on increase as tourism increases. J. Aars polar bear take in the U.S. E. Regehr responded mentioned that despite the increase in tourism, that there is no stated harvest limit as long as there has been a decrease in the number of take is not wasteful. The Inuvialuit-Inupiat conflict kills. This is for two reasons: people Joint Polar Bear Commission has a voluntary are behaving better and the Governor of agreement on take but there is no legal Svalbard does not kill bears anymore. They put mechanism to enforce that agreement. A quota every effort into moving the bear, even if it for the Chukchi Sea is imminent. S. breaks into cabins. This makes a big difference. Klenzendorf asked if there will be a new aerial Prior to 2000, they frequently killed bears survey for the Southern Beaufort Sea

xxvi

subpopulation and whether there is a Saturday, 11 June commitment by co-managers to abide by the new results of that effort. E. Regehr responded that a survey is being planned but he cannot 17. The Red List process

speak to a commitment by the Inuvialuit- E. Regehr gave a presentation on the most Inupiat Joint Polar Bear Commission. A. recent IUCN Red list Assessment. The last Derocher asked if there is a process to resolve IUCN Red List Assessment for polar bears was which boundary to use under the U.S.-Russia done in 2008, and there is a long history of polar agreement to delineate the Chukchi Sea and bears being listed as “vulnerable” under the Red Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulations. E. List. A main goal of the recent assessment was Regehr responded that there are ongoing to perform a data-based sensitivity analysis discussions regarding the boundary issue, and it evaluating the response of the global may be possible to have a smaller management population to sea ice loss. The analysis had area under the agreement. S. Amstrup asked if three parts: i) estimate generation length from the harvest limits in the Southern Beaufort Sea field data; ii) derive a habitat metric by will remain voluntary and the quota in the summarizing remotely sensed sea ice data; and Chukchi Sea will be legally binding. E. Regehr iii) use models and simulations to project polar responded that yes, the Chukchi Sea quota will bear abundance by subpopulation over three be legally binding and the Southern Beaufort generations. A standardized sea ice metric was Sea limit will not. developed for use across all subpopulations (Stern and Laidre 2016). 16. Putting the “eco” in eco- The assessment projected polar bear toxicology response to sea ice changes starting in 2015 and extending out to three generation lengths. Thea Bechshøft (invited specialist, University Three approaches were used to project of Alberta) gave a presentation on the outcomes, including one-to-one proportional importance of emphasizing ecological relationship between ice and polar bear processes and relationships when conducting abundance for each subpopulation suggesting eco-toxicology research. The presentation that declines in ice are linked to declines in represents a summary of a paper that was carrying capacity. This approach has a basis in submitted to a journal and should be out later IUCN as it has been done for other species. this year. P. Molnár noted that per the The second approach was based on a global presentation, 66% of studies published use relationship between ice and population size samples from harvested bears and only 22% of using two estimates of abundance per studies use samples from bears caught for subpopulation. The third approach was based research. He asked if anyone has reported on an ecoregion-specific relationship between differences between those two groups. T. ice and population size estimated from linear Bechshøft responded that is a topic of frequent models using longer time series for well-studied discussion but, as yet, no one has assessed if subpopulations. The output of all 3 models was differences exist. She noted that harvest has a percent change in mean global population size male bias and dealing with potential differences which is what is needed to inform the between sexes and sample collection methods categorization in the Red List assessment. The (i.e., harvest versus capture) remains a assessment used more liberal estimates of challenge. subpopulation size than in the PBSG status table for the purpose of informing this analysis. All subpopulations exhibited declines in sea ice metrics. The first approach resulted in 30% decline in mean global population size; the second approach resulted in a 4% decline and the third approach resulted in a 43% decline. In approach 3, it appears that the well-studied

xxvii

subpopulations are driving the results. Those that sea ice loss might be linear and that there well-studied subpopulations are in decline, so would be thresholds for polar bear responses; they have a significant impact on the results for this is a pattern seen across many species. their respective ecoregion. Across scenarios, median probability of a mean global population 18. Human-polar bear conflict size greater than 30% of 2015 abundance was 0.71. Update from the Range States Conflict The assessment highlights variability in Working Group the current status of polar bear subpopulations. Over near and mid-term, there is likely to be G. York and V. Sahanatien gave a presentation variability in the impacts of sea ice loss on polar on work conducted by the Range States Human bears. Over long-term, bears in all Conflict Working Group. The Working Group subpopulations will be negatively affected by was established in 2009 at Range States meeting sea ice loss. There was broad consistency in the in Tromsø, Norway. In 2015, a two-year outcome of these estimates and those of similar implementation plan of the Conflict Working efforts (Amstrup et al. 2007, 2008, 2010; Group was endorsed. The group is currently Atwood et al. 2015). As a result of this analysis, working to finalize a data sharing agreement polar bears were listed as “vulnerable” under between countries, terms of reference for the the IUCN Red List. functioning of the Working Group, and a S. Amstrup stated that we owe E. Regehr requirements document describing the needs a debt of gratitude for carrying the weight on for the Polar Bear-Human Interaction this analysis, and noted that projections for sea Management System (PBHIMS) database. ice loss and polar bear responses have higher Challenges the Working Group face are a lack variability in more recent time periods and of a data sharing agreement, unfilled vacancies greater certainty the further they are projected of delegates appointed to the group, and lack of out. E. Richardson mentioned that for some financial resources. populations like Western Hudson Bay, which is The PBHIMS database is being used to declining in relation to sea ice loss, really bad ice document conflict, unusual occurrences, and years seem to be the primary driver of decline. natural mortalities. The respective countries E. Regehr noted that the response of have been working to enter relevant data into populations to variability is not balanced, and the database, with the intention that the bears may need several good years to recover information be shared across jurisdictions to from one bad year. That said, we tend to think address questions of how, when, and where of polar bears as a long-lived K-selected species human-polar bear conflict is occurring so that that are slow to recover, but from demographic actions can be taken to mitigate future conflict. modelling there are some surprisingly high For example, all the data from Nunavut should population growth rates. Brown bears and be entered into PBIHMS by September of black bears can survive relatively high harvest 2016. There appears to be increasing incidents rates. This relates back to the potential that we of human-polar bear conflict in several areas may be underestimating the resilience of polar and there is a need to understand the drivers of bear subpopulations. increasing conflict. A. Derocher complimented the work and asked if there is not non-linearity incorporated Efficacy of bear deterrent spray on polar in this analysis. E. Regehr responded that the bears analysis did incorporate the potential for non- linear responses. P. Molnár asked what kind of J. Wilder gave a presentation on the efficacy of delay in population response there might be in bear deterrent spray on polar bears. He related the approach used. E. Regehr stated that he felt a story of two people using bear spray to deter any delay is unlikely to result in a meaningful an adult female polar bear and her yearling at difference in model outcomes. S. Amstrup Pond Inlet, Nunavut. Although the evidence is noted that in the Bayesian models, he assumed limited, it provides further evidence that bear

xxviii

spray does appear to be effective on polar brown, or polar bears, but the potential for bears― bears were deterred in 14 of the 15 cases attacks on children should remain a concern. where bear spray has been used. The one unsuccessful case appeared to be a result of the Potential impacts of human recreation wind carrying the spray away from rather than towards the bear. There was a discussion about J. Fortin (invited specialist, University of the importance of being mindful of the Montana) presented the details of a new expiration date of bear spray. The expiration research survey intended to examine the date is typically 3 years, because the propellant potential for conflict between human use to spray the deterrent loses its strength over recreational activities and polar bears time. S. Belikov commented that on Wrangel throughout their range. The PBSG members Island, females with cubs most commonly came were invited to provide comments on the close to their base camp, and they used a variety survey questions and to suggest potential survey of deterrents on those bears including turning participants. on a motor from a four-wheeler. He recommended carrying multiple deterrents. 19. Updates from zoos and other There was discussion of the need for research facilities to better understand the effectiveness of repeated use of deterrents on the same bear. R. Meyerson (invited specialist, Association of For example, do chemical deterrents lose their Zoos and Aquaria (AZA), Bear Taxon Advisory effectiveness over time on bears that have Group, Polar Bear Lead) spoke to the Group experienced multiple exposures? This is a about the AZA and their Species Survival concern because in Churchill, Manitoba there Program (SSP) for polar bears. She provided are a number of bears that get captured every an overview of the number of polar bears on year for coming into conflict with people. exhibit in the United States and the opportunity for zoos to contribute to polar bear Bear attacks in North America conservation, education, and research. She discussed several recent research collaborations T. Smith (invited specialist, Brigham Young and the role of the SSP in facilitating ex-situ University) gave a presentation on the research and in-situ applications. frequency of human-bear conflicts in North M. Owen (invited specialist, Associate America. There were 682 bear conflicts Director, Institute for Conservation documented from 1880-2015 (4.8 conflicts per Research, San Diego Zoo) described some year). These conflicts involved about 1500 recent captivity-based research in support of people; 350 of the conflicts were non-contact polar bear conservation and management. incidents and 332 were attacks. Eighty-seven Research projects included the development of percent of attacks were by grizzly bears, 10.5% collar-based sensors to detect polar bear black bears, and 1.2% polar bears. Over time, activities, seasonal dynamics of stress there has been an increase in bear attacks that is hormones, examination of sensory ability, correlated with human population growth. The metabolic studies, and estimation of isotopic majority of bear attacks on people involve discrimination factors between tissues and diet. injuries to the head and neck. Most incidents N. Pilfold (invited specialist, Institute for occur with groups of 2 or less individuals. Conservation Research, San Diego Zoo) There is a lot of conflicting information on how described a recent analysis of mass loss rates in to respond to bear encounters and we need to polar bears held in a temporary holding facility develop a clear message based on what the data near Churchill, Manitoba. The study used data indicate. There was discussion as to whether from 142 management-related capture events the response to a bear should differ for children carried out by Manitoba Conservation staff. versus adults. T. Smith indicated that there Results showed that polar bears >2 years lose have been no attacks on children by black, ca. 1 kg per day. Rates of mass loss for adult males held in temporary captivity were identical

xxix

to those for free-ranging bears. Data were used The following resolutions were discussed to make inferences about the ecological and adopted by consensus: relevance of terrestrial feeding, estimate the Resolution 1 − Convene a workshop to develop metabolic rates for fasting bears, and model the scientific criteria for the assessment and potential ability of bears to survive prolonged identification of subpopulation boundaries. fasting periods. Resolution 2 – The PBSG will adopt interim use At 15:03, the Chair announced the of the revised boundary for the purposes of the conclusion of the open part of the meeting and status table. The PBSG will also request the thanked the Invited Specialists for their Government of the Northwest Territories contributions. make available the most recent telemetry data for use in developing a revised PBSG Closed session subpopulation boundary.

20. Revisiting ToR and resolutions 21. Elections

The closed session resumed at 15:22, with a The Group conducted a closed vote (paper discussion led by E. Regehr about the revised ballot) to elect D. Vongraven and N. Lunn as ToR and how best to integrate them with the co-chairs and E. Regehr as the Red List version developed at the 2014 meeting. A Coordinator. group of volunteers agreed to lead the process. N. Lunn pointed out that according to 22. Closing remarks and the current ToR media are not allowed to adjournment attend meetings of the PBSG. Given that a reporter was present for the open part of this The Chair suggested that the Group aim to working meeting, there was discussion as to have products of the meeting available on the whether this stipulation should be revised. The PBSG website by mid-October. Group agreed to revise the ToR to potentially The Chair thanked all the participants for allow media at the discretion of the (co-)chair(s) a thoughtful and productive meeting. Members in consultation with the membership. The thanked the National Park Service, Alaska Group also recognized that both (co-)chair(s) Headquarters for hosting the meeting. The 18th will have equal ability to represent the Group in Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear the media and elsewhere. Specialist Group, 7–11 June 2016, was adjourned at 17:24.

xxx

2016 Status Report on the World’s Polar Bear Subpopulations Status and distribution reduced or reduced relative to historic levels of abundance, or if there are insufficient data to Polar bears are neither evenly distributed estimate status (data deficient). Current trend throughout the Arctic, nor do they comprise a is an assessment of whether the subpopulation single nomadic population, but rather occur in is currently increasing, stable, or declining, or if 19 relatively discrete subpopulations (Figure 1). there are insufficient data to estimate trend There is uncertainty about the discreteness of (data deficient). the less studied subpopulations, particularly in the Russian Arctic and neighbouring areas, due Sea ice metrics to a lack of capture and genetic data. The total number of polar bears worldwide is estimated Because sea ice conditions are likely the most to be 26,000 (95% CI=22,000–31,000; Regehr influential determinant of the future status of et al. 2016). The following subpopulation the world’s polar bears (Atwood et al. 2016), we summaries are the result of discussions of the present the retrospective results of sea ice 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar trends for all 19 subpopulations (Stern and Bear Specialist Group held in Anchorage, Laidre 2016). Stern and Laidre (2016) showed Alaska, 7–11 June, 2016. The information on a trend for earlier melt onset in spring and later each subpopulation is based on the status freeze onset in fall, and overall decreasing reports given by each nation. We present extent of summer sea ice area, from passive estimated subpopulation sizes and associated microwave satellite imagery during the years uncertainty in those estimates, subpopulation 1979–2014. We provide these categories of trends, changes in sea ice habitat, recent trends in sea ice melt and freeze onset, and human-caused mortality, and rationale for our declines in the spatial extent of summer sea ice, determinations of status. as an index of trends in habitat loss due to climate change. Status table structure Human-caused mortality Subpopulation size For most subpopulations, particularly those in Table 1 presents subpopulation sizes and North America and Greenland, harvesting of uncertainty in the estimates as 95% confidence polar bears is a regulated and/or monitored intervals (CI). These estimates are based on activity. In many cases, harvesting is the major scientific research using mark-recapture cause of mortality for bears. In most analysis or aerial surveys. The year of the jurisdictions, the total numbers of bears killed estimate is presented to give an indication of the by humans in pursuit of subsistence and sport age of the data on which this estimate is based. hunting, and in defense of life or property are For some subpopulations scientific data were documented. Where data allow, we present the not available to make population estimates. five-year mean of known human-caused mortality for each subpopulation, as well as the Subpopulation trend data from the most recent year.

Qualitative categories of trend and status are presented for each polar bear subpopulation where recent data (i.e., after 2005) allowed a determination (Table 1). Status is an assessment of whether a subpopulation is not

1

Polar bear subpopulations northern boundary of the Davis Strait subpopulation. Studies of microsatellite genetic Arctic Basin (AB) variation have not revealed significant differences between polar bears in the BB and The Arctic Basin subpopulation (AB) is a neighboring Kane Basin subpopulation, geographic catchall to account for polar bears although there was significant genetic variation resident in northern areas of the circumpolar between BB polar bears and those in Davis Arctic that are not clearly part of other Strait (Paetkau et al. 1999, Peacock et al. 2015, subpopulations. Polar bears occur at very low Malenfant et al. 2016, SWG 2016). However, densities here, in part because of deep, cold, BB polar bears occurred within the same stratified, and less biologically productive water genetic cluster as bears in northern Davis Strait and, formerly at least, extensive coverage by (Peacock et al. 2015). multiyear ice. It is known that bears from An initial subpopulation estimate of 300– several subpopulations may use the area 600 bears in the BB subpopulation was based (Durner and Amstrup 1993). As climate on mark-recapture data collected in spring warming continues, it is anticipated that areas 1984–1989, in which the capture effort was where some ice may still remain over the restricted to shore-fast ice and the floe edge off continental shelf may become important for northeast Baffin Island. However, work in the polar bears as a refuge but a large part of the early 1990s showed that an unknown area is over the deepest waters of the Arctic proportion of the subpopulation was typically Ocean and biological productivity is thought to offshore during the spring and, therefore, be low. Polar bears with cubs have recently unavailable for capture. A second study (1993– been observed from icebreakers in the region of 1997) was carried out during September and this subpopulation (Ovsyanikov 2010), October, when all polar bears were thought to although it is not possible to determine whether be ashore in summer retreat areas on Bylot and or not these cubs were born in the AB, or make Baffin islands (Taylor et al. 2005). Taylor et al. an assessment of possible total numbers on the (2005) estimated the number of polar bears in basis of these anecdotal observations. the BB subpopulation at 2,074 (SE = 226). A Ovsyanikov (pers. comm.) reported that in 3-year genetic mark-recapture survey (via 2015–2016 very few polar bears were seen biopsy darting) was completed in 2014 resulting along this route (i.e., from Svalbard to in a new population estimate, survival rates, and Chukotka) in July–August. The northernmost habitat use analyses (SWG 2016). The mean documented observation was made at 89°46 estimate of total abundance of the BB 5'N, which is 25 km from the North Pole (van subpopulation in 2012–2013 was 2,826 (95% Meurs and Splettstoesser 2003). CI: 2,059–3,593) polar bears. Due to evidence that the sampling design and environmental Baffin Bay (BB) conditions resulted in an underestimate of abundance in the 1990s, these two estimates are Based on movements of adult females with not directly comparable and trend in abundance satellite radio-collars and recaptures of tagged cannot be determined. animals, the Baffin Bay subpopulation (BB) is Satellite telemetry data and habitat bounded by the North Water Polynya to the selection studies in the 2000s indicate a number north, Greenland to the east and Baffin Island, of ecological changes related to sea ice loss in Canada to the west (Taylor and Lee 1995, Baffin Bay. There has been a significant Taylor et al. 2001, Laidre et al. 2012). A distinct reduction in the range of the BB subpopulation southern boundary at Cape Dyer on Baffin in all months and seasons when compared to Island in Nunavut, Canada is evident from the the 1990s. The most marked reduction is a 60% movements of tagged bears (Stirling et al. 1980, decline in subpopulation range size in summer. Peacock et al. 2012) and from polar bears Emigration from the BB subpopulation has monitored by satellite telemetry (Taylor et al. declined since the 1990s, especially with a 2001). This boundary overlaps with the reduction of bears moving into Davis Strait and

2

Lancaster Sound. The total number of bears close to the Russian border, but access to the marked during studies in 2011–2012 in Baffin Russian portion of the BS subpopulation for an Bay was equivalent to ~34% of the estimated aerial survey was not permitted. Because of the BB subpopulation size. Despite this, instances overlapping confidence intervals, it cannot be of emigration were ≤1% of the recaptures and concluded that the BS subpopulation has recoveries of marks for the BB subpopulation. grown. Compared to the 1990s, adult female BB It is believed that excess hunting in the bears now use significantly lower sea-ice area before 1973 led to a population size far concentrations in winter and spring and spend below the carrying capacity. Consequently, it 20–30 more days on land on Baffin Island in could be that the current population size is still the summer ice-free season. Changes in lower because of an ongoing decline in, carrying maternity denning have been observed; entry capacity. Thus, it is unclear what the trajectory dates into maternity dens are >1 month later in of the subpopulation will be in near future; we the 2000s than the 1990s. Furthermore, the do expect that habitat loss will continue. There first date of arrival on land by pregnant females have not been any dramatic time trends in is significantly earlier in the 2000s. Maternity reproduction or condition parameters in BS dens in the 2000s occurred at higher elevations polar bears, although poor ice years seem to and steeper slopes than the 1990s, likely due to influence these parameters. reduced snow cover. Subpopulation boundaries based on satellite telemetry data indicate that the BS Barents Sea (BS) subpopulation is a natural subpopulation unit, albeit with some overlap to the east with the The size of the Barents Sea subpopulation (BS) Kara Sea (KS) subpopulation (Mauritzen et al. was estimated to be 2,650 (95% CI: 1,900– 2002). Overlap between the BS and the East 3,600) in August 2004, using mark-recapture Greenland (EG) subpopulations may be limited distance-sampling (MRDS) with data collected (Born et al. 1997), although to some degree from aerial surveys (Aars et al. 2009). This home ranges of bears from the EG analysis suggests that earlier estimates based on subpopulation overlap with those of bears from den counts and ship surveys (Larsen 1972) may Svalbard in Fram Strait (Born et al. 2012). have been too high. Ecological data supports Genetically, polar bears from the BS that the BS subpopulation grew steadily during subpopulation are similar to those in the EG, the first decade after all hunting ceased in 1973, KS, and Laptev Sea (LP) subpopulations and then either continued to grow or stabilized. (Paetkau et al. 1999, Peacock et al. 2015). At a A new survey in the Norwegian extent of the global level, BS polar bears belong to the BS subpopulation was conducted in August Eastern Polar Basin genetic cluster (one of four 2015. The ice edge was located beyond an ice- global genetic clusters); substantial directional free gap north of the Svalbard Archipelago. gene flow occurs from the Eastern Polar Basin The number of bears encountered in Svalbard to the Western Polar Basin (Peacock et al. 2015). indicates that there is a local stock of ~200–300 At a finer scale, there is evidence to bears (preliminary results), which did not differ support sub-structuring of polar bears of the BS much from the number detected in 2004. The subpopulation. Studies on individual results (J. Aars et al., in prep.) also indicate, in movement using satellite telemetry and mark- accordance with the results from 2004, that recapture have been conducted in the Svalbard more bears are off-shore in the pack ice in area since the early 1970s (Larsen 1972, 1985; autumn. The total estimated for Norwegian Wiig 1995, Mauritzen et al. 2001, 2002). These Arctic was just under 1000 bears, considerably data show that some bears associated with higher than the total for the Norwegian side in Svalbard are very restricted in their movements, 2004, but with a confidence interval but bears specifically from the Barents Sea overlapping with the earlier estimate. During range widely between Svalbard and Franz Josef the new survey, the distribution of bears was Land in the western Russian Arctic (i.e., a clumped along the ice edge with most bears ‘pelagic’ type; Wiig 1995, Mauritzen et al. 2001).

3

Within the BS subpopulation boundaries, years the range occupied by the CS substructure between local Svalbard bears and subpopulation has experienced longer ice- pelagic bears is likely increasing as sea ice retreat seasons and more ice-free days over the around the islands disappears for longer biologically productive waters of the durations. Fewer of the pelagic bears use continental shelf (Durner et al. 2009, Rode et al. maternity dens in the eastern part of Svalbard 2013). Sea ice loss is expected to continue (Derocher et al. 2011, Aars 2013), in (Douglas 2010). Rode et al. 2013 documented traditionally important denning areas, and it is stable or improving body condition and likely that many of these bears now den more reproduction for polar bears captured in the frequently on Franz Josef Land. Some bears of U.S. between 1986–1994 and 2008–2011, a the pelagic-type from northern Svalbard, move period during which substantial sea ice loss north to the Arctic Ocean in the summer, and occurred, suggesting the capacity for positive return to northern Svalbard in the winter, population growth. Autumn-based whereas bears from southeast Svalbard follow observations on Wrangel Island for the period retreating ice to the east. Capture-recapture 2004–2010, however, suggest relatively low cub data also show that movement between production and reduced maternity denning northwest and southeast Svalbard is rare (Ovsyanikov 2012). between springs of different years (Lone et al. Estimates of illegal take of CS polar bears 2013). in Russia are based on village interviews A new national park on Franz Josef Land conducted 2010–2012, and the current level was dedicated by the Russian Federation in appears to be significantly lower than in the 2016; this is an important summering area for 1990s (Kochnev and Zdor 2016). Combined polar bears. with legal subsistence harvest in the U.S., the overall level of human-caused removals for the Chukchi Sea (CS) CS subpopulation may exceed sustainable limits. Uncertainty in the level of human- Studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s using caused removals, current population size, and satellite radio-telemetry revealed that polar population growth rate result in a designation bears in the Chukchi Sea subpopulation (CS), of “Data deficient” for the status relative to also known as the Alaska-Chukotka historic abundance and the current trend of the subpopulation (see: Polar bear management and CS subpopulation. research in Russia, 2009–2016, in these New studies have found that polar bears proceedings) are widely distributed on the pack of the CS subpopulation have been increasingly ice of the northern Bering, Chukchi, and using land during the summer, both in Russia, eastern portions of the East Siberian seas on Wrangel Island and the Chukotkan (Garner et al. 1990, 1994, 1995). Based upon peninsula, and on the northwest Alaskan coast these telemetry studies, the western boundary of the United States (Rode et al. 2015). of the CS subpopulation was set near However, Wilson et al. (2014, 2016) have found Chaunskaya Bay in northeastern Russia. The that despite large reductions in sea ice, eastern boundary was set at Icy Cape, Alaska, particularly in summer, polar bears have not which is also the western boundary of the changed their habitat selection preferences in Southern Beaufort Sea (SB) subpopulation the Chukchi Sea. (Amstrup and DeMaster 1988, Garner et al. 1990, Amstrup et al. 1986, 2004a, 2005). Davis Strait (DS) Precise estimates of subpopulation size or status are not available. An approximate Based on the recapture or harvest of previously estimate of 2,000–5,000 animals was based on tagged animals and tracking adult female polar the number of maternity dens observed on bears with satellite collars, the Davis Strait Wrangel and Herald islands and the Chukotkan subpopulation (DS) occurs in Canada within coast, and the assumed proportion of females the Labrador Sea, eastern Hudson Strait, Davis in the subpopulation (Belikov 1993). In recent Strait south of Cape Dyer, and along a portion

4

of southwest Greenland (Stirling et al. 1980, subpopulation were likely a result of habitat Stirling and Kiliaan 1980, Taylor and Lee 1995, changes and/or polar bear density (Peacock et Taylor et al. 2001). A genetic study of polar al. 2013, Rode et al. 2012). bears (Paetkau et al. 1999) indicated significant differences between bears from southern Davis East Greenland (EG) Strait and both Baffin Bay and Foxe Basin; Crompton et al. (2008) found that individuals Satellite-telemetry data show that polar bears from northern portions of Davis Strait and range widely along the coast of eastern those from Foxe Basin share a high degree of Greenland and in the pack ice in the Greenland ancestry. Peacock et al. (2015) used samples Sea and Fram Strait (Born et al. 1997, 2009; Wiig from both northern and southern Davis Strait et al. 2003, Laidre et al. 2012, 2015). Various in an updated circumpolar genetic analysis, and studies have shown that there are resident found that the two regions are so distinct as to groups in the region (Born 1995, Dietz et al. belong to two different global genetic clusters 2000, Sandell et al. 2001), and the East (i.e., southern Davis Strait in Southern Canada Greenland subpopulation (EG) is thought to and northern Davis Strait in the Canadian have limited exchange with other Archipelago). subpopulations (Wiig 1995, Born et al. 2009). The initial estimate of 900 bears for the Although there is little evidence of genetic DS subpopulation (Stirling et al. 1980, Stirling difference between subpopulations in the and Kiliaan 1980) was based on a subjective eastern Greenland and Svalbard-Franz Josef correction from the original mark-recapture Land regions (Paetkau et al. 1999), satellite estimate of 726 bears, which was thought to be telemetry and movement of marked animals too low because of possible bias in the have detected minimal exchange between the sampling. In 1993, the estimate was again EG and the Barents Sea (BS) subpopulations subjectively increased to 1,400 bears and to (Wiig 1995, Born et al. 1997, 2009; Wiig et al. 1,650 in 2005. These increases were to account 2003, Laidre et al. 2012). Polar bears of the EG for bias as a result of springtime sampling, the subpopulation fall within the Eastern Polar fact that the existing harvest appeared to be Basin genetic cluster, one of 4 global genetic sustainable and not having negative effects on clusters of polar bears (Peacock et al. 2015). the age structure, and Traditional Ecological Laidre et al. (2015) showed that due to multi- Knowledge (TEK) that suggested that more decadal sea ice loss within the region of the EG bears were being seen over the last 20 years. In subpopulation, there have been changes in addition, harp seals, an important prey species bears’ habitat use between the 1990s and 2000s. for that population, had increased dramatically Adult females tracked in the 2000s used areas over the same period, providing a much- with significantly lower sea ice concentrations enhanced potential prey base. Polar bears were (10–15% lower) than adult females in the 1990s seen and radio-tracked in the large pupping during winter. They were also located areas off the coast of southern Labrador in significantly closer (100–150 km) to open water spring. The most recent inventory of the DS in all seasons and spent approximately 2 subpopulation was completed in 2007. With a months longer in areas with <60% sea ice resulting estimate of 2,158 (95% CI: 1,833– concentration than bears in the 1990s. No 2,542) (Peacock et al. 2013), the DS inventories have been conducted to determine subpopulation was assessed as stable. Polar the size of the EG polar bear subpopulation, bear survival in the DS subpopulation varied however pilot studies were initiated in southeast with time and geography, and was related to Greenland in 2015 to collect data to inform an factors that included reductions in sea ice assessment (Laidre, unpubl data). habitat and increases of harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) numbers (Peacock et al. 2013). It Foxe Basin (FB) was suggested that the observed lowered reproductive rates and declines in body Based on decades of mark-recapture studies condition of polar bears in the DS and satellite tracking of female bears of the

5

Western Hudson Bay (WH) and Southern of how local conditions influence the Hudson Bay (SH) subpopulations, the Foxe movements of polar bears in the area. The GB Basin subpopulation (FB) appears to occur in subpopulation belongs in the Canadian Foxe Basin, northern Hudson Bay, and the Archipelago global genetic cluster (Peacock et western end of Hudson Strait (Taylor and Lee al. 2015). An initial subpopulation estimate of 1995, Sahanatien et al. 2015). The most recent 333 bears was derived from the data collected mapping of satellite telemetry data indicates within the boundaries proposed for the GB substantial overlap with the WH and SH subpopulation, as part of a study conducted subpopulations and, to a lesser extent, with the over a larger area of the central Arctic (Furnell DS subpopulation (Peacock et al. 2010; and Schweinsburg 1984). Although population Sahanatien et al. 2015). During the ice-free data from this area were limited, local hunters season, polar bears are concentrated on reported that numbers remained constant or Southampton Island and along the Wager Bay increased since the time of the central Arctic coast; however, significant numbers of bears polar bear survey. Based on TEK, recognition are also encountered on the islands and coastal of sampling deficiencies, and polar bear regions throughout the FB subpopulation area densities in other areas, an interim (Stapleton et al. 2015). A total subpopulation subpopulation estimate of 900 was established estimate of 2,197 ± 260 for 1994 was developed in the 1990s. Following the completion of a (Taylor et al. 2006) from a mark-recapture mark-recapture inventory in spring 2000, the analysis based on tetracycline biomarkers where GB subpopulation was estimated to number the marking effort was conducted during the 1,592 ± 361 bears (Taylor et al. 2009). Natural ice-free season, and distributed throughout the survival and recruitment rates were estimated at entire area. TEK suggested the FB values higher than the previous standardized subpopulation of polar bears had increased estimates (Taylor et al. 1987). Taylor et al. (2009) (GN consultations in villages in Foxe Basin concluded that the GB subpopulation was 2004–2012). During a comprehensive increasing in 2000, as a result of high intrinsic summertime aerial survey in 2009 and 2010 rate of growth and low harvest. Harvest rates (based on distance sampling and double- were increased in 2005 based on the 2000 observer estimation) covering about 40,000 km population estimate and the population was each year, 816 and 1,003 bears were observed, believed to be stable. A three year (genetic respectively (Stapleton et al. 2016). This most mark-recapture) inventory study for the GB recent study of the FB subpopulation yielded an subpopulation began in spring of 2015. abundance estimate of 2585 (95% CI: 2,096– 3,189) polar bears (Stapleton et al. 2016), which Kane Basin (KB) is not statistically different from the 1994 estimate indicating a stable population. Sea ice Based on the movements of adult females with habitat for polar bears has decreased satellite collars and recaptures of tagged substantially for polar bears over the last several animals, the boundaries of the Kane Basin decades in Foxe Basin (Sahanatien and subpopulation (KB) include the North Water Derocher 2012). Polynya to the south, the Kennedy Channel to the north and Greenland and Ellesmere Island Gulf of Boothia (GB) to the east and west (Taylor et al. 2001). Polar bears in Kane Basin do not differ genetically The boundaries of the Gulf of Boothia from those in Baffin Bay (Paetkau et al. 1999, subpopulation (GB) are based on genetic Peacock et al. 2015). The size of the KB studies (Paetkau et al. 1999, Campagna et al. subpopulation was estimated to be 164 (SE = 2013, Peacock et al. 2015, Malenfant et al. 2016), 35) for 1994–1997 by Taylor et al. (2008). The movements of tagged bears (Stirling et al. 1978, intrinsic natural rate of growth for KB polar Taylor and Lee 1995), radio telemetry in the bears was estimated to be low at 1.009 (SE = Gulf of Boothia and adjacent areas (Taylor et al. 0.010) (Taylor et al. 2008), likely because of large 2001), and interpretations by local Inuit hunters expanses of multi-year ice and low population

6

density of seals (Born et al. 2004). A genetic Kara Sea (KS) mark-recapture survey (via biopsy darting) and aerial survey were completed in 2014 resulting The Kara Sea subpopulation (KS) overlaps in in a new population estimate, survival rates, and the west with the Barents Sea subpopulation habitat use analyses (SWG 2016). Using genetic (BS) in the area to the east of Franz Josef Land mark-recapture, the estimated abundance of the and includes the Novaya Zemlya archipelago. KB subpopulation was 357 polar bears (95% Data from KS and BS subpopulations, in the CI: 221–493) for 2013–2014. More bears were vicinity of Franz Josef Land and Novaya documented in the eastern regions of the KB Zemlya, are mainly based on dated aerial subpopulation during 2012–2014 than during surveys and den counts (Parovshivkov 1965, 1994–1997. The difference in distribution Belikov and Matveev 1983, Uspenski 1989, between the 1990s and 2010s may reflect Belikov et al. 1991, Belikov and Gorbunov differences in spatial distribution of bears, 1991, Belikov 1993). Telemetry studies of possibly influenced by reduced hunting movements have been done throughout the pressure by Greenland in eastern Kane Basin area, but data to define the eastern boundary are but also some differences in sampling incomplete (Belikov et al. 1998, Mauritzen et al. protocols. An estimate of abundance based on 2002). Using polar bear samples from the KS a springtime 2014 aerial survey for the KB subpopulation from the 1990s suggests that, at subpopulation was 206 bears (95% lognormal a global level, KS polar bears belong to the CI: 83– 510). However, due to insufficient Eastern Polar Basin genetic cluster (together coverage of offshore polar bear habitat, this with polar bears from the BS and Laptev Sea estimate is likely negatively biased. The total subpopulations). Peacock et al. (2015) found number of bears marked during studies in substantial directional gene flow (29-fold 2012–2013 in Kane Basin was equivalent to difference) from the Eastern Polar Basin to the ~25% of the estimated size of the KB Western Polar Basin genetic clusters. subpopulation. Despite this, documented cases of emigration comprised <4% of recaptures Lancaster Sound (LS) and recoveries in Kane Basin. Changing sea-ice conditions have Information on the movements of adult female resulted in broad movement and habitat use polar bears monitored by satellite radio-collars, patterns by bears of the KB subpopulation that and mark-recapture data from past years, has are more similar to those of bears in seasonal shown that the Lancaster Sound subpopulation sea-ice ecoregions. The size of the KB (LS) is distinct from the adjoining Viscount subpopulation range has expanded since the Melville Sound (VS), M’Clintock Channel 1990s in all seasons, especially in summer (MC), Gulf of Boothia (GB), Baffin Bay (BB) (June–September) where ranges doubled and Norwegian Bay (NW) subpopulations between the 1990s and the 2000s. Land use by (Taylor et al. 2001). Survival rates of the pooled polar bears of the KB subpopulation during NW and LS subpopulations were used in the summer remains intermittent because some sea PVA to minimize sampling errors; the ice remains inside fjords and coastal areas. subpopulation estimate of 2,541 (SE = 391) is Reproductive metrics for bears of the KB based on an analysis of both historical and subpopulation were comparable between the current mark-recapture data to 1997 (Taylor et 1990s and 2010s sampling periods. Body al. 2008). This estimate is considerably larger condition of KB polar bears appeared to have than a previous estimate of 1,675 that included slightly improved between sampling periods NW (Stirling et al. 1984). Taylor et al. (2008) (see SWG 2016). Overall, the data on estimated survival and recruitment parameters abundance when considered with data on that suggest this subpopulation has a lower movements, condition, and reproduction, renewal rate than previously estimated. suggest evidence that the KB subpopulation However, what effect this may or may not have has increased. on the present population is not known, especially under changing sea-ice conditions.

7

Currently, the population data are dated, but the allow the population to recover and increase. A population is thought to be stable based on 3 year genetic mark-recapture study began in local traditional information. 2014. As with habitat in the GB subpopulation Laptev Sea (LP) region, Barber and Iacozza (2004) found no trends in ringed seal habitat or sea ice condition The Laptev Sea subpopulation (LP) area from 1980 to 2000 in the MC subpopulation includes the western half of the East Siberian region. A general trend has been detected for Sea and most of the Laptev Sea, including the earlier break-up and delayed freeze-up (Stern Novosibirsk and possibly Severnaya Zemlya and Laidre 2016, Markus et al. 2009), but islands (Belikov et al. 1998). The 1993 estimate multiyear ice is predicted to persist into the near of subpopulation size for LP polar bears (800– future (Sou and Flato 2009, Maslanik et al. 2011, 1,200) is based on aerial counts of dens on the Howell et al. 2008). Habitat quality could be Severnaya Zemlya in 1982 (Belikov and Randla improved over the short-term and multiyear ice 1987) and on anecdotal data collected in 1960– declines. 1980s on the number of females coming to dens on Novosibirsk Islands and on the Northern Beaufort Sea (NB) mainland coast (Kischinski 1969, Uspenski 1989). At present these estimates are not actual, Studies of movements and abundance estimates and the size of the LP subpopulation is of polar bears in the eastern Beaufort Sea have unknown. been conducted using telemetry and mark- recapture at intervals since the early 1970’s M’Clintock Channel (MC) (Stirling et al. 1975, Demaster et al. 1980, Stirling et al. 1988, Lunn et al. 1995). As a result, it was The current population boundaries for the recognized that there were separate populations M’Clintock Channel subpopulation (MC) are in the northern and southern Beaufort Sea areas based on recovery of tagged bears, movements (i.e., the Northern Beaufort Sea [NB] and of adult females with satellite radio-collars in Southern Beaufort Sea [SB} subpopulations), adjacent areas (Taylor and Lee 1995, Taylor et and not a single population as was suspected al. 2001), and genetics (Paetkau et al. 1999, initially (Stirling et al. 1988, Amstrup et al. 1995, Campagna et al. 2013, Peacock et al. 2015, Taylor and Lee 1995, Bethke et al. 1996). The Malenfant et al. 2016). These boundaries appear density of polar bears using the multi-year ice to be a consequence of large islands to the east of the northernmost area was lower than it was and west, the mainland to the south, and the further south. The subpopulation estimate of multiyear ice in Viscount Melville Sound to the 1,200 (Stirling et al. 1988) for NB polar bears north. An estimate of 900 bears was derived was believed to be relatively unbiased at the from a 6-year study in the mid-1970s within the time but the most northerly areas of the boundaries proposed for the MC northwestern coast of Banks Island and subpopulation, as part of a study conducted M’Clure Strait were not permitted to be over a larger area of the central Arctic (Furnell completely surveyed because of concern about and Schweinsburg 1984). Following the disruption to guided polar bear sport hunters at completion of a mark-recapture inventory in the same time. The most northerly region of spring 2000, the subpopulation was estimated the NB subpopulation were later surveyed in to number 284 (SE = 59.3) (Taylor et al. 2006a). 1990–1992; the densities encountered were Natural survival and recruitment rates were low, few subadult bears were seen, and the ratio estimated at values lower than previous of marked to unmarked polar bears was similar standardized estimates (Taylor et al. 1987). As to that in the southern portion of the a consequence of the reduced population subpopulation. A mark-recapture survey, abundance, and after an initial harvest completed in 2006 suggested that the size of the moratorium, harvest levels for MC polar bears NB subpopulation to be 980 (95% CI: 825– were drastically reduced to levels that should 1,135), and that it has remained stable over the

8

previous three decades, probably because ice harvest (2009/10–2013/14) has been well conditions have remained stable and the below a sustainable harvest level for that harvest has been maintained within sustainable population size. Population data are dated. limits (Stirling et al. 2011). The amount of ice remaining over the continental shelf in the NB Southern Beaufort Sea (SB) subpopulation region in late summer fluctuates. Analyses using data from satellite tracking of Radio-telemetry and mark-recapture studies female polar bears and spatial modeling through the 1980s indicated that polar bears in techniques suggest that the boundary between the region between Paulatuk and Baillie Island, NB and SB subpopulations may need to be Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada, and Icy moved somewhat to the west of its current Cape, Alaska, USA, comprised a single eastern limit at Pearce Point, in response to Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation (SB) changing patterns of breakup and freeze-up (Amstrup et al. 1986, Amstrup and DeMaster resulting from climate warming (Amstrup et al. 1988, Stirling et al. 1988). Probabilistic models 2004, Amstrup et al. 2005). In 2014, the developed from relocations of polar bears boundary (for management purposes within the carrying satellite radio collars suggested that, Inuvialuit Settlement Area) between NB and SB rather than exhibiting distinct boundaries, there subpopulations was moved to the vicinity of were areas of overlap between the SB and Tuktoyaktuk on the basis of TEK (Figure 1; adjacent subpopulations (Amstrup et al. 2004b, Joint Secretariat 2015) and older satellite Amstrup et al. 2005). The results of that study telemetry data (Amstrup et al. 2004). For the suggested that at Barrow, Alaska, in the west, purposes of this assessment, we 50% of polar bears were from the SB (IUCN/SSC/PBSG) will adopt interim use of subpopulation and 50% were from the Chukchi the revised boundary between SB and NB Sea (CS) subpopulation, and that at subpopulations used by management Tuktoyaktuk, NWT, to the east, there was a authorities in the Northwest Territories and 50% probability of polar bears being either Yukon Territory. from the SB or the northern Beaufort Sea (NB) subpopulation. To address the issue of Norwegian Bay (NW) overlapping boundaries, resource managers in Canada shifted the eastern boundary westward The Norwegian Bay subpopulation (NW) to 133° W longitude (due north of appears to be genetically unique (Malenfant et Tuktoyaktuk) in 2014. A similar boundary shift, al. 2016). This subpopulation is bounded by or a change in the way harvest is allocated heavy multi-year ice to the west, islands to the among subpopulations, may be required on the north, east, and west, and polynyas to the south western side of the SB subpopulation where it (Stirling et al. 1993, Stirling 1997, Taylor et al. borders the CS subpopulation (Amstrup et al. 2008). From data collected during mark- 2005). recapture studies, and from satellite The size of the SB subpopulation was radiotracking of adult female polar bears, it first estimated to be approximately 1,800 appears that most of the polar bears in this animals in 1986 (Amstrup et al. 1986). Survival subpopulation are concentrated along the rates of adult females and dependent young coastal tide cracks and ridges along the north, were estimated from radio-telemetry data east, and southern boundaries (Taylor et al. collected from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s 2001). The most current (1993–1997) estimate (Amstrup and Durner 1995) and observations is 203 (SE = 44) (Taylor et al. 2008). Survival suggested that abundance was increasing. rate estimates for the NW subpopulation were Results from a mark-recapture study conducted derived from pooled LS and NW data because from 2001–2006 in both the USA and Canada the subpopulations are adjacent and the indicated that the SB subpopulation included number of bears captured in the NW 1,526 (95% CI: 1,211–1,841) polar bears in subpopulation region was too small to generate 2006 (Regehr et al. 2006). That study and others reliable survival estimates. The 5-year mean found that the survival and breeding of polar

9

bears were negatively affected by changing sea For the purposes of this assessment, we ice conditions, and that population growth rate (IUCN/SSC/PBSG) will adopt interim use of was strongly negative in years with long ice-free the revised boundary between SB and NB seasons, such as 2005 when Arctic sea ice extent subpopulations used by management reached a former record low (Hunter et al. 2010, authorities in the Northwest Territories and Regehr et al. 2010). The most recent analysis Yukon Territory (Figure 1). (covering the years 2001–2010) showed that survival estimates remained low through 2007 Southern Hudson Bay (SH) and increased through 2009, resulting in an abundance estimate of 907 (95% CI: 548– Boundaries of the Southern Hudson Bay polar 1,270) polar bears present in 2010 (Bromaghin bear subpopulation (SH) are based on observed et al. 2015). However, it is important to note movements of marked and collared bears that here is the potential for un-modeled spatial (Jonkel et al. 1976, Kolenosky and Prevett 1983, heterogeneity in mark-recapture sampling, Kolenosky et al. 1992, Obbard and Middel resulting from field crews being unable to 2012, Middel 2013). The range of the SH sample the entire geographic reach of the subpopulation includes much of eastern and population boundaries, which could bias both southern Hudson Bay and James Bay and large survival and abundance estimates. A recent expanses of the coastline of Ontario and Traditional Knowledge study from Canada Québec as well as areas up to 120 km inland concluded that the numbers of polar bears in (Kolenosky and Prevett 1983, Obbard and regularly used hunting areas have remained Walton 2004, Obbard and Middel 2012). relatively stable within living memory (Joint An initial estimate of population size of Secretariat 2015). 763 ± 323 animals was derived through a 3-year Declines in polar bear body condition, (1984–1986) capture-recapture study stature, and reproduction have been linked to conducted in mainland Ontario (Kolenosky et multi-year trends of declining sea ice (Rode et al. 1992). This estimate was subsequently al. 2010), and an assessment of temporal adjusted to 1000 for management purposes by patterns of feeding ecology found that the the Canadian Polar Bear Technical Committee number of bears in a physiological fasting state (PBTC) because areas away from the coast may increased from the mid-1980s to the mid-2000s have been under-sampled due to the difficulty (Cherry et al. 2009). These data support the of locating polar bears in the boreal forest and hypothesis that energy balance of polar bears some areas in James Bay were not sampled has changed in the southern Beaufort Sea, (Lunn et al. 1998). A re-analysis of the 1984– which may explain observed declines in 1986 capture data produced an estimate for the survival. Sea ice habitat for polar bears is study area of 641 (95% CI: 401–881) for those declining due to declines in sea ice extent years (Obbard 2008, Obbard et al. 2007). A (Stroeve et al. 2014), resulting from the subsequent 3-year capture-recapture study continuing effects of climate warming. Atwood (2003–2005) produced an estimate of 673 (95% et al. (2016) and Pongracz and Derocher (2016) CI: 396–950) (Obbard 2008). An analysis of found that SB polar bears are spending bears captured on Akimiski Island in James Bay significantly more time on land, which is during 1997 and 1998 resulted in the addition correlated with the extent of ice retreat. of 70–110 bears to the total subpopulation Further, while on land, many polar bears feed estimate (Obbard 2008). Results of the two on the subsistence-harvested bowhead whale capture-recapture studies suggest that remains aggregated at Cross Island near the abundance was unchanged between 1984–1986 Prudhoe Bay industrial infrastructure and and 2003–2005, though survival rates in all age Barter Island near the community of Kaktovik and sex categories and body condition declined (Herreman and Peacock 2013, Rogers et al. (Obbard et al. 2006, Obbard 2008). 2015). Increased polar bear activity near human Intensive aerial surveys were conducted settlements may increase the risk of human- during the fall ice-free season over mainland bear interactions. Ontario (same geographic area as for the

10

capture–recapture studies) and Akimiski Island (Bethke et al. 1996, Taylor et al. 2001). The most in 2011 and over the remaining islands in James recent (i.e., 1992) subpopulation estimate of Bay, the coastal areas of Québec from Long 161 (SE = 34) (Taylor et al. 2002) is 25 years old Island to the SH–FB subpopulation border, and the PBSG now regards VM as a data and the off-shore islands in eastern Hudson Bay deficient subpopulation. However, in spring in 2012. Results of this mark-recapture- 2014, the field component of a mark-recapture distance-sampling (MRDS) analysis provided study to re-assess abundance and status of the an estimate of 860 bears (95% CI: 580–1,274) VM subpopulation was completed; the results in the mainland Ontario, neighboring islands, are not yet available. and Akimiski Island portions of the SH management unit during the 2011 ice-free Western Hudson Bay (WH) season. The estimate for the 2012 survey was 83 bears (SE = 4.5) in the 2012 study area. The current population boundaries of the Thus, combining the aerial survey results from Western Hudson Bay subpopulation (WH) are 2011 and 2012 yielded an overall estimate of based on capture, recapture, and harvest of 943 (SE: 174, 95% CI: 658–1350) for SH tagged animals (Stirling et al. 1977, Derocher (Obbard et al. 2015). Overall, despite the and Stirling 1990, 1995a, Taylor and Lee 1995, difference in methodologies, assumptions, and Lunn et al. 1997). This subpopulation appears biases between capture–recapture studies and to be geographically segregated from the SH aerial surveys, the evidence suggests it is likely subpopulation to the southeast and the FB that the subpopulation has not changed in subpopulation to the north during the open- abundance since the mid-1980s. The intensive water season, although all three subpopulations aerial survey was repeated in September 2016 to mix on the Hudson Bay sea ice during the assess recent trend in abundance. All areas in winter and spring (Stirling et al. 1977, Derocher Ontario, Nunavut and Québec were sampled and Stirling 1990, Stirling and Derocher 1993, within a 3-week period to ensure complete Taylor and Lee 1995). coverage within the same year. Results should During the 1960s and 70s, abundance be available by March 2017. likely increased with the closure of the fur The ice-free season within the SH trading post at York Factory, withdrawal of subpopulation boundaries increased by about military personnel from Churchill, and the 30 days from 1980 to 2012 (Obbard et al. 2016). closure of hunting in Manitoba (Stirling et al. Concurrently, body condition declined in all age 1977, Derocher and Stirling 1995a). Derocher and sex classes, though the decline was less for and Stirling (1995a) estimated the mean cubs than for other social classes. If trends population size for 1978–1992 to be 1,000 (SE towards a longer ice-free season continue in the = 51). This estimate was considered future, further declines in body condition and conservative because the study had not covered survival rates are likely, and ultimately, declines the southern portion of the range east of the in abundance. Nelson River; for management purposes, population size was adjusted to 1,200 (Calvert Viscount Melville Sound (VM) et al. 1995, Wiig et al. 1995). In 1994 and 1995, Lunn et al. (1997) expanded the capture A five-year study of movements and program to sample animals to the boundary subpopulation size, using telemetry and mark- between the WH and SH subpopulations. recapture, was completed for polar bears Using these additional data, abundance was inhabiting the Viscount Melville Sound estimated to be 1,233 (95% CI: 823–1,643) in subpopulation (VM) region in 1992 (Messier et autumn 1995. Regehr et al. (2007) reported a al. 1992, 1994, Taylor et al. 2002). decline in abundance from 1,194 (95% CI: Subpopulation boundaries were based on 1,020–1,368) in 1987 to 935 (95% CI: 794– observed movements of female polar bears 1,076) in 2004. Further, the survival rates of with satellite radio-collars and movements of cubs, sub-adults, and old bears (>20 years) were bears tagged in and out of the study area negatively correlated with the date of sea ice

11

breakup (Regehr et al. 2007). A mark-recapture number of bears that move through the smaller, distance sampling study resulted in an capture-recapture sampling area. abundance estimate of 1,030 (95% CI: 754– In addition to an estimate of abundance, 1,406) in 2011 (Stapleton et al. 2014). During Lunn et al. (2016) documented a significant this survey, 711 bears were observed and more relationship between sea ice conditions and bears, particularly adult males, were observed in survival of female polar bears of all age classes. the coastal areas east of the Nelson River For the recent decade 2001-2011, the growth towards the WH-SH subpopulation boundary rate of the female segment of the population than were documented during the late 1990s was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.98–1.06), which may be (Stirling et al. 2004). Stapleton et al. (2014) due in large part to short-term stability of ice suggested that a distributional shift may have conditions in western Hudson Bay. negatively biased abundance estimates derived from capture samples. The mean litter size References (cubs-of-the-year, 1.43 [SE = 0.08]; yearlings, 1.22 [SE = 0.10]) and number of cubs observed Aars, J. 2013. Variation in detection as a proportion of total observations (cubs-of- probability of polar bear maternity dens. the-year, 0.07; yearlings, 0.03) were lower than Polar Biology 36:1089–1096. those recorded for the neighboring FB and SH Aars, J., Marques, T. A., Buckland, S. T., subpopulations and consistent with WH bears Andersen, M., Belikov, S., Boltunov, A., having low reproductive productivity (Regehr et and Wiig, Ø. 2009. Estimating the al. 2007, Peacock et al. 2010, Stapleton et al. Barents Sea polar bear subpopulation 2014). The body mass of solitary adult female size. Marine Mammal Science 25:32–52. polar bears has declined over the past 30 years, Amstrup, S.C., and DeMaster, D.P. 1988. which has likely contributed to declining Polar bear Ursus maritimus. Pages 39–56 reproductive success (Derocher and Stirling in Lentfer, J.W. (ed.) Selected Marine 1995b, Stirling et al. 1999, Sciullo et al. 2016, Mammals of Alaska: Species Accounts with Lunn, unpubl. data). Research and Management Recommendations. Lunn et al. (2016) evaluated the Marine Mammal Commission, demography and population status of WH Washington, DC, USA. polar bears for the period 1984–2011, using a Amstrup, S.C., and Durner, G.M. 1995. Bayesian implementation of multistate capture- Survival rates of radio-collared female recapture models, coupled with a matrix-based polar bears and their dependent young. demographic projection model, to integrate Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1312–1322. several types of data and to incorporate Amstrup, S.C., Durner, G.M., Stirling, I., and sampling uncertainty, and demographic and McDonald, T.L. 2005. Allocating environmental stochasticity across the polar harvests among polar bear stocks in the bear life cycle. Their analysis resulted in an Beaufort Sea. Arctic 58:247–259. estimate of 806 (95% CI: 653–984) for polar Amstrup, S.C., McDonald, T.L., and Durner, bears in the core area of study north of the G.M. 2004a. Using satellite Nelson River in 2011. Although both the aerial radiotelemetry data to delineate and survey and capture-recapture estimates are manage wildlife populations. Wildlife broadly similar with overlapping confidence Society Bulletin 32:661–679. intervals, it is difficult to make direct Amstrup, S.C., Stirling, I., and Lentfer, J.W. comparisons because the geographical area 1986. Past and present status of polar covered differed. The aerial survey likely bears in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin provides an accurate “snapshot” estimate of the 14:241–254. total number and distribution of polar bears in Amstrup, S.C., York, G., McDonald, T.L., the WH subpopulation region at the time of the Nielson, R., and Simac, K. 2004b. survey. The point estimate of abundance from Detecting denning polar bears with the capture-recapture model, represents the forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imagery. Bioscience 54:337–344.

12

Atwood, T.C., Peacock, E., McKinney, M., Bethke, R., Taylor, M., Amstrup, S., and Douglas, D.C., Lillie, K., Wilson, R., Messier, F. 1996. Population delineation Terletzky, P., and Miller, S.. 2016. Rapid of polar bears using satellite collar data. environmental change drives increased Ecolological Applications 6:311–317. land use by an Arctic marine predator. Born, E.W. 1995. Research on polar bears in PLoS ONE 11(6):e0155932. Greenland, ultimo 1988 to primo 1993. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155932. Pages 105–107 in Wiig, Ø., Born E.W., Barber, D.G., and Iacozza, J. 2004. Historical and Garner G.W. (eds.) Polar Bears: analysis of sea ice conditions in Proceedings of the Eleventh Working Meeting of M'Clintock Channel and the Gulf of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. Boothia, Nunavut: Implications for IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and ringed seal and polar bear habitat. Arctic Cambridge, UK. 57:1–14. Born, E.W., Dietz, R., Wiig, Ø., Aars, J., and Belikov, S.E. 1993. The polar bear. In Vayseld, Andersen, M. 2009. Polar bear Ursus M.A., and Chestin, I. E. (eds.) Bears. maritimus. Pages 91–100 in Boertmann, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian with D., Mosbech, A., Schiedek, D., and English summary). Johansen, K. (eds.) The Western Greenland Belikov, S.E., Chelintsev, N.G., Kalyakin, V.N., Sea. A Preliminary Strategic Environmental Romanov, A.A., and Uspensky, S.M. Impact Assessment of Hydrocarbon Activities in 1991. Pages 75–79 in Amstrup, S.C., and the KANUMAS East Area. NERI Wiig, Ø. (eds.) Polar Bears: Proceedings of the Technical Report No. 719. Tenth Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Born, E.W., Laidre, K., Dietz, R., Wiig, Ø., Polar Bear Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Aars, J., and Andersen, M. 2012. Polar Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. bear Ursus maritimus. Pages 102–115 in Belikov, S.E., Garner, G.W., Wiig, Ø., Boertmann, D., and Mosbech, A. (eds.) Boltunov, A.N., and Gorbunov, Y.A. The Western Greenland Sea: A Strategic 1998. Polar bears of the Severnaya Environmental Impact Assessment of Zemlya archipelago of the Russian Hydrocarbon Activities. Scientific Report Arctic. Ursus 10:33-40. from Danish Centre for Environment Belikov, S.E., and Gorbunov, Y.A. 1991. and Energy No. 22, Aarhus University, Distribution and migrations of the polar Denmark. 267 pp. bear in the Soviet Arctic in relation to ice Born, E.W., Teilmann, J., Acquarone, M., and conditions. Pages 70–74 in Amstrup, Rigét, F.F. 2004. Habitat use of ringed S.C., and Wiig, Ø. (eds.) Polar Bears: seals (Phoca hispida) in the North Water Proceedings of the Tenth Working Meeting of the area (North Baffin Bay). Arctic 57:129– IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. 142. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Born, E.W., Wiig, Ø., and Thomassen, J. 1997. Cambridge, UK. Seasonal and annual movements of Belikov, S.E., and Matveev, L.G. 1983. radiocollared polar bears (Ursus maritimus) Distribution and number of polar bears in northeast Greenland. J. Mar. Syst. and their dens on Franz-Josef Land. 10:67–77. Pages 84-85 in Rare Mammals of USSR and Boukal, D.S., and Berec, L. 2002 Single-species their Protection. Materials of the III All- models of the Allee effect: extinction Union Meeting, Moscow, USSR. (In boundaries, sex ratios and mate Russian). encounters. J. theor. Biol. 218:375–394. Belikov, S.E., and Randla, T.E. 1987. Fauna of Bromaghin, J.F., , McDonald, T.L., Stirling, I., birds and mammals of Severnaya Zemlya. Derocher, A.E., Richardson, E.S., In Syroyechkovskiy, E.E., (ed.) Fauna and Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D.C., Durner, Ecology of Birds and Mammals in Middle G.M., Atwood, T., and Amstrup, S.C. Siberia. Nauka, Moscow, USSR. (In 2015. Polar bear population dynamics in Russian). the southern Beaufort Sea during a

13

period of sea ice decline. Ecological Derocher, A.E., Andersen, M., Wiig, Ø., Aars, Applications 25:634–651. J., Hansen, E., and Biuw, M. 2011. Sea Calvert, W., Taylor, M., Stirling, I., Kolenosky, ice and polar bear den ecology at Hopen G.B., Kearney, S., Crête, M., and Luttich, Island, Svalbard. Marine Ecology Progress S. 1995. Polar bear management in Series 441:273–79. Canada 1988-92. Pages 61–79 in Wiig, Derocher, A. E., Lunn, N.J., and Stirling, I. Ø., Born, E.W., and Garner, G.W. (eds.) 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the Eleventh Integrative and Comparative Biology 44:163– Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar 176. Bear Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Derocher, A. E., and Stirling, I. 1990. Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Distribution of polar bears (Ursus Campagna, L., Van Coeverden de Groot, P.J., maritimus) during the ice-free period in Saunders, B.L., Atkinson, S.N, Weber, western Hudson Bay. Canadian Journal of D.S., Dyck, M.G., Boag, P.T., and Zoology 68:1395–1403. Lougheed, S.C. 2013. Extensive Derocher, A. E., and Stirling, I. 1995a. sampling of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) Estimation of polar bear population size in the Northwest Passage (Canadian and survival in western Hudson Bay. Arctic Archipelago) reveals population Journal of Wildlife Management 59:215–221. differentiation across multiple spatial and Derocher, A. E., and Stirling, I. 1995b. temporal scales. Ecology and Evolution Temporal variation in reproduction and 3:3152–3165. body mass of polar bears in western Canadian Wildlife Service. 2009. Nunavut Hudson Bay. Canadian Journal of Zoology consultation report – Consultations on 73:1657–1665. the proposed listing of the Polar Bear as Dietz, R., Rigét, F.F., and Born, E.W. 2000. Special Concern under the Species at Geographical differences of zinc, Risk Act. Report submitted to the cadmium, mercury and selenium in polar Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in bears (Ursus maritimus) from Greenland. accordance with Step 3.8 of the Science of The Total Environment 245:25–48. Memorandum of Understanding to Douglas, D.C. 2010. Arctic sea ice decline: Harmonize the Designation of Projected changes in timing and extent of Endangered Species under the Nunavut sea ice in the Chukchi and Bering Seas. Land Claims Agreement and the Species at U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report Risk Act, 249 pp. [available at: 2010-1176, U.S. Geological Survey, http://assembly.nu.ca/library/Edocs/2 Reston, Virginia, USA, 32 pp. 009/001149-e.pdf]. Durner, G. M., and Amstrup, S.C. 1993. Cherry, S.G., Derocher, A.E., Stirling, I., and Movements of a female polar bear from Richardson, E.S. 2009. Fasting northern Alaska to Greenland. Arctic physiology of polar bears in relation to 48:338–498. environmental change and breeding Durner, G.M., Douglas, D.C., Nielson, R.M., behavior in the Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology Amstrup, S.C., McDonald, T.L., Stirling, 32:383-391. I., Mauritzen, M., Born, E.W., Wiig, Ø., Crompton, A.E., Obbard, M.E., Petersen, S.D., DeWeaver, E., Serreze, M.C., Belikov, and Wilson, P.J. 2008. Population S.E., Holland, M.M., Maslanik, J., Aars, J., genetic structure in polar bears (Ursus Bailey, D.A., and Derocher, A.E. 2009. maritimus) from Hudson Bay, Canada: Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat Implications of future climate change. distribution from global climate models. Biological Conservation 141:2528–2539. Ecological Monographs 79:25–58. DeMaster, D.P., Kingsley, M.C.S., and Stirling, Dyck, M. G., and R. K. Baydack. 2004. I. 1980. A multiple mark and recapture Vigilance behaviour of polar bears (Ursus estimate applied to polar bears. Canadian maritimus) in the context of wildlife- Journal of Zoology 58:633–638. viewing activities at Churchill, Manitoba,

14

Canada. Biological Conservation 116:343– Islands area. Canadian Wildlife Service 350. Occasional Paper 26, 42 pp. Furnell, D.J., and Schweinsburg, R.E. 1984. Keith, D., Arqvik, J., Kamookak, L., and Population dynamics of central Canadian Ameralik, J. 2005. Inuit Qaujimaningit Arctic Island polar bears. Journal of Nanurnut: Inuit Knowledge of Polar Wildlife Management 48:722–728. Bears. Gjoa Haven Hunters and Garner, G.W., Belikov, S.E., Stishov, M.S., and Trappers and CCI Press, Edmonton, Arthur, S.M. 1995. Research on polar Alberta, Canada. bears in western Alaska and eastern Kingsley, M.C.S., Stirling, I., and Calvert, W. Russia 1998-92. Pages 155–165 in Wiig, 1985. The distribution and abundance of Ø., Born, E.W., and Garner, G.W. (eds.) seals in the Canadian High Arctic, 1980- Polar Bears: Proceedings of the Eleventh 82. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Sciences 42:1189–1210. Bear Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Kischinski, A.A. 1969. The polar bear on the Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Novosibirsk Islands. In Bannikov, A.G., Garner, G.W., Belikov, S.E., Stishov, M.S., Kischinski, A.A., and Uspenski, S.M. Barnes, Jr., V.G., and Arthur, S.M. 1994. (eds.) The Polar Bear and Its Conservation in Dispersal patterns of maternal polar the Soviet Arctic. Hydrometerological bears from the denning concentration on Publishing House, Leningrand, USSR. Wrangel Island. International Conference for (In Russian with English summary). Bear Research and Management 9:401–410. Kochnev, A., and Zdor, E. 2016. Harvest and Garner, G.W., Knick, S.T., and Douglas, D.C. use of polar bears in Chukotka: Results 1990. Seasonal movements of adult of 1999-2012 studies. Moscow: Pi female bears in the Bering and Chukchi Kvadra. 2014. 148 pp. ISBN 978-5- Seas. International Conference for Bear 9904685-7-3. Research and Management 8:219–226. Kolenosky, G.B., Abraham, K.F., and Herreman, J., and Peacock, E. 2013. Polar bear Greenwood, C.J. 1992. Polar bears of use of a persistent food subsidy: Insights southern Hudson Bay. Polar bear from non-invasive genetic sampling in project, 1984-88. Final Report. Ontario Alaska. Ursus 24:148–163. Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario, Howell, S.E.L., Tivy, A., Yackel, J.J., and Canada, 107 pp. McCourt, S. 2008. Multi-year sea-ice Kolenosky, G.B., and Prevett, J.P. 1983. conditions in the Western Canadian Productivity and maternity denning of Arctic Archipelago region of the polar bears in Ontario. International Northwest Passage: 1968-2006. Conference for Bear Research and Management Atmosphere-Ocean 46:229–242. 5:238–245. Hunter, C.M., Caswell, H., Runge, M.C., Laidre, K.L., Born, E.W., Gurarie, E., Wiig, Ø., Regehr, E.V., Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, Dietz, R., and Stern, H. 2013. Females I. 2010. Climate change threatens polar roam while males patrol: divergence in bear populations: a stochastic breeding season movements of pack ice demographic analysis. Ecology 9:2883- polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Proceedings of 2897. the Royal Society B 280:20122371. Joint Secretariat. 2015. Inuvialuit and Nanuq: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.23 A Polar Bear Traditional Knowledge 71. Study. Joint Secretariat, Inuvialuit Laidre, K.L., Born, E.W., Heagerty, P., Wiig, Settlement Region, Inuvik, Northwest Ø., Dietz, R., Stern, H., Aars, J., and Territories, Canada, 304 pp. Andersen, M. 2015. Shifts in habitat use Jonkel, C., Smith, P., Stirling, I., and Kolenosky, by female polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in G.B. 1976. The present status of the East Greenland. Polar Biology 38:879– polar bear in the James Bay and Belcher 893.

15

Larsen, T. 1972. Air and ship census of polar Maslanik, J., Stroeve, J., Fowler, C., and Emery bears in Svalbard (Spitsbergen). Journal of W. 2011. Distribution and trends in Wildlife Management 36:562–570. Arctic sea ice through spring 2011. Larsen, T. 1985. Polar bear denning and cub Geophysical Research Letters 38:L13502, production in Svalbard, Norway. Journal doi:10.1029/2011GL047735. of Wildlife Management 49:320–326. Mauritzen, M., Derocher, A.E., and Wiig, Ø. Lone, K., Aars, J., and Ims, R.A. 2013. Site 2001. Space-use strategies of female fidelity of Svalbard polar bears revealed polar bears in a dynamic sea ice habitat. by mark-recapture positions. Polar Biology Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1704–1713. 36:27–39. Mauritzen, M., Derocher, A.E., Wiig, Ø., Lunn, N.J., Servanty, S., Regehr, E.V., Belikov, S.E., Boltunov, A.N., Hansen, Converse, S.J., Richardson, E., and E., and Garner, G.W. 2002. Using Stirling, I. 2016. Demography of an apex satellite telemetry to define spatial predator at the edge of its range – population structure in polar bears in the impacts of changing sea ice on polar Norwegian and western Russian Arctic. bears in Hudson Bay. Ecological Journal of Applied Ecology 39:79–90. Applications 26:1302–1320. McLoughlin, P.D., Taylor, M.K., and Messier, Lunn, N. J., Stirling, I., and Andriashek, D. F. 2005. Conservation risks of male- 1995. Movements and distribution of selective harvest for mammals with low polar bears in the northeastern Beaufort reproductive potential. Journal of Wildlife Sea and M'Clure Strait. Final Report to Management 69:1592–1600. the Inuvialuit Wildlife Management Messier, F., Taylor, M.K., and Ramsay, M.A. Advisory Committee, Inuvik, Northwest 1992. Seasonal activity patterns of female Territories. Canadian Wildlife Service, polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 65 pp. Canadian Arctic as revealed by satellite Lunn, N. J., Stirling, I., Andriashek, D., and telemetry. Journal of Zoology, London Kolenosky, G.B. 1997. Re-estimating 226:219–229. the size of the polar bear population in Messier, F., Taylor, M.K., and Ramsay, M.A. Western Hudson Bay. Arctic 50:234–240. 1994. Denning ecology of polar bears in Lunn, N.J., Taylor, M., Calvert, W., Stirling, I., the Canadian Arctic archipelago. Journal Obbard, M., Elliot, C., Lamontagne, G., of Mammalogy 75:420–430. Schaeffer, J., Atkinson, S., Clark, D., Middel, K.R. 2013. Movement parameters and Bowden, E., and Doidge, B. 1998. Polar space use for the Southern Hudson Bay bear management in Canada 1993-1996. polar bear subpopulation in the face of a Pages 51–68 in Derocher, A.E., Garner, changing climate. M.Sc. thesis, Trent G.W., Lunn, N.J., and Wiig, Ø. (eds.) University, Peterborough, Ontario, Polar Bears: Proceedings of the Twelfth Working Canada. Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Molnár, P. K., Derocher, A.E., Klanjscek, T., Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, and Lewis, M.A. 2011. Predicting Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. climate change impacts on polar bear Malenfant, R.M., Davis, C.S., Cullingham, C.I., litter size. Nature Communications 2:186, and Coltman, D.W. 2016. Circumpolar DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1183. genetic structure and recent gene flow of Molnár, P.K., Derocher, A.E., Lewis, M.A., and polar bears: A reanalysis. PLoS ONE Taylor, M.K. 2008. Modelling the 11(3): e0148967. mating system of polar bears: a doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148967. mechanistic approach to the Allee effect. Markus, T., Stroeve, J.C., and Miller J. 2009. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275:217– Recent changes in Arctic sea ice melt 226. onset, freezeup, and melt season length. Molnár, P. K., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, Journal of Geophysical Research 114:C12024, G.W., and Lewis, M.A. 2010. Predicting doi:10.1029/2009JC005436. survival, reproduction and abundance of

16

polar bears under climate change. Planning Northern Parks and Protected areas Biological Conservation 143:1612–1622. Areas. Proceedings of the Parks Research Obbard, M.E. 2008. Southern Hudson Bay Forum of Ontario (PRFO) Annual General polar bear project 2003–2005: Final Meeting, May 4–6, 2004. Parks Research report. Unpublished report, Wildlife Forum of Ontario, Waterloo, Ontario, Research and Development Section, Canada. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ovsyanikov, N.G. 2010. Polar bear research Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, 64 pp. on Wrangel Island and in the Central Obbard, M.E., Cattet, M.R.L., Howe, E.J., Arctic Basin. Pages 171–178 in Obbard, Middel, K.R., Newton, E.J., Kolenosky, G.W., Thiemann, G.W., Peacock, E., and G.B., Abraham, K.F., and Greenwood, DeBruyn, T.D. (eds.) Polar Bears: C.J. 2016. Trends in body condition in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Working Meeting of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from the the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group. Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation in IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and relation to changes in sea ice. Arctic Cambridge, UK. Science 2:15–32. Ovsyanikov, N.G. 2012. Occurrence of family Obbard, M.E., Cattet, M.R.L., Moody, T., groups and litters size of polar bears on Walton, L.R., Potter, D., Inglis, J., and Wrangel Island in the autumns of 2004– Chenier, C. 2006. Temporal trends in 2010 as an indication of population the body condition of Southern Hudson status. In: Marine Mammals of the Bay polar bears. Climate Change Holarctic, Suzdal, 2012. Research Information Note, No. 3. Paetkau, D., Amstrup, S.C., Born, E.W., Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Calvert, W., Derocher, A.E., Garner, Applied Research and Development G.W., Messier, F., Stirling, I., Taylor, Branch, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, M.K., Wiig, Ø., and Strobeck, C. 1999. Canada, 8 pp. Genetic structure of the world's polar Obbard, M.E., McDonald, T.L., Howe, E.J., bear populations. Molecular Ecology Regehr, E.V., and Richardson, E.S. 2007. 8:1571–1584. Polar bear population status in southern Parovshivkov, V.Y. 1965. Present status of the Hudson Bay, Canada. U.S. Geological polar bear population of Franz Josef Survey Administrative Report, U.S. Land. Pages 237–242 in Marine Mammals. Department of the Interior, Reston, Nauka, Moscow. (In Russian). Virginia, USA, 34 pp. Peacock, E., Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., and Obbard, M.E., and Middel, K.R. 2012. Obbard, M.E. 2010. Polar bear ecology Bounding the Southern Hudson Bay and management in Hudson Bay in the polar bear subpopulation. Ursus 23:134– face of climate change. Pages 93–115 in 144. Ferguson, S.H., Loseto, L.L., and Obbard, M.E., Stapleton, S., Middel, K.R., Mallory, M.L. (eds.) A Little Less Arctic: Thibault, I., Brodeur, V., and Jutras, C. Top Predators in the World’s Largest Northern 2015. Estimating the abundance of the Inland Sea. Springer, New York. Southern Hudson Bay polar bear Peacock, E., Laake, J., Laidre, K.L., Born, E.W., subpopulation with aerial surveys. Polar and Atkinson, S.N. 2012. The utility of Biology 38:1713–1725. harvest recoveries of marked individuals Obbard, M.E., and Walton, L.R. 2004. The to assess polar bear (Ursus maritimus) importance of Polar Bear Provincial Park survival. Arctic 65:391–400. to the Southern Hudson Bay polar bear Peacock, E., Sonsthagen, S.A., Obbard, M.E., population in the context of future Boltunov, A., Regehr, E.V., Ovsyanikov, climate change. Pages 105–116 in N., Aars, J., Atkinson, S.N., Sage, G.K., Rehbein, C.K., Nelson, J.G., Beechey, Hope, A.G., Zeyl, E., Bachmann, L., T.J., and Payne, R.J. (eds.) Parks and Ehrich, D., Scribner, K.T., Amstrup, Protected Areas Research in Ontario, 2004: S.C., Belikov, S., Born, E.W., Derocher,

17

A.E., Stirling, I., Taylor, M.K., Wiig, Ø., populations: ice habitat, harvest, and Paetkau, D., and Talbot, S.L. 2015. body condition. Population Ecology 54:3– Implications of the circumpolar genetic 18. structure of polar bears for their Rode, K.D., Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D.C., conservation in a rapidly warming Arctic. Durner, G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, PLoS ONE 10(1): e112021. G.W., and Budge, S.M. 2014. Variation doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112021. in the response of an Arctic top predator Peacock, E., Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., and experiencing habitat loss: feeding and Stirling, I. 2013. Population ecology of reproductive ecology of two polar bear polar bears in Davis Strait, Canada and populations. Global Change Biology 20:76– Greenland. Journal of Wildlife Management 88. 77:463–476. Rode, K.D., Wilson, R.R., Regehr, E.V., St. Pertoldi,C., Sonne, C., Wiig, Ø., Baagøe, H.J., Martin, M., Douglas, D.C., and Olson, J. Loeschcke, V., and Bechshøft, T.Ø. 2015. Increased land use by Chukchi sea 2012. East Greenland and Barents Sea polar bears in relation to changing sea ice polar bears (Ursus maritimus): adaptive conditions. PLoS ONE 10(11): variation between two populations using e0142213. skull morphometrics as an indicator of doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142213. environmental and genetic differences. Rogers, M.C., Peacock, E., Simac, K., O'Dell, Hereditas 149:99–107. M.B., and Welker, J.M. 2015. Diet of Pongracz, J.D., and Derocher, A.E. 2016. female polar bears in the southern Summer refugia of polar bears (Ursus Beaufort Sea of Alaska: evidence for an maritimus) in the southern Beaufort Sea. emerging alternative foraging strategy in Polar Biology. doi:10.1007/s00300-016- response to environmental change. Polar 1997-8. Biology 38:1035–1047. Regehr, E.V., Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, I. Sahanatien, V., and Derocher, A.E. 2012. 2006. Polar bear population status in the Monitoring sea ice habitat fragmentation southern Beaufort Sea. U.S. Geological for polar bear conservation. Animal Survey Administrative Report, U.S. Conservation 15:397–406. Department of the Interior, Reston, Sahanatien, V., Peacock, E., and Derocher, Virginia, USA, 20 pp. A.E. 2015. Population substructure and Regehr, E.V., Hunter, C.M., Caswell, H., space use of Foxe Basin polar bears. Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, I. 2010. Ecology and Evolution 5:2851–2864. Survival and breeding of polar bears in Sandell, M., Sandell, B., Born, E.W., Dietz, R., the southern Beaufort Sea in relation to and Hansen, C.S. 2001. Isbjørne i sea ice. Journal of Animal Ecology 79:117– Østgrønland: En interviewundersøgelse 127. om forekomst og fangst, 1999 (Polar Regehr, E.V., Lunn, N.J., Amstrup, S.C., and bears in eastern Greenland: An interview Stirling, I. 2007. Effects of earlier sea ice survey about the ocurrence of polar bears breakup on survival and population size and the hunt, 1999) Greenland Institute of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. of Natural Resources. Technical Report Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2673– No. 40, 94 pp. (In Danish with English 2683. summary). Rode, K.D., Amstrup, S.C., and Regehr, E.V. Schweinsburg, R.E., Lee, L.J., and Latour, P.B. 2010. Reduced body size and cub 1982. Distribution, movement and recruitment in polar bears associated with abundance of polar bears in Lancaster sea ice decline. Ecological Applications Sound, Northwest Territories. Arctic 20:768−782. 35:159–169. Rode, K.D., Peacock, E., Taylor, M., Stirling, I., Sciullo, L., Thiemann, G.W., and Lunn, N.J. Born, E.W., Laidre, K.L., and Wiig, Ø. 2016. Comparative assessment of 2012. A tale of two polar bear metrics for monitoring the body

18

condition of polar bears in Western Stirling, I., Calvert, W., and Andriashek, D. Hudson Bay. Journal of Zoology 300:45–58. 1984. Polar bear ecology and Sou, T., and Flato G. 2009. Sea ice in the environmental considerations in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago: modeling Canadian High Arctic. Pages 201–222 in the past (1950-2004) and the future Olson, R., Geddes F., and Hastings, R. (2041-60). Journal of Climate 22:2181– (eds.) Northern Ecology and Resource 2198. Management. University of Alberta Press, Stapleton, S., Atkinson, S., Hedman, D., and Edmonton, Canada. Garshelis, D. 2014. Revisiting Western Stirling, I., and Derocher, A.E. 1993. Possible Hudson Bay: Using aerial surveys to impacts of climatic warming on polar update polar bear abundance in a sentinel bears. Arctic 46:240–245. population. Biological Conservation 170:38– Stirling, I., and Derocher, A.E. 2012. Effects 47. of climate warming on polar bears: a Stapleton, S., Peacock, E., and Garshelis, D. review of the evidence. Global Change 2016. Aerial surveys suggest long-term Biology 18:2694–2706. stability in the seasonally ice-free Foxe Stirling, I., and Kiliaan, H.P.L. 1980. Basin (Nunavut) polar bear population. Population ecology studies of the polar Marine Mammal Science 32:181–201. bear in northern Labrador. Canadian Stirling, I. 1997. The importance of polynas, Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 42, 21 ice edges and leads to marine mammals pp. and birds. Journal of Marine Systems 10:9– Stirling, I., Jonkel, C., Smith, P., Robertson, R., 21. and Cross, D. 1977. The ecology of the Stirling, I. 2002. Polar bears and seals in the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) along the eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen western coast of Hudson Bay. Canadian Gulf: A synthesis of population trends Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 33, 64 and ecological relationships over three pages. decades. Arctic 55:59–76. Stirling, I., Kingsley, M.C.S., and Calvert, W. Stirling, I., Andriashek, D., and Calvert, W. 1982. The distribution and abundance of 1993. Habitat preferences of polar bears seals in the eastern Beaufort Sea, 1974- in the western Canadian Arctic in late 79. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional winter and spring. Polar Record 29:13–24. Paper 47, 23 pp. Stirling, I., Andriashek, D., Latour, P.B., and Stirling, I., Lunn, N.J., and Iacozza, J. 1999. Calvert, W. 1975. The distribution and Long-term trends in the population abundance of polar bears in the eastern ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Beaufort Sea. Final Report to the Bay in relation to climatic change. Arctic Beaufort Sea Project. Fisheries and 52:294–306. Marine Service, Department of Stirling, I., Lunn, N.J., Iacozza, J., Elliott, C., Environment, Victoria, British and Obbard, M. 2004. Polar bear Columbia, Canada, 59 pp. distribution and abundance on the Stirling, I., Andriashek, D., Spencer, C., and Southwestern Hudson Bay Coast during Derocher, A.E. 1988. Assessment of the open water season, in relation to polar bear population in the eastern population trends and annual ice Beaufort Sea. Final Report to the patterns. Arctic 57:15–26. Northern Oil and Gas Assessment Stirling, I., McDonald, T.L., Richardson, E.S., Program. Canadian Wildlife Service, Regehr, E.V., and Amstrup, S.C. 2011. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 81 pp. Polar bear population status in the Stirling, I., Calvert, W., and Andriashek, D. Northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971– 1980. Population ecology studies of the 2006. Ecological Applications 21:859–876. polar bear in the area of southeastern Stirling, I., Schweinsburg, R.E., Calvert, W., and Baffin Island. Canadian Wildlife Service Killian, H.P.L. 1978. Population ecology Occasional Paper 44, 31 pp. studies of the polar bear along the

19

proposed Arctic Islands Gas Pipeline Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Route, Final Report. Environmental Cluff, H.D., and Messier, F. 2006a. Management Service, Department of Demographic parameters and harvest- Environment, Alberta, Canada, 93 pp. explicit population viability analysis for Stroeve, J.C., Markus, T., Boisvert, L., Miller, J., polar bears in M'Clintock Channel, and Barrett, A. 2014. Changes in Arctic Nunavut, Canada. Journal of Wildlife melt season and implications for sea ice Management 70:1667–1673. loss. Geophysical Research Letters Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., 41:1216−1225. Cluff, H.D., and Messier, F. 2008b. SWG [Scientific Working Group to the Mark-recapture and stochastic Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on population models for polar bears of the Polar Bear]. 2016. Re-Assessment of the high Arctic. Arctic 61:143–152. Baffin Bay and Kane Basin Polar Bear Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Subpopulations: Final Report to the Cluff, H.D., and Messier, F. 2009. Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on Demography and population viability of Polar Bear. 31 July 2016: x + 636 pp. polar bears in the Gulf of Boothia, Taylor, M., and Lee, J. 1995. Distribution and Nunavut. Marine Mammal Science 25:778– abundance of Canadian polar bear 796. populations: a management perspective. Taylor, M.K., Lee, J., Laake, J., and Arctic 48:147–154. McLoughlin, P.D. 2006b. Estimating Taylor, M.K., Akeeagok, S., Andriashek, D., population size of polar bears in Foxe Barbour, W., Born, E.W., Calvert, W., Basin, Nunavut using tetracycline Cluff, H.D., Ferguson, S., Laake, J., biomarkers. File Report, Department of Rosing-Asvid, A., Stirling, I., and Environment, Government of Nunavut, Messier, F. 2001. Delineating Canadian Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada, 13 pp. and Greenland polar bear (Ursus Uspenski, S.M. 1989. The Polar Bear. maritimus) populations by cluster analysis Agropromizdat, Moscow, USSR. (In of movements. Canadian Journal of Zoology Russian). 79:690–709. van Meurs, R., and Splettstoesser, J.F. 2003. Taylor, M.K., DeMaster, D.P., Bunnell, F.L., Farthest north polar bear. Arctic 56:309. and Schweinsburg, R.E. 1987. Modeling Welch, H.E., Bergmann, M.A., Siferd, T.D., the sustainable harvest of polar bears. Martin, K.A., Curtis, M.F., Crawford, Journal of Wildlife Management 51:811–820. R.E., Conover, R.J., and Hop, H. 1992. Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., Cluff, H.D., Ramsay, Energy-flow through the marine M., and Messier, F. 2002. Managing the ecosystem of the Lancaster Sound risk from hunting for the Viscount region, Arctic Canada. Arctic 45:343– Melville Sound polar bear population. 357. Ursus 13:185–202. Wiig, Ø. 1995. Distribution of polar bears Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., (Ursus maritimus) in the Svalbard area. Born, E.W., Cluff, H.D., Ferguson, S.H., Journal of Zoology 237:515– 529. Rosing-Asvid, A., Schweinsburg, R., and Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., and Garner, G.W. (eds.). Messier, F. 2005. Demography and 2010. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the Eleventh viability of a hunted population of polar Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar bears. Arctic 58:203–214. Bear Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Cluff, H.D., Born, E.W., Rosing-Asvid, Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., and Pedersen, L.T. 2003. A., and Messier, F. 2008a. Population Movements of female polar bears (Ursus parameters and harvest risks for polar maritimus) in the East Greenland pack ice. bears (Ursus maritimus) of Kane Basin, Polar Biology 26:509–516. Canada and Greenland. Polar Biology 31:491–499.

20

Wilson, R.R., Regehr, E.V., Rode, K.D., and St 283:20160380. Martin, M. 2016. Invariant polar bear http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.03 habitat selection during a period of sea 80. ice loss. Proceedings of the Royal Society B

21

Tables Table 1. Status table of world polar bear subpopulations. Subpopulation Sea ice metrics Human-caused removals: 2011-2015 trend Subpopulation size Change Relative Current in Change in 5-year mean Last year to (approx. summer spring ice historic 12-yr sea ice retreat/Change level period area 95% in fall ice Estimate Year Method (approx. centered (percent Potential Actual Potential Actual Subpopulation advance (days CI 25-yr on change per decade)1 past) present) per decade) Arctic Basin Unknown Data Data -3.2/8.0 -6.7 deficient deficient Baffin Bay 2826 2059- 2012- Genetic Not Data -7.3/5.2 -18.9 140 143 132 133 3593 2013 capture- reduced deficient recapture

Barents Sea 2644 1899- 2004 Distance Data Data -16.6/24.2 -16.0 N/A 1 N/A 1 3592 sampling deficient deficient Chukchi Sea Unknown Data Data -3.4/4.2 -18.8 58 29 58 9 (U.S.) deficient deficient (U.S.) + + approx. approx. 32 32 (Russia) (Russia)

Davis Strait 2158 1833- 2007 Physical Not Stable -7.7/9.7 -19.9 102 109 108 96 2542 capture- reduced recapture East Greenland Unknown Data Data -6.2/5.5 -6.5 62 63 64 65 deficient deficient

22

Table 1. Continued.

Comments, vulnerabilities, and concerns References Subpopulation

Arctic Basin

Baffin Bay Due to evidence that the sampling design and environmental conditions likely resulted in an underestimate of abundance in the 1990s, SWG 2016 the estimates of abundance for the 1990s and 2010s are not directly comparable and trend cannot be determined. Additionally, satellite telemetry analyses comparing the movements of adult females in the 1990s to the 2000s indicate reduced seasonal ranges, increased isolation, 30+ days more on land on Baffin Island in summer, reduced body condition, reduced cub recruitment with early sea ice break- up, and increased swimming. Barents Sea There has been no hunting since 1973. Recent habitat decline has led to late sea ice formation in autumn around some important Aars et al. 2009 denning habitat, in such years few females den in these areas. Chukchi Sea Indices of good body condition and recruitment during springtime research, although autumn observations suggest declining cub Belikov 1993; survival. Longer ice-free periods are increasing land use. Subsistence harvest is legal and monitored in US. Harvest remains illegal in Ovsyanikov Russia. Updated estimates of subpopulation size anticipated in 2017. 2012; Rode et al. 2014, 2015; Kochnev and Zdor 2016

Davis Strait Low recruitment rates may reflect negative effects of greater densities or worsening ice conditions Peacock e al. 2013

East Greenland Reduction in sea ice habitat quality has led to changes in habitat use based on telemetry analsyes. Laidre et al. 2015

23

Table 1. Continued. Subpopulation Sea ice metrics Human-caused removals: 2011-2015 trend Subpopulation size Change Relative Current in 5-year mean Last year Change in to (approx. summer spring ice historic 12-yr sea ice retreat/Change level period area 95% in fall ice Estimate Year Method (approx. centered (percent Potential Actual Potential Actual Subpopulation advance (days CI 25-yr on change per decade)1 past) present) per decade) Foxe Basin 2585 2096- 2009/10 Mark- Not Stable -5.3/5.8 -14.2 101.4 106.2 130 114 3189 recapture reduced Distance Sampling

Gulf of 1592 870- 2000 Physical Data Data -6.9/8.3 -12.2 63.4 60 74 67 Boothia 2314 capture- deficient deficient recapture

Kane Basin 357 221- 2013- Genetic Not Increasing -7.2/5.6 -12.2 11 5 11 5 493 2014 capture- reduced recapture

Kara Sea Unknown Data Data -9.2/7.6 -18.6 N/A N/A deficient deficient Lancaster 2541 1759- 1995- Physical Data Data -5.6/5.1 -7.7 92.8 86.6 89 80 Sound 3323 1997 capture- deficient deficient recapture Laptev Sea Unknown Data Data -8.2/6.5 -14.7 N/A N/A deficient deficient

24

Table 1. Continued.

Comments, vulnerabilities, and concerns References Subpopulation

Foxe Basin There are no estimates of vital rates. Harvest appears to be sustainable. Stapleton et al. 2012 ; Sahanatien and Derocher 2012; Sahanatien et al. 2015

Gulf of Boothia Ongoing population assessment Taylor et al. 2009; Barber and Iacozza 2004 Kane Basin More bears were documented in the eastern regions of the KB subpopulation area during 2012 – 2014 than during 1990s surveys which Taylor et al. may reflect differences in spatial distribution of bears, possibly influenced by reduced hunting pressure by Greenland in eastern KB, but 2008; SWG also some differences in sampling protocols between decades. Some caution should be taken in the interpretation of population growth. 2016 An additional estimate of abundance based on a springtime 2014 aerial survey in KB was 206 bears (95% lognormal CI: 83 - 510). Kara Sea There has been no legal hunting in the Kara Sea area since 1957. Amount of poaching unknown.

Lancaster Sound Demographic data are >15 years old. Selective hunting for males in the harvest decreased due to the US import ban and listing under the Taylor et al. US ESA. Increase in shipping activities. 2008

Laptev Sea There has been no hunting in the Laptev Sea since 1957. One of the main recent concerns is increasing uncontrolled activity of groups digging for mammoth ivory as well as military activity on the Novosibirsk Islands leading to high potential poaching

25

Table 1. Continued. Subpopulation Sea ice metrics Human-caused removals: 2011-2015 trend Subpopulation size Change Relative Current in 5-year mean Last year Change in to (approx. summer spring ice historic 12-yr sea ice retreat/Change level period area in fall ice 95% (approx. centered (percent Subpopulation Estimate Year Method advance (days Potential Actual Potential Actual CI 25-yr on change per decade)1 past) present) per decade) M'Clintock 284 166- 2000 Physical Data Data -3.9/5.8 -9.0 3.4 3.4 5 5 Channel 402 capture- deficient deficient recapture

Norwegian Bay 203 115- 1997 Physical Data Data -1.3/4.3 -2.3 4 2.2 4 1 291 capture- deficient deficient recapture

Northern 980 825- 2006 Physical Not Stable -5.8/3.3 -5.9 142.2 83.0 133.0 57.0 Beaufort Sea 1135 capture- reduced recapture

26

Table 1. Continued.

Comments, vulnerabilities, and concerns References Subpopulation

M'Clintock New reassessment of subpopulation began in 2014; potential for shipping activities. Population is currently managed for recovery with Taylor et al. Channel harvest below sustainable rates. 2006; Barber and Iacozza 2004 Norwegian Bay Initial PVA simulations resulted in population decline after 10 years, however vital rates from 2 populations were pooled for the Taylor et al. analyses. Projections of decline were also high because of small sample size. Current data are >15 years old; small population. 2008; Canadian Wildlife Service Nunavut Consultation Report 2009.

Northern Beaufort Potential and actual removals merged for NB and SB due to unresolved boundary. Stirling et al. Sea 2011; Stirling et al. 1988

27

Table 1. Continued. Subpopulation Sea ice metrics Human-caused removals: 2011-2015 trend Subpopulation size Change Relative Current in 5-year mean Last year Change in to (approx. summer spring ice historic 12-yr sea ice retreat/Change level period area in fall ice 95% (approx. centered (percent Subpopulation Estimate Year Method advance (days Potential Actual Potential Actual CI 25-yr on change per decade)1 past) present) per decade) Southern 907 548- 2010 Physical Reduced Declining -8.7/8.7 -20.5 Beaufort Sea 1270 capture- recapture

Southern 943 658- 2012 Mark- Not Stable -3.1/4.1 -11.4 60.2 58.8 45 43 Hudson Bay 1350 recapture Reduced Distance Sampling Viscount 161 93- 1992 Physical Data Data -4.7/7.4 -6.1 7.0 5.2 7.0 2.0 Melville Sound 229 capture- deficient deficient recapture

28

Table 1. Continued.

Comments, vulnerabilities, and concerns References Subpopulation

Southern Beaufort Potential and actual removals merged for NB and SB due to unresolved boundary. Concerns include declining body condition, periods Bromaghin et Sea of low survival, and growing reliance on land during summer. al. 2015; Rode et al. 2014; Atwood et al. 2016; Pongracz and Derocher 2016

Southern Hudson Declining body condition, declining survival rates Obbard et al. Bay 2015, 2016

Viscount Melville Low densities of ringed seals and polar bears were observed during capture-recapture programs (2012-2014). Field program to estimate Taylor et al. Sound abundance completed 2014, final report not yet available. 2002; Messier et al. 1992; Messier et al. 1994

29

Table 1. Continued. Subpopulation Sea ice metrics Human-caused removals: 2011-2015 trend Subpopulation size Change Relative Current in 5-year mean Last year Change in to (approx. summer spring ice historic 12-yr sea ice retreat/Change level period area in fall ice 95% (approx. centered (percent Subpopulation Estimate Year Method advance (days Potential Actual Potential Actual CI 25-yr on change per decade)1 past) present) per decade) Western 1030 754- 2011 Distance Reduced Stable -5.2/3.6 -16.3 25.0 24.8 28 28 Hudson Bay 1406 sampling

30

Table 1. Continued.

Comments, vulnerabilities, and concerns References Subpopulation

Western Hudson Concerns include harvest, declines in body condition, and lower productivity compared to adjacent FB and SH subpopulations. Decline Stirling et al. Bay in size of subpopulation from late 1980s through late 1990s/early 2000s was linked to reduced survival due to timing of sea ice breakup. 1999; Derocher Recent analysis indicated stability in subpopulation size from 2001-2010; a period during which there was no significant trend in timing et al. 2004; of sea ice breakup or freezeup. This analysis confirmed continued linkage between female survival and sea ice conditions. Regehr et al. 2007; Molnár et al. 2010, 2011; Stapleton et al. 2014; Lunn et al. 2016; Sciullo et al. 2016

31

Figures Fig. 1. Distribution of 19 polar bear subpopulations within the circumpolar Arctic. Also shown is the interim boundary (133º W) between the Southern Beaufort Sea and Northern Beaufort Sea subpopulations (i.e., SB/NB interim boundary).

32 Management on Polar Bears in Canada, 2009–2016 N.J. Lunn, Environment and Climate Change Canada, CW-405 Biological Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada M. Branigan, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, PO Box 2749, Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0, Canada K. Breton-Honeyman, Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board, PO Box 433, Inukjuak, QC J0M 1M0, Canada L. Carpenter, Wildlife Management Advisory Council (NWT), PO Box 2120, Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0, Canada M. Dyck, Department of Environment, PO Box 209, Igloolik, NU, X0A 0L0, Canada G. Gilbert, Makivik Corporation, 1111 Dr. Frederik-Philips Blvd., Saint Laurent, QC H4M 2X6, Canada J. Goudie, Nunatsiavut Government, PO Box 27, Postville, NL A0P 1N0, Canada D. Hedman, Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, PO Box 28, 59 Elizabeth Road, Thompson, MB R8N 1X4, Canada E. Keenan, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, PO Box 1379, Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0, Canada D. Lee, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, 75 Albert Street, Suite 1002, Ottawa, ON K1P 5E7, Canada A. Maher, Parks Canada Agency, PO Box 278, Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0, Canada R. Maraj, Department of Environment, PO Box 2703, Whitehorse, YT Y1A 2C6, Canada M.E. Obbard, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, DNA Building, Trent University, 2140 East Bank Drive, Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, Canada J. Pisapio, Wildlife Division, Department of Environment and Conservation, 15 Cherrywood Drive, PO Box 3014, Station B, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, NL A0P 1E0, Canada F. Pokiak, Inuvialuit Game Council, PO Box 2120, Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0, Canada L. Staples, Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope), PO Box 31539, Whitehorse, YT Y1A 6K8, Canada G. Szor, Direction de la gestion de la faune du Nord-du-Québec, Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (MFFP), 951, boul. Hamel, Chibougamau, QC G8P 2Z3, Canada

The management on polar bears in Canada, Polar Bear Technical Committee members and including the setting of hunting quotas, is the reviewed by the Polar Bear Administrative responsibility of the provincial and territorial Committee, summarizes the changes in the governments and the wildlife management management of polar bears in Canada that have boards, which have been set up under occurred since the 15th Working Meeting of the Aboriginal land claim agreements. The federal IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group Government of Canada provides national (PBSG) in 2009. Changes made prior to 2009 coordination and is the authority for are outlined in the Canadian management international agreements (e.g., Agreement on the reports included in the proceedings of previous Conservation of Polar Bears, CITES), national working meetings of the PBSG. A summary of legislation (e.g., Species at Risk Act, Wild Animal the regulations covering polar bear and Plant Protection and Regulation of International management in Canada, as of 31 December and Interprovincial Trade Act), and the protection 2015, is presented in Table 1. of natural heritage (e.g., National Parks, National Park Reserves). This report, compiled by the Canadian

33

National Oversight Committees Polar Bear Technical Committee (PBTC) Given the shared responsibilities among jurisdictions, wildlife management boards, and The PBTC is composed of individuals who Aboriginal groups, it is important that Canada have scientific or traditional knowledge of polar has robust mechanisms to coordinate and bear biology and habitat and are appointed by ensure complementary actions while respecting the jurisdictions, management boards, or each other’s areas of responsibility as agencies that have legal responsibility for polar prescribed by legislation and/or agreements. bear management in Canada. The PBTC meets Three national committees provide oversight of annually to review scientific and traditional polar bear management in Canada. knowledge necessary to meet defined management needs in support of Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Directors’ national and international conservation Committee (CWDC) responsibilities under the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. The PBTC helps The CWDC is composed of the wildlife facilitate coordination of research activities directors representing all 14 jurisdictions with among all Canadian jurisdictions that have responsibility for wildlife conservation in polar bears, as well as Alaska and Greenland for Canada. The role of the CWDC is to provide those subpopulations that are shared with leadership in the development and Canada. The PBTC provides technical advice coordination of policies, strategies, programs and recommendations to PBAC, as required, and activities that address wildlife issues of on (1) design, collaboration, and conduct of national concern and contribute to the polar bear research in Canada; (2) harvest and conservation of biodiversity, and to provide population trends; and, (3) the need for advice and support to appropriate Deputies’ management actions. and Ministers’ Councils on these matters. Working within the CWDC (1) facilitates Status Report On Polar Bear a harmonized approach to national programs Subpopulations Within and affecting wildlife; (2) provides a forum for the development of national policy frameworks; (3) Shared By Canada facilitates the development of national strategies affecting wildlife; and, (4) promotes The status of the 13 polar bear subpopulations co-operative management and information that lie either within Canada’s borders or are sharing among wildlife agencies in Canada. shared with Greenland and Alaska (Fig. 1, Table 2) is determined by multiple lines of evidence including the number of individuals in Polar Bear Administrative the subpopulation, the rates of birth and death Committee (PBAC) (if available), and the rate at which animals are harvested. In addition to science-based The PBAC is composed of wildlife managers research, the assessment and designated status and directors who represent jurisdictions, of Canada’s polar bear subpopulations is also management boards, or agencies that have legal informed by local and traditional knowledge. responsibility for polar bear management in Subpopulation boundaries were initially Canada. The Committee provides a forum for proposed based on barriers to movements, provincial, territorial, and federal management reconnaissance surveys, traditional knowledge, authorities to work together to manage polar and partly on management considerations bears in Canada and to ensure that Canada (Taylor and Lee 1995). Past revisions to the fulfills its obligations as a party to the Agreement initial boundaries have occurred following on the Conservation of Polar Bears, as well as any reviews of the movements of individuals other agreement involving polar bears. determined from mark-recapture studies, mark- kill data, and VHF and satellite telemetry (e.g.,

34

Taylor et al. 2001, Amstrup et al. 2004, 2005). during the months of July and August, causing The current status report was developed by the an increase in staffing and patrol coverage. The PBTC based on discussions held at the objectives of the PBA are: 1) to ensure the Committee’s 2016 meeting in Whitehorse, safety of people and protection of property Yukon. from damage by polar bears, and (2) to ensure that polar bears are not unnecessary harassed or Polar Bear Kills by Jurisdiction killed.

Table 3 summarizes the annual quotas and total Newfoundland and Labrador known human-caused mortality from management years 2008/09 through 2014/15 In December 2005, the Nunatsiavut by subpopulation. Table 4 summarizes the total Government was established to represent the known number of polar bears killed by humans residents of the Labrador Inuit Settlement within or shared with Canada by subpopulation Area, which was created by the signing of the and jurisdiction. Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement (LILCA) in January 2005. Management authority for polar bears will continue to reside with the Province Management Changes and of Newfoundland and Labrador, but is Reports inclusive of considerable input and solicitation from Nunatsiavut Government (NG), the Provincial and Territorial Torngat Wildlife and Plant Co-Management Jurisdictions Board, and Parks Canada. The province issues licences, establishes quotas, seasons and Manitoba management areas pursuant to Sections 39 and 114 of the Wildlife Regulations and the annual Management changes relating to polar bears Polar Bear Hunting Order. Pursuant to section within Manitoba include increased surveys 12.3.6 of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims within the Kaskatamagan Denning Region Agreement, Inuit have exclusive right to harvest Wildlife Management Area, east of the Nelson the total allowable harvest established by the River. A three-year den emergence survey was province. The total harvest allocation for polar completed in March of 2016. There have also bears is currently 13 animals from the Davis been changes to Wildlife Management Area Strait (DS) subpopulation. (WMA) Use permits both within the Churchill In July 2006, the provincial and and Kaskatamagan WMAs. Changes have been Nunatsiavut governments released a 5-year made to minimize and mitigate human/polar management plan for polar bears, which was a bear encounters to all lodges and operators requirement of the species being listed as along the Hudson Bay coastline of Manitoba. Vulnerable by the province under its Endangered Manitoba Sustainable Development continues Species Act in 2002. The goal of the to work with the Leatherdale International management plan is to maintain and enhance Polar Bear Conservation Center on research the sustainability of the DS polar bear projects relating to the conservation and subpopulation through appropriate species and management of polar bears of the western habitat management initiatives within Hudson Bay. Newfoundland and Labrador. To achieve that Coastal surveys have been completed goal, a series of objectives have been identified each year since 2009. A September survey has including equitable Labrador Inuit hunting been completed every year, with periodical access, continued cooperation, habitat August and November surveys also being done. protection, a better understanding of The annual Polar Bear Alert Program distribution and population numbers of polar (PBA) for Churchill and surrounding control bears, threat assessment, and management and zones continues each fall. Polar bear development of education and stewardship occurrences have increased in the last 5 years programs. A new/updated Polar Bear

35

Management Plan is currently being drafted by bears (Amstrup et al. 2004, 2005) has resulted in the Province and the Nunatsiavut Government a shift of the management boundary between and is to be completed in 2016. This plan will the SB and the NB subpopulations further to provide updated direction and information on the west to 133°W. Further analysis was polar bear management, science findings and conducted (Griswold et al. 2010) to determine requirements, and Aboriginal traditional the population shift as a result of the boundary knowledge for a five-year period. change. The subpopulation estimates were subsequently updated and the Total Allowable Inuvialuit Settlement Region (Northwest Harvests adjusted based on the new estimates Territories [NWT] and Yukon Territory) through the ISR co-management system. No other changes have occurred since Polar bears in the NWT and Yukon are found the last PBSG meeting. exclusively in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) and are collaboratively managed under Nunavut the co-management framework set out in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. The legislative Nunavut together with its management framework for polar bears in the ISR includes partners completed inventories that have the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Settlement Act, new resulted in new abundance estimates for the FB NWT Wildlife Act, the Yukon Wildlife Act, the subpopulation in 2010, and the WH Canada National Parks Act and the federal and subpopulations in 2011. Field programs have NWT Species at Risk Acts (SAR). All partners been completed for both Baffin Bay (BB) and are working together to develop an ISR Kane Basin (KB) subpopulations, which are management plan for polar bears. The expected to provide new abundance estimates objective is to then adopt this ISR wide plan in summer 2016. In 2014 and 2015, 3-year field under the federal and NWT SARs as polar programs were initiated to update bears were listed as Special Concern under the subpopulation inventories for M’Clintock Acts (2011 and 2014 respectively). Channel (MC) and Gulf of Boothia (GB) Recently NWT and Yukon developed an subpopulations, respectively. Both studies are administrative agreement to recognize an ISR- using genetic mark-recapture techniques. wide Southern Beaufort Sea (SB) polar bear tag The Nunavut Land Claim Agreement that can be used in both the NWT and Yukon (NLCA) recognizes that certain populations of portions of the SB subpopulation range. wildlife found in the Nunavut Settlement Area The Inuvialuit continue to ensure (NSA) cross jurisdictional boundaries and are cooperation and cooperative management of harvested outside the NSA by persons resident shared subpopulations of polar bears through elsewhere and therefore requires that the the two user-to-user agreements in place. The Government of Nunavut (GN) and the first agreement, between the Inupiat of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board Alaskan North Slope and Inuvialuit originally (NWMB) take into account the harvesting signed in 1988, was updated in 2011. The activities outside the NSA and the terms of second user-to-user agreement, signed in 2006 domestic inter-jurisdictional agreements or with Inuit of the Kitikmeot West region in international agreements pertaining to wildlife. Nunavut, continues to ensure communication Nunavut continues to take an active role, via and coordination for the management of the the PBAC, in the development of inter- Northern Beaufort Sea (NB) and Viscount jurisdictional agreements with territorial and Melville Sound (VM) subpopulations. provincial jurisdictions that share polar bear Results from mark-recapture estimates subpopulations with Nunavut (DS, NB, completed in 2006 indicate the SB Southern Hudson Bay [SH], VM, WH). subpopulation is likely declining (Regehr et al. Since the last PBSG report there have 2006) while the NB subpopulation is likely been changes to Total Allowable Harvest stable (Stirling et al. 2011). Information (TAH) for a number of subpopulations. In provided by analysis of movements of collared 2010/11, the TAH for the BB subpopulation

36

was decreased by 10 animals per year for a four- Polar Bear- Human Conflict Program – year period resulting in a reduction from 105 to Conflict between people and polar bears 95, 85, 75, and 65 for the 2010/11, 2011/12, continues to increase and is a major concern in 2012/13, and 2013/14, respectively. The Nunavut because of damage to property, results of a recent population inventory are threats to public safety and the number of expected in summer 2016 and will support a re- defence kills. Improving polar bear deterrent assessment of the TAH for 2016/17. In activities, reducing bear attractants, and 2012/13, the TAH for the DS subpopulation reducing the potential for conflict have been was increased from 46 to 61 animals per year. identified as priorities in GN Department of In 2014/15, the TAH for the FB subpopulation Environment (DoE) business strategies. The was increased from 106 to 123 animals per year, polar bear-human conflict program includes: which will be re-assessed following completion community-based polar bear-human conflict of a survey that is tentatively planned for reduction operational plans, testing the 2017/18. At the end of a 5-year moratorium on effectiveness of deterrents methods (e.g., harvesting from the MC subpopulation, which electric fences to protect meat caches), a ended in 2003/04, communities received a Prevention and Compensation Program that TAH of 3 animals per year in order to manage assists individuals and groups to access the subpopulation for recovery. In 2015/16, deterrents and equipment to make their camps the TAH for the MC subpopulation was and communities more “bear-proof” and increased from 3 to 12 animals per year. In provides compensation for property damaged 2011/12, the TAH for the WH subpopulation by bears, and public education. was increased from 8 to 21 animals and, The GN strategy for reducing polar bear- following completion of the WH aerial survey human conflicts in Nunavut is multi-facetted. in early 2012, further increased to 24 animals The program is coordinated by the Wildlife per year for a 3-year period. The TAH from the Deterrent Specialist but relies on collaboration WH subpopulation was further increased to 28 and strives for innovation to find practical animals in 2015/16 and will be revisited after approaches that can be implemented in the completion of an aerial survey of WH and communities with limited resources. SH to be conducted in 2016. Conservation Officers are on the frontline and work closely with residents, hunter and trapper Nunavut Polar Bear Management Plan – In organisations/associations (i.e., HTO/HTAs), 2013, a working group consisting of communities, DoE Research staff, other GN representatives from Nunavut Tunngavik’s departments, external researchers and non- Wildlife and Environmental Advisory governmental organisations (i.e., NGOs). Polar Committee (which includes Chairs and Co- bear guards are hired to conduct safety patrols chairs of the three Regional Wildlife in communities with high levels of polar bear Organizations) and the Government of presence. DoE partnered with Parks Canada Nunavut began drafting an outline of a new co- and WWF to develop a Polar Bear Guard management plan, and how to engage the Training Standard (2013) for DoE polar bear public in this process. Community guards. New approaches to encourage polar consultations on this initial outline and bears to move around and away from framework occurred in all 25 Nunavut communities will continue to be tested, for communities in spring 2014, which resulted in example, Arviat has been using diversionary a revised version that was subsequently lure stations since 2013 that have reduced bear discussed with Regional Wildlife Organizations activity. Nunavut has been an active member in summer 2014. A final version of the plan of the Range States Polar Bear Conflict was submitted to the NWMB in June 2015 and Working Group (CWG) since its inception in a written public hearing was held that ended in 2009. All Nunavut polar bear conflict December 2015. The GN is currently occurrences are being entered into the Polar reviewing all comments; a revised plan will be Bear Human Information Management System re-submitted to the NWMB for consideration. (PBHIMS) as a CWG project and excellent

37

system for managing Nunavut conflict data. a species referred to in These data will be analysed and reported on in subclause (i); or 2017. The Nunavut Polar Bear – Human (c) sell, lease, trade or offer to sell, lease Conflict Program will begin research activities or trade anything that the person (2016) to understand the causes of the represents to be a thing described in increasing and higher levels of polar bear subclause (b) (i), (ii) or (iii). conflict occurrences in some parts of the Clause 9 (1) (b) does not apply to a territory. member of a species that originated outside Ontario if it was lawfully killed, captured or Ontario taken in the jurisdiction from which it originated. In September 2009, the polar bear was Polar bear habitat in Ontario also designated as a threatened species under receives protection under section 10 of the Ontario’s Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA), ESA, which states that no person shall damage following an assessment and designation by the or destroy the habitat of: Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in (a) a species that is listed on the Species Ontario (COSSARO). This decision was based at Risk in Ontario List as an on trends in the SH subpopulation (Obbard et endangered or threatened species. al. 2006, 2007), on trends in the neighbouring Section 17 of the ESA outlines four WH subpopulation (Regehr et al. 2007), and on types of permits that the Minister of Natural trends in sea ice (Amstrup et al. 2007). Resources and Forestry may issue to authorize Immediately upon being listed as threatened on potential contraventions of sections 9 and/or the Species at Risk in Ontario List in 2009, both 10 of the Act in specific circumstances. the polar bear and its habitat in the province The ESA also acknowledges existing received automatic protection under Ontario’s Aboriginal and Treaty rights of Aboriginal ESA. peoples of Canada as recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and Protection under the Endangered Species specifies that “nothing in this Act shall be Act, 2007 – Polar bears in Ontario receive construed so as to abrogate or derogate from species protection under section 9 of the ESA, the protection provided” for these rights. which states that no person shall: (a) kill, harm, capture or take a living Recovery Documents under the member of a species that is listed on Endangered Species Act, 2007 – For species the Species at Risk in Ontario List as listed as threatened under the ESA, a recovery an extirpated, endangered or strategy must be developed within two years of threatened species; the status designation. A recovery team, led by (b) possess, transport, collect, buy, sell, external consultants, was established that lease, trade or offer to buy, sell, lease included members of First Nations or trade, communities that harvest polar bears, polar (i) a living or dead member bear experts, and Ministry staff. Developing of a species that is listed the recovery strategy included consultation with on the Species at Risk in First Nations communities. A recovery strategy Ontario List as an (Tonge and Pulfer 2011) was finalized in extirpated, endangered December 2011 and provides scientific advice or threatened species, to government on the biological needs of the (ii) any part of a living or species and the suggested approaches to dead member of a support recovery. species referred to in Following completion of the recovery subclause (i), strategy, Ontario has developed a draft species- (iii) anything derived from a specific policy that outlines the protection and living or dead member of recovery actions the government will lead and

38

support for polar bear. The Ministry took attached. additional time to prepare the species-specific Several changes occurred in Québec policy for polar bear in order to consider all since the previous report in 2009, including the recommendations provided in the recovery official designation of the polar bear as a strategy, advice provided by stakeholders, “vulnerable” species, in October 2009, under complexities associated with the species, and the “Loi sur les espèces menacéess ou additional jurisdictional, scientific and vulnérables du Québec” (i.e., “Laws on the economic information. In April 2016, Ontario threatened or vulnerable species of Québec”). posted the draft government response Two new wildlife management boards have statement for the polar bear on the province’s also been created – the Nunavik Marine Region Environmental Registry (Ontario 2016) and will Wildlife Board (NMRWB) and the Eeyou be considering comments received by June 13, Marine Region Wildlife Board (EMRWB). 2016 from the public, stakeholders, and These boards are responsible for wildlife indigenous communities and organizations as management in the offshore area adjacent to the policy is finalized. Québec, and make decisions regarding polar Ontario's government response bear management in the Nunavik Marine statement on polar bear will contribute to the Region and the Eeyou Marine Region, national management plan for polar bear. The respectively. It is the responsibility of the Ontario government is also taking steps to Government of Canada and the Government mitigate the impacts of climate change through of Nunavut to implement the management the development of the Climate Change decisions of the two boards. Strategy released in 2015 and the development While there is still no mandatory of a provincial cap and trade program. Ontario reporting of polar bear harvested by Nunavik continues to lead and support efforts to Inuit and Cree of the Eeyou Istchee, several increase our knowledge of polar bear through inter-jurisdictional initiatives have been collaborative monitoring and research implemented during the 2009–2016 period with initiatives, through aerial surveys that monitor the objective to better coordinate management trends in abundance, and by supporting the and conservation efforts of the various development of community-based monitoring authorities. In September 2011, Inuit and Cree programs. organizations and wildlife management boards, as well as governments involved in the Québec management of the SH polar bear subpopulation met in Inukjuak, QC; this led to Under the James Bay and Northern Québec a consensus on establishing a temporary Agreement (JBNQA) of 1975, the taking of voluntary limit to the SH polar bear take (60 polar bears is restricted to Aboriginal peoples, bears, including subsistence hunting and to protect the traditional subsistence harvesting defense kills) shared between the Nunavik Inuit rights of northern Québec natives. In law, (26), the Crees of Eeyou Istchee (4), the Inuit provisions have been made to ensure the Inuit of Nunavut (25) and the coastal Cree Nations of Nunavik and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee have of Ontario (5). Following a new population exclusive access to an agreed level of harvest estimate of 951 bears, derived from data from (Guaranteed Harvest Level - GHL), subject to an aerial survey conducted in 2011 and 2012, a the principles of conservation, before any sport new meeting was held in September 2014 and or commercial activity would be permitted. Set consensus was again reached to reduce the at 62 polar bears per year for the entire region voluntary limit to the annual take of the SH to (58 for Inuit, 4 for Cree), this level of harvest is 45 bears (22 for Nunavik Inuit; 20 for Nunavut based on the recorded subsistence take during Inuit; 3 in total for Ontario and Quebec Cree - 1976–1980. Under present legislation, sport with alternating division per harvest season hunting is not permitted and polar bears may starting with 1 for the Quebec Cree and 2 for only be harvested for subsistence use. The hide the Ontario Cree). Recently, the NMRWB and may be sold if a provincial tag is obtained and the EMRWB have submitted final decisions for

39

the establishment of a Total Allowable Take Northern Québec Agreement (JBNQA); it is a (TAT) and Non-quota Limitations, pursuant to non-profit organization owned by the Inuit of the terms of their respective Land Claims Nunavik. While the Hunting, Fishing and Agreements, to the ministers (federal and Trapping Coordinating Committee is, in the Nunavut) for approval; a response to these words of the JBNQA, "the preferential and decisions is expected shortly. A new aerial exclusive forum for Native people and survey will be conducted in September 2016 to governments jointly to formulate regulations estimate the size of the SH subpopulation. and supervise the administration and In May 2015, Inuit representatives from management of the Hunting, Fishing and Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, and Nunavik met in Trapping Regime", Makivik is the recognized Montreal to discuss the management of polar Inuit Party to the Agreement. Makivik’s central bears for the DS subpopulation. This meeting mandate is the protection of the integrity of the took place as a response to a proposed joint JBNQA, and focuses on the political, social, public hearing process between the wildlife co- and economic development of the Nunavik management boards for each region (yet to be region. realized), whereby the outcomes of the meeting would be used as a joint submission by the three Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board Inuit regions to the public hearing process. The (NMRWB) NMRWB has been discussing a coordinated public hearing process with the Torngat With the Nunavik Inuit Land Claim Agreement Wildlife, Plants and Fisheries Secretariat to (NILCA) coming into force in 2008, the consider establishing a TAT for the DS NMRWB has been established as the main subpopulation. The hearing is anticipated to instrument of wildlife management within the take place in early 2017. Nunavik Marine Region (NMR). The Nunavik Lastly, in response to multiple concerns Marine Region is defined within the NILCA raised by the international community related to and encompasses all the marine areas, islands, the sustainability of the Canadian polar bear lands and waters from the Nunavut Territory harvest and the lack of a regulated harvest that are within a defined boundary from management regime in Québec, the federal Quebec’s coastline. Considering that most of Minister of the Environment requested the the polar bear harvest by Nunavik Inuit occurs NMRWB, in 2012, to establish a management on the sea ice within the NMR, the NMRWB is regime, including a TAT for the three sub- highly involved in the management of polar populations of polar bear that occur in the bear harvest in Québec. Established pursuant Nunavik Marine Region. Given the to Section 5 of the NILCA, the responsibilities distribution of polar bears and the jurisdictional of the NMRWB include, among others, complexities of Northern Quebec, it was establishing, modifying or removing levels of desirable and practical to have a single total allowable take and non-quota limitations, management plan that applies to both the ascertaining and adjusting the total allowable onshore portion of Quebec and its adjacent take to the basic needs level of Nunavik Inuit, marine regions (the Nunavik Marine Region as well as cooperating with, and providing and the Eeyou Marine Region); such a plan is advice to, any other management institutions currently being developed. on all matters relating to the management, conservation, protection and regulation of Management Boards and Aboriginal wildlife habitat and wildlife species that are Groups harvested in the NMR. The relevant Federal or Territorial (Nunavut) Ministers, however, Makivik Hunting, Fishing and Trapping maintain ultimate authority. Coordinating Committee

Makivik Corporation was created in 1978 pursuant to the signing of the James Bay and

40

Eeyou Marine Region Wildlife Board appointed by the Inuvialuit Game Council, one (EMRWB) appointed by the federal Minister of Environment, one appointed by the Yukon The EMRWB was established in 2010 Territorial Government, and an independent following the signing of the Eeyou Marine chairperson appointed by the Yukon Region Land Claims Agreement (EMRLCA) Government with the consent of the Inuvialuit and becomes the main instrument of wildlife and Canada. management within the Eeyou Marine Region WMAC (NS)’s mandate is to conserve (EMR), which mainly includes the islands and and protect wildlife, habitat, and traditional waters of eastern James Bay and a portion of Inuvialuit use within the Yukon North Slope eastern Hudson Bay. Responsibilities of the portion of the ISR – an area in the Yukon north EMRWB are similar to those described for the of the height of land that lies between the NMRWB and the relevant Federal or Territorial Alaska and NWT borders and inclusive of the (Nunavut) Ministers also maintain ultimate adjacent nearshore and offshore waters. The authority. Council provides advice to the appropriate ministers on all matters relating to wildlife Nunavut Wildlife Management Board policy and the management, regulation, and (NWMB) administration of wildlife, habitat and harvesting for the Yukon North Slope. The Through a delegation of authority from the Council also provides guidance to a number of federal government, ultimate responsibility for boards and councils in the region; recommends the management of polar bears in Nunavut lies quotas for Inuvialuit game harvesting on the with the Government of Nunavut, as Yukon North Slope; and recommends represented by the Minister of Environment. measures to protect critical habitat for wildlife However, this responsibility is subject to the or harvesting purposes. terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) which established a system of ‘co- Wildlife Management Advisory Council management’ for wildlife. Under the NLCA, (NWT) the Minister’s decision-making authority for wildlife management is shared with the NWMB The Wildlife Management Advisory Council and is subject to strict requirements for (NWT) [WMAC (NWT)] was also created in consultation with Regional Wildlife 1988 under the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Organizations and community-based Hunters Settlement Act, ultimately the result of the 1984 and Trappers Organizations. The NWMB is an Inuvialuit Final Agreement. The WMAC institution of public government whose board (NWT) consists of three members appointed members are appointed in equal numbers by by the Inuvialuit, two members appointed by government and Inuit organizations. The the Government of the Northwest Territories, NWMB is the main instrument of wildlife one member appointed by the Government of management and the main regulator of access Canada, and a Chair. The Chair is appointed by to wildlife – including polar bears – in the the Government of the Northwest Territories Nunavut Settlement Area. with the consent of the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada. Wildlife Management Advisory Council The Council’s jurisdiction is that part of (North Slope) the Inuvialuit Settlement Region (ISR) within the Northwest Territories, including the The Wildlife Management Advisory Council adjacent near shore and offshore waters. The (North Slope) [WMAC (NS)] was created in Council’s mandate is to advise appropriate 1988 under the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) ministers on all matters relating to wildlife Settlement Act, ultimately the result of the 1984 policy and the management, regulation, Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA). The Council research, enforcement, and administration of is comprised of five members: two members wildlife, habitat, and harvesting for the Western

41

Arctic Region, within the NWT. It is the internationally-shared polar bear responsibility of the Council to prepare subpopulations. Moreover, effective conservation and management plans, and to management of all Canadian polar bear determine and recommend harvestable quotas. subpopulations is a responsibility under the The Council also reviews and advises the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. appropriate governments on existing or proposed wildlife legislation and on any CITES proposed Canadian position for international purposes that would affect wildlife in the During the 27th meeting of the CITES Animals Western Arctic Region. Committee (2014), the Committee decided to All harvest of polar bears in the NWT review the sustainability of trade in polar bears occurs within the ISR. Within the NWT under its Significant Trade Review process. portion of the ISR, the Council is the primary Canada, as the only polar bear range State that vehicle for wildlife management. The Council allows commercial trade, provided detailed makes recommendations for any management information to the Animals Committee on its changes within the ISR, including quotas, to the sustainable management of harvest and trade to NWT Minister of Environment and Natural support removal from the Significant Trade Resources. Review. The Animals Committee concluded its review at the 28th CITES Animals Committee Inuvialuit Game Council meeting in September 2015 with the removal of polar bear from the Review. The Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) represents Following consultations with responsible the collective Inuvialuit interest in wildlife. The jurisdictions, wildlife management boards, Inuit IGC is made up of representatives appointed wildlife organizations, and other stakeholders, from each of the six community Hunters and Environment Canada’s CITES Scientific Trappers Committees. Among its Authority completed the Polar Bear Non- responsibilities are: appointing Inuvialuit Detriment Finding (NDF) Report in December representatives to the IFA co-management 2009 and updated the information in the report boards and other boards as appropriate; in 2015. The export of legally-harvested polar advising the Wildlife Management Advisory bears from Canada is considered non- Councils (NWT and North Slope) on policy, detrimental with no export of bears from the legislation, regulation and administration Baffin Bay management unit. respecting wildlife, conservation, research, management and enforcement; advising the Management of Shared Subpopulations appropriate governments on existing or proposed wildlife legislation; advising the Polar bear management in Canada is a government on any proposed Canadian collaborative effort among the federal, position for international purposes that affects provincial and territorial governments and the wildlife in the ISR; and allocating harvest quotas Wildlife Management Boards, which were among the six ISR communities. established under the various Land Claims Agreements. Although there are few formal Federal Government mechanisms for the joint management of polar bear subpopulations in Canada, there is a Within Environment and Climate Change history of collaboration between jurisdictions Canada, polar bear management is conducted and Indigenous groups on cooperative primarily by the Canadian Wildlife Service approaches to management of shared polar (CWS). Canada is signatory to memoranda of bear subpopulations. Interjurisdictional understanding with the Governments of the cooperation is particularly important for shared United States (2008), and Nunavut and subpopulations in the eastern Arctic – DS, FB, Greenland (2009) with respect to the and SH due to the number of jurisdictions, conservation and management of management boards, and wildlife organizations

42

involved. Where hunting is permitted and a The SARA management plan is expected to be quota system is in place, the decision-making posted in December 2018, at which time the process is open and considers advice provided majority of provincial/territorial plans are by a multitude of stakeholders and interested expected to have been completed. parties, including governments, technical Under SARA, the Committee on the experts (scientists and indigenous peoples) and Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada non-government organizations. Regardless of (COSEWIC) must review the classification of the process, these groups recognize that advice each species at risk at least once every 10 years, regarding harvest levels should be based on the or at any time if it has reason to believe that the best information, including both science and status of the species has changed significantly. traditional knowledge, and should include The last status update and assessment of polar direct input from users that harvest polar bears. bears occurred in 2008 (COSEWIC 2008). In 2015, COSEWIC began the process of re- National Conservation Strategy assessing the status of polar bears in Canada by commissioning the preparation of a status The National Conservation Strategy is a high- report that contains the best available level document that illustrates, strengthens and information on the biology of the species formalizes the existing polar bear management including scientific knowledge, community system in Canada. It seeks to identify current knowledge, and indigenous knowledge. This and emerging challenges to polar bear status report forms the basis for a species conservation and facilitate future conservation assessment and status designation by initiatives. The Strategy is intended to be an COSEWIC – the final report is expected umbrella document under which the detailed February 2018. provincial/territorial management plans and inter-jurisdictional agreements will be included. Wildlife Enforcement It was finalized and approved by provincial/territorial jurisdictions and wildlife ECCC officials from the Enforcement management boards in 2011. Branch’s Wildlife Enforcement Directorate, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Science & Species at Risk Act/COSEWIC Technology Branch are collaborating with the provinces, territories, and Indigenous In November 2011, after extended governments and organizations to implement a consultations with provincial/territorial new approach to tracking polar bear hides in jurisdictions, wildlife management boards, and trade. The new “3-Pronged Approach” the public, Canada listed the polar bear as a capitalizes on existing and emerging species of Special Concern under the federal technologies to enhance the traceability of polar Species at Risk Act (SARA). Under this listing, bear hides. Consisting of DNA and Stable ECCC is required to prepare a management Isotope analyses of samples combined with plan for the species. Due to the complexities of inserting PIT tags (encrypted microchips) into polar bear management in Canada, there have the hides, the approach will strengthen been some delays in the completion of the plan. identification and verification capabilities, in ECCC has been working with members of the support of species conservation and legal trade. Polar Bear Administrative Committee and Implementation of the “3-Pronged Approach” other representatives of the relevant started in 2015, with progressive expansion to jurisdictions to prepare a SARA-compliant additional Canadian polar bear jurisdictions management plan that incorporates planned over the coming years. provincial/territorial management plans currently under development. The National Parks Canada Agency Conservation Strategy will act as the federal contribution and umbrella document that will The Parks Canada Agency is responsible for the link the provincial and territorial plans together. management of Canada’s system of protected

43

heritage areas, including national parks and National Park only) for personal protection and national historic sites. Parks Canada’s primary protection of clients in a commercial setting. and legislated mandate is to maintain or restore Parks Canada is collaborating with other ecological integrity of the national parks (Parks government and non-government partners to Canada Guiding Principles and Operational increase the availability of polar bear guard Procedures (Parks Canada 1994), Canada services in communities adjacent to national National Parks Act (S.C. 2000, as amended)). parks and across Canada's north. Polar bear There are currently nine national parks that safety plans and operational procedures are in regularly contain polar bears: Ivvavik in the place or being developed for the Yukon; Aulavik in the NWT; Auyuittuq, aforementioned national parks. Parks Canada Qausuittuq, Quttinirpaaq, Sirmilik and is participating in development of jurisdictional Ukkusiksalik in Nunavut; Wapusk in Manitoba; management plans. and, Torngat Mountains in Labrador. Parks Canada’s interest in conservation International of polar bears and their habitat comes from its ecological integrity mandate and policies of Polar Bear Range States ecosystem-based management and inter- jurisdictional cooperation. Parks Canada The representatives to the Parties that are contributes to sustaining polar bear populations signatory to the 1973 Agreement on the by protecting important habitats such as Conservation of Polar Bears (the Range States: maternal denning and coastal summer retreat Norway, Canada, Greenland, the Russian areas. Parks Canada has and will continue to Federation, and the United States) meet every support polar bear research and monitoring two years. The general objectives of the efforts in areas within and adjacent to the meetings were to provide an international national parks. forum to discuss the conservation and Parks Canada also has a public safety duty management of polar bears. Canada hosted the to minimize human–bear encounters and 2011 (Iqaluit) meeting and participated in the conflict within national parks. Park visitors, 2013 (Moscow, Russia) and 2015 (Ilulissat, researchers, military personnel, local residents, Greenland) meetings. Key outcomes from the park staff, Inuit and other Indigenous park 2013 Moscow meeting included the 2013 users all have the potential to come into contact Ministerial Declaration and the commitment to with polar bears. Human and polar bear the completion of a Range-wide Conservation activities overlap in space and time, particularly Strategy for Polar Bear, otherwise known as the during April–November. To date, the number Circumpolar Action Plan (CAP). In 2015, the of park visitors and park users in most northern Range States Heads of Delegation approved the national parks is low and the number of document and implementation is currently encounters has been correspondingly low. underway. Measures in place to reduce the risk of The CAP includes a monitoring schedule encounters include mandatory park visitor for all 19 subpopulations, including 13 in registration and an orientation that includes Canada, or shared with neighbouring countries. polar bear safety messages. Other park users The frequency of surveys varies among receive safety information, including safety subpopulations, and is subject to change, pamphlets, and discuss location-specific risks depending on available resources and and mitigation measures with knowledgeable conservation concerns. A static frequency is park staff and community members. In all not suitable for all subpopulations as they face northern national parks, indigenous users have a suite of changing pressures (e.g., climate the right to carry firearms for harvesting under change, harvest). The schedule can be used as land claims or other agreements or legislation. a planning tool by Canadian jurisdictions to Parks Canada can issue firearms permits to ensure that abundance estimates for polar bear guards, researchers, guides, military subpopulations do not become out-of-date. personnel, and traditional local users (Wapusk

44

Canada actively participates as a member Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G., and Douglas, of several working groups charged with D.C. 2007. Forecasting the range-wide implementation of the CAP, including: status of polar bears at selected times in (a) CAP Implementation Team the 21st century. U.S. Geological Survey (b) Polar Bear–Human Conflict Administrative Report. U.S. Geological Working Group (CWG) Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA, 126 pp. (c) Traditional Ecological Knowledge Amstrup, S.C., McDonald, T.L., and Durner, Working Group (co-led by Canada G.M. 2004. Using satellite and Greenland) radiotelemetry data to delineate and (d) Communications Working Group manage wildlife populations. Wildlife (e) Operations, Protocols, and Society Bulletin 32:661–679. Procedures (OPP) Working Group Amstrup, S.C., Stirling, I., and Lentfer, J.W. (f) Trade Working Group 1986. Past and present status of polar The Trade Working Group has bears in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin submitted its final report and among its 14:241–254. adopted recommendations to the heads of Anguvigak Nunavik Hunters, Fishers, and delegation, was the advice to form a Wildlife Trappers Association. 1984. Non- Enforcement Network. This project will be binding MOU between the Government fleshed out and an update will be provided at of Québec and the Anguvigaq – the the biennial meeting of the parties in 2017. Nunavik Hunters, Fishers, and Trappers Association with respect to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) protection of polar bears, 31 January 1984. The CMS is a United Nations convention Bromaghin, J.F., McDonald, T.L., Stirling, I., ratified by 119 countries; of the five polar bear Derocher, A.E., Richardson, E.S., range states, only Norway is a signatory. Given Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D.C., Durner, a mandate to focus on species impacted by G.M., Atwood, T., and Amstrup, S.C. climate change, Norway sponsored a proposal 2015. Polar bear population dynamics in to list polar bear on Appendix II of the CMS in the southern Beaufort Sea during a 2014. CWS worked with Norwegian period of sea ice decline. Ecological counterparts to ensure the proposal was Applications 25:634–651. appropriate and accurately reflected the status Canadian Wildlife Service. 2009. Nunavut of polar bears in Canada, the Canadian consultation report – Consultations on management system, and the importance of the proposed listing of the Polar Bear as polar bear to Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Special Concern under the Species at The Norwegian proposal was successful and Risk Act. Report submitted to the the polar bear is now listed on Appendix II of Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the CMS. An Appendix II listing is appropriate accordance with Step 3.8 of the for species of conservation concern, and calls Memorandum of Understanding to for collaborative action by the Range States, Harmonize the Designation of which already occurs under the 1973 Agreement Endangered Species under the Nunavut on the Conservation of Polar Bears. Non-Range Land Claims Agreement and the Species at State parties to CMS are encouraged to assist in Risk Act, 249 pp. [available at: conservation actions. http://assembly.nu.ca/library/Edocs/2 009/001149-e.pdf]. References COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the polar bear Amstrup, S.C., Durner, G.M., Stirling, I., and Ursus maritimus in Canada. Committee on McDonald, T.L. 2005. Allocating the Status of Endangered Wildlife in harvests among polar bear stocks in the Canada, Ottawa. vii + 75 pp. Beaufort Sea. Arctic 58:247–259. Dowsley, M. 2005. Inuit knowledge regarding

45

climate change and the Baffin Bay polar Department of Environment, bear population. Government of Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut, Department of Environment, Nunavut, Canada, 23 pp. Final Wildlife Report 1, Department of Kotierk, M. 2010b. The documentation of Environment, Government of Nunavut, Inuit and public knowledge of Davis Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada, 43 pp. Strait polar bears, climate change, Inuit Dowsley, M. 2007. Inuit perspectives on polar Knowledge and environmental bears (Ursus maritimus) and climate management using public opinion polls. change in Baffin Bay, Nunavut, Canada. Department of Environment, Research and Practice in Social Sciences 2:53– Government of Nunavut, Iqaluit, 74. Nunavut, Canada, 96 pp. Dowsley, M., and Taylor, M.K. 2006. Kotierk, M. 2012. Public and Inuit interests, Community consultations with Western Hudson Bay polar bears and Qikiqtarjuaq, Clyde River and Pond Inlet wildlife management: results of a public on management concerns for the Baffin opinion poll in western Hudson Bay Bay (BB) polar bear population: a communities. Department of summary of Inuit knowledge and Environment, Government of Nunavut, community consultations. Final Wildlife Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada, 55 pp. Report 2, Department of Environment, Lunn, N.J., Servanty, S., Regehr, E.V., Government of Nunavut, Iqaluit, Converse, S.J., Richardson, E., and Nunavut, Canada, 83 pp. Stirling, I. 2016. Demography of an apex Durner, G.M., Douglas, D.C., Nielson, R.M., predator at the edge of its range: impacts Amstrup, S.C., McDonald, T.L., Stirling, of changing sea ice on polar bears in I., Mauritzen, M., Born, E.W., Wiig, Ø., Hudson Bay. Ecological Applications DeWeaver, E., Serreze, M.C., Belikov, 26:1302–1320. S.E., Holland, M.M., Maslanik, J., Aars, J., Obbard, M.E. 2008. Southern Hudson Bay Bailey, D.A., and Derocher, A.E. 2009. polar bear project 2003–2005: final Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat report. Unpublished report, Wildlife distribution from global climate models. Research and Development Section, Ecological Monogaphs 79:25–58. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Griswold, J., McDonald, T., Branigan, M., Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, 64 pp. Regehr, E., and Amstrup, S. 2010. Obbard, M.E., Cattet, M.R.L., Howe, E.J., Southern and Northern Beaufort Sea Middel, K.R., Newton, E.J., Kolenosky, polar bear population estimates under a G.B., Abraham, K.F., and Greenwood, proposed boundary shift. Unpublished C.J. 2016. Trends in body condition in report, Government of the NWT, polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from the Inuvik, NWT, Canada, 33 pp. Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation in Keith, D., Arqvik, J., Kamookak, L., and relation to changes in sea ice. Arctic Ameralik, J. 2005. Inuit Qaujimaningit Science 2:15–32. Nanurnut: Inuit Knowledge of Polar Bears. Obbard, M.E., Cattet, M.R.L., Moody, T., Gjoa Haven Hunters and Trappers and Walton, L.R., Potter, D., Inglis, J., and CCI Press, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Chenier, C. 2006. Temporal trends in Kolenosky, G.B., Abraham, K.F., and the body condition of Southern Hudson Greenwood, C.J. 1992. Polar bears of Bay polar bears. Climate Change southern Hudson Bay. Polar bear project, Research Information Note, No. 3. 1984–88. Final Report, Ontario Ministry Applied Research and Development of Natural Resources, Ontario, Canada, Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural 107 pp. Resources, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Kotierk, M. 2010a. Elder and hunter Canada, 8 pp. knowledge of Davis Strait polar bears, Obbard, M.E., McDonald, T.L., Howe, E.J., climate change and Inuit participation. Regehr, E.V., and Richardson, E.S. 2007.

46

Polar bear population status in Southern Hudson Bay: Using aerial surveys to Hudson Bay, Canada. U.S. Geological update polar bear abundance in a sentinel Survey Administrative Report. U.S. population. Biological Conservation 170:38– Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 47. USA, 32 pp. Stapleton, S., Peacock, E., and Garshelis, D. Obbard, M.E., Stapleton, S., Middell, K.R., 2016. Aerial surveys suggest long-term Thibault, I., Brodeur, V., and Jutras, C. stability in the seasonally ice-free Foxe 2015. Estimating the abundance of the Basin (Nunavut) polar bear population. Southern Hudson Bay polar bear Marine Mammal Science 32:181–201. subpopulation with aerial surveys. Polar Stirling, I. 2002. Polar bears and seals in the Biology 38:1713–1725. eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Ontario. 2016. Environmental Registry Gulf: A synthesis of population trends posting #012-7323. (Development of and ecological relationships over three government response statements for the decades. Arctic 55:59–76. Polar Bear and Wolverine under the Stirling, I., and Parkinson, C. L. 2006. Possible Endangered Species Act, 2007) effects of climate warming on selected (https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca). populations of polar bears (Ursus Parks Canada. 1994. Parks Canada: guiding maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic principles and operational policies. 59:261–275. Canadian Heritage, Ottawa, Ontario, Stirling, I., Calvert, W., and Andriashek, D. Canada. 1980. Population ecology studies of the Peacock, E., Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., and polar bear in the area of southeastern Stirling, I. 2013. Population ecology of Baffin island. Canadian Wildlife Service polar bears in Davis Strait, Canada and Occasional Paper No. 44, Ottawa, Greenland. Journal of Wildlife Management Ontario, Canada, 30 pp. 77:463–476. Stirling, I., McDonald, T.L., Richardson, E.S., Regehr, E.V., Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, I. Regehr, E.V., and Amstrup, S.C. 2011. 2006. Polar bear population status in the Polar bear population status in the southern Beaufort Sea. U.S. Geological northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971– Survey Administrative Report, U.S. 2006. Ecological Applications 21:859–876. Department of the Interior, Reston, Taylor, M., and Lee, J. 1995. Distribution and Virginia, USA, 20 pp. abundance of Canadian polar bear Regehr, E.V., Hunter, C.M., Caswell, H., populations: a management perspective. Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, I. 2010. Arctic 48:147–154. Survival and breeding of polar bears in Taylor, M.K., Akeeagok, S., Andriashek, D., the southern Beaufort Sea in relation to Barbour, W., Born, E.W., Calvert, W., sea ice. Journal of Animal Ecology 79:117– Cluff, H.D., Ferguson, S., Laake, J., 127. Rosing-Asvid, A., Stirling, I., and Regehr, E.V., Lunn, N.J., Amstrup, S.C., and Messier, F. 2001. Delineation of Stirling, I. 2007. Effects of earlier sea ice Canadian and Greenland polar bear breakup on survival and population size (Ursus maritimus) populations using of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. cluster analysis of movements. Canadian Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2673– Journal of Zoology 79:690–709. 2683. Taylor, M.K., DeMaster, D.P., Bunnell, F.L., Rode, K.D., Amstrup, S.C., and Regehr, E.V. and Schweinsburg, R.E. 1987. Modeling 2010. Reduced body size and cub the sustainable harvest of polar bears. recruitment in polar bears associated with Journal of Wildlife Management 51:811–820. sea ice decline. Ecological Applications Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., Cluff, H.D., Ramsay, 20:768–782. M., and Messier, F. 2002. Managing the Stapleton, S., Atkinson, S., Hedman, D., and risk from hunting for the Viscount Garshelis, D. 2014. Revisiting Western Melville Sound polar bear population.

47

Ursus 13:185–202. high Arctic. Arctic 61:143–152. Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Born, E.W., Cluff, H.D., Ferguson, S.H., Cluff, H.D., and Messier, F. 2009. Rosing-Asvid, A., Schweinsburg, R., and Demography and population viability of Messier, F. 2005. Demography and polar bears in the Gulf of Boothia, viability of a hunted population of polar Nunavut. Marine Mammal Science 25:778– bears. Arctic 58:203–214. 796. Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Taylor, M.K., Lee, J., Laake, J., and Cluff, H.D., Born, E.W., Rosing-Asvid, McLoughlin, P.D. 2006b. Estimating A., and Messier, F. 2008a. Population population size of polar bears in Foxe parameters and harvest risks for polar Basin, Nunavut using tetracycline bears (Ursus maritimus) of Kane Basin, biomarkers. File Report, Department of Canada and Greenland. Polar Biology Environment, Government of Nunavut, 31:491–499. Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada, 13 pp. Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Tonge, M.B., and Pulfer, T.L. 2011. Recovery Cluff, H.D., and Messier, F. 2006a. Strategy for Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Demographic parameters and harvest- in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy explicit population viability analysis for Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry polar bears in M'Clintock Channel, of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Nunavut, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Ontario, Canada, 54 pp. Management 70:1667–1673. Tyrrell, M. 2006. More bears, less bears: Inuit Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., and scientific perceptions of polar bear Cluff, H.D., and Messier, F. 2008b. populations on the west coast of Hudson Mark-recapture and stochastic Bay. Journal of Inuit Studies 30:191–208. population models for polar bears of the

48

Tables Table 1. Summary of regulations covering polar bear management in Canada as of 31 December 2015. Jurisdiction Newfoundland Northwest Category Manitoba and Labrador Territories Nunavut Ontario Québec Yukon Hunting Closed Reviewed annually: Season varies No closed season Closed, except for Closed season 1 Oct–31 May as hunting permitted between Polar polar bears between 1 Jun–31 currently identified Feb–Jun in portion Bear Management harvested based on Aug1; no sport in regulations of Labrador north Areas: longest 1 Aboriginal and hunting of Cape Harrison Oct–31 May; Treaty rights shortest 1 Jan–31 May Who can hunt A person who Nunatsiavut A person who A person who Members of Treaty Inuit and Cree Inuit only who are possesses a beneficiaries only. possesses a tag. possesses a tag. #9 residing along issued polar bear Ministerial permit Licences issued by Tags are Tags are allocated the coast tags Provincial distributed by the by the HTOs Government and HTCs distributed by Nunatsiavut Government Quota Noneb 13 (increased from ISR quota by By settlement: 2014/15 quota of No quota; 6, all of which are 12 as of Feb 2016) settlement: 2015/16 quota is 2; 2015/2016 voluntary administered by 2015/16 quota is 433 quota of 1 for the agreements on the NWT under 96 Ontario Cree harvest within ISR quota some subpopulations Females and cubs Yes Yes: females Yes: cub defined Yes: exempt for Yes Noa Yes: a cub or a protected by law accompanied by by hide length; defence or humane female cubs-of-the-year bears accompanied kill accompanied by a by cubs cub Bears in dens Yes Yes Yes: includes bears Yes: includes bears Yes: dens and Noa Yes protected by law constructing dens constructing dens other habitat depended on for life processes protected

49

Table 1. Continued. Jurisdiction Newfoundland Northwest Category Manitoba and Labrador Territories Nunavut Ontario Québec Yukon Proof of origin of Required: Required: Required: tag on Required: tag Required: seal on Required: seal on Required: seal on untanned bear documented proof documented proof hide and export affixed hide and hide, proof of hide hide (no seal on hide permit export permit origin required on implemented to (which needs to imported hides date) indicate harvester and population) Export permit Required: $20.00 Required: no cost Recommended: no Required: no fee Required: no cost Required: no cost Required: no cost and cost (out of cost residents; for export permits, province or Required: $1500.00 fees are collected territory of Harvest Fee for on harvesting origin) non-residents and licence non-resident aliens collected regardless of export Export permit All jurisdictions are required by CITES to have an export permit for all polar bears or parts thereof exported out of Canada out of Canada Scientific licences Discretion of Discretion of Discretion of Discretion of Discretion of Discretion of Discretion of Minister Director Director - Wildlife Superintendent of District Supervisor Minister Director, or Regional Wildlife Conservation Superintendent Officers Services Branch Selling of hide by Permitted: subject Permitted: must be Permitted: must Permitted: must be Permitted: must be Permitted: must be Permitted: permit hunter to conditions of taken legally, have tag attached taken legally and sealed by Ministry sealed required from Ministerial permit tag/seal attached have tag affixed staff Conservation Officer Basis of The Wildlife Act; Wildlife Act, Wildlife Act and Wildlife Act and Endangered Wildlife Wildlife Act 2001; Regulation The Endangered Chapter W-8 of Regulations Regulations Species Act, 2007; Conservation and Wildlife Species Act; The The Revised Fish and Wildlife Development Act; Regulations 2012 Polar Bear Statutes of Conservation Act, Laws respecting Protection Act Newfoundland, 1997 (Statutes of hunting and fishing 1990; classified as Ontario, 1997 rights in the James big game Chapter 41) Bay and New Québec

50

Table 1. Continued. Jurisdiction Newfoundland Northwest Category Manitoba and Labrador Territories Nunavut Ontario Québec Yukon Fur Dealer Required: $25.00 Required: no cost Required: $400.00 Required: $75.00 Required: $40.00 Required: $445.47 Required: $25.00 Authority licence general, first year, $200.00 residents, $100.00 resident, $905.09 resident, $25.00 travelling each year after non-residents and non-resident, $300.00 non- non-resident Auction dealer’s resident, $5.00 foreigners licence: $1,127.49 agent, $25.00 non- resident restricted Taxidermy Required: $30.00 Required: must be Required: $200.00 Required: $75.00 see Tanner’s Required: $39.12 Required: $25.00 licence taken legally; first year, $100.00 for Nunavut Authority resident, $30.00 legislation under for each year after residents, $100.00 non-resident review for non-residents and non-resident foreigners Tanner’s Required: $30.00 no legislation at Required: $200.00 Required: $75.00 Required: $40.00 Required: $341.03 Required: $2.00 Authority licence present first year, $100.00 resident, $100.00 resident, $10.00 each year after non-residents and non-resident non-resident foreigners Live Animal Required: Required: Director Required: $10.00 Required: Required: District Required: Required: Wildlife Capture permit Ministerial permit of Wildlife to capture live $3,015.00 Manager Ministerial permit Research Permit, wildlife, free for residents, extremely difficult NWT Wildlife $3,030.00 non- to obtain Research residents and $3,060.00, non- resident foreigners Live Animal Required: Required: Director Required: Required on case Required: District Required: Required: special Export permit Ministerial permit of Wildlife $6,000.00 polar by case basis Manager Ministerial permit permit: extremely bear (live export difficult not supported by Inuvialuit)

51

Table 2. Summary of the status of polar bear subpopulations in Canada based on review and discussion by the Canadian Polar Bear Technical Committee, February 2016. ±2 SE or 95% Year of Local or TEK Subpopulation Jurisdiction1 Estimate Method2 Historic Trend CI Estimate assessment Baffin Bay GL, NU 2074 1542–2606 19973 MR Likely reduced Stable4

Davis Strait GL, NL, NU, QC 2158 1833–2542 20077 MR Likely increased Increased8

Foxe Basin NU, QC 2580 2093–3180 2009-1011 A Stable Increased12

Gulf of Boothia NU 1592 870–2314 200015 MR Likely stable Increasing16

Kane Basin GL, NU 164 94–234 199719 MR Likely reduced Increasing20

Lancaster Sound NU 2541 1759–3323 1995-9723 MR Likely stable Increasing24

M’Clintock Channel NU 284 166–402 200027 MR Likely reduced Stable28

52

Table 2. Continued. Historical annual removals Potential Removals 5-year mean 3-year mean Last year Last year Subpopulation Recent Trend Future Trend 2010/11–2014/15 2012/13–2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 Baffin Bay Likely decline5 Uncertain6 143.2 133.7 133 132 (67 GL, 65 NU)

Davis Strait Likely increase9 Likely decline10 109.2 114.7 96 75 + QC (2 GL, 12 NL, 61 NU)

Foxe Basin Stable13 Likely stable14 106.2 104.0 114 123 + QC (123 NU)

Gulf of Boothia Likely stable17 Likely stable18 60.0 62.0 67 74 (74 NU)

Kane Basin Uncertain21 Uncertain22 5.0 5.7 5 11 (6 GL, 5 NU)

Lancaster Sound Uncertain25 Uncertain26 86.6 85.3 80 89 (89 NU)

M’Clintock Channel Likely increase29 Uncertain30 3.4 3.7 5 5 (5 NU)

53

Table 2. Continued. Subpopulation Comments/Vulnerabilities/Habitat Baffin Bay currently being reassessed, high harvest, decline in sea ice, increased shipping

Davis Strait based upon 2007 survey information, high harvest; decline in sea ice

Foxe Basin long term decline in sea ice; potential for increased shipping for mineral extraction

Gulf of Boothia current and projected habitat change may affect productivity of ecosystem; subpopulation has high vital rates and low harvest

Kane Basin currently being reassessed, likely a sink population connected with Baffin Bay, small subpopulation, decline in sea ice

Lancaster Sound historic sex-skewed harvest, habitat decline, potential for increased shipping for mineral extraction

M’Clintock Channel increasing oil/gas development; loss of multi-year ice; currently being reassessed

54

Table 2. Continued. ±2 SE or 95% Year of Local or TEK Subpopulation Jurisdiction1 Estimate Method2 Historic Trend CI Estimate assessment Northern Beaufort NT, NU 129131 n/a 200632 MR Likely stable Stable33 Sea

Norwegian Bay NU 203 115–291 199736 MR Uncertain Stable37

Southern Beaufort NT, US, YT 121531 n/a 200640 MR Uncertain Stable41 Sea

Southern Hudson NU, ON, QC 943 658–1350 201244 A Stable Stable, Increased45 Bay

Viscount Melville NT, NU 161 93–229 199249 MR Likely reduced Increased50 Sound

Western Hudson MB, NU 1030 754–1406 201153 A Likely reduced Increased54 Bay

55

Table 2. Continued. Historical annual removals Potential Removals 5-year mean 3-year mean Last year Last year Subpopulation Recent Trend Future Trend 2010/11–2014/15 2012/13–2014/15 2014/15 2014/15 Northern Beaufort Likely stable34 Likely stable35 43.0 39.3 35 77 Sea (71 NT, 6 NU)

Norwegian Bay Uncertain38 Uncertain39 2.2 2.3 1 4 (4 NU)

Southern Beaufort Likely decline42 Likely decline43 40.0 32.3 22 56 Sea (15 NT, 35 US, 6 YT)

Southern Hudson Stable46 Uncertain47 58.8 46.7 43 4548 Bay (20 NU, 2 ON, 23 QC)

Viscount Melville Likely stable51 Uncertain52 5.2 5.0 2 7 Sound (4 NT, 3 NU)

Western Hudson Likely stable55 Likely decline56 24.8 26.7 28 28 Bay (4 MB57, 24 NU)

56

Table 2. Continued. Subpopulation Comments/Vulnerabilities/Habitat Northern Beaufort TEK study completed; increasing oil/gas development; decline in sea ice Sea

Norwegian Bay small, isolated subpopulation

Southern Beaufort Bromaghin et al. 2015 under review by PBTC – more in depth discussion to occur 2017 meeting; annual variability in ice conditions Sea results in changes in density; bears shifting to NB because of ice conditions; TK study completed; potential for oil/gas development

Southern Hudson contradictory lines of evidence: declines in body condition & survival rates yet no change in abundance; TEK indicates winter body Bay condition has not changed and reproductive rates have improved; TEK and science indicate changes in sea ice, ice free season increased by 30 days between 1980-2012; recent high harvest, habitat decline; decline of permafrost-based denning habitat; revised voluntary harvest agreement of 45 currently in effect Viscount Melville currently being reassessed Sound

Western Hudson sea ice decline; harvest; declines in body condition; lower productivity compared to adjacent Foxe Basin and South Hudson Bay Bay subpopulations; historic decline in abundance from late 1980s through late 1990s linked to reduced survival due to timing of sea ice breakup; recent analysis indicated relative stability in subpopulation 2001-2010, a period during which there was no significant trend in freeze up or breakup; continued linkage between female survival and sea-ice conditions a. Not according to law but hunting season and protection of mothers and cubs and bears in dens according to an agreement between Québec government and Inuit (Anguvigak Nunavik Hunters Fishers and Trappers Association, 1984) b. Polar bears are not hunted in Manitoba; for management purposes, 4 animals are assumed for defense/accidental human-caused mortalities 1. GL, Greenland; MB, Manitoba; NL, Newfoundland and Labrador; NT, Northwest Territories; NU, Nunavut; ON, Ontario; QC, Quebec; US, United States; YT, Yukon Territory 2. A, aerial survey; MR, physical capture-recapture 3. Taylor et al. 2005 4. Dowsley 2005, Dowsley and Taylor 2006, Dowsley 2007, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) Public Hearing minutes and submissions for April 2008, September 2009

57

5. Combined harvested considered unsustainable: Taylor et al. 2005 plus simulations in PBSG 14 and 15 proceedings suggest abundance of 1,546 in 2004 6. Vital rates for Riskman PVA are 18 years old; TEK indicates population is stable; there is current research and ongoing assessment 7. Peacock et al. 2013 8. Kotierk 2010a, b 9. Stirling et al. 1980, Peacock et al. 2013 10. The impact of a TAH increase on the population has not been modeled; predicted trend after survey was completed at harvest levels in 2007 was considered stable (Peacock et al. 2013); NWMB Davis Strait public hearing submissions May 16-17, 2011 11. Stapleton et al. 2016 12. Sahanatien pers. comm. 7 Feb 2013, Dyck pers. comm. 7 Feb 2013, Canadian Wildlife Service 2009 13. Taylor et al. 2006b, Stapleton et al. 2016 14. No signs of deteriorating body condition or litter size (Stapleton et al. 2016) 15. Taylor et al. 2009 16. Keith et al. 2005, Canadian Wildlife Service 2009 17. For the period 2000–2015, assuming all sources of removals in the population sum to 74 bears/yr, the population can be expected to persist at a stable population size (Taylor et al. 2009) 18. Hunters in area reporting ice conditions have improved productivity, harvest levels remain stable (Dyck pers. comm. 2013) 19. Taylor et al. 2008a 20. Canadian Wildlife Service 2009 21. Population simulations of existing data suggest that only a very small quota (<2) may be sustained for this subpopulation (Taylor et al. 2008a) 22. Vital rates for PVA are 17 years old, current research and ongoing assessment 23. Taylor et al. 2008b 24. Canadian Wildlife Service 2009 25. For the period 1997–2012, the population would be expected to be stable under the historical harvest regimen (1993–1997). At the 2002–2006 mean harvest rate of 78 bears/yr, we estimate that the population is more likely to decline than to increase (Taylor et al. 2008b) 26. Vital rates for Riskman PVA are 16 years old 27. Taylor et al. 2006a 28. Inuit report that bears are moving to neighbouring areas throughout the region (Keith et al. 2005, Canadian Wildlife Service 2009) 29. Likely an increase based on quantitative assessment of growth rate (Taylor et al. 2006a) 30. Vital rates for PVA are 14 years old; several research planning consultations has been completed; further consultations ongoing 31. Revised estimates resulting from management boundary change 32. Griswold et al. 2010, Stirling et al. 2011 33. Pokiak pers. comm. 7 Feb 2013, Carpenter pers. comm. 7 Feb 2013 34. Population size used for management was historically adjusted to 1,200 due to bias in in population estimate (Amstrup et al. 2005, Stirling et al. 2011) 35. Durner et al. 2009, Stirling et al. 2011, and TEK (Joint Secretariat, unpublished) indicate stable population and habitat conditions may improve in short-term 36. Taylor et al. 2008b 37. Canadian Wildlife Service 2009 38. Vital rates for Riskman PVA are 17 years old and vital rates were substituted from other populations (Taylor et al. 2008b); no recent work in the area 39. Vital rates for Riskman PVA are 17 years old and vital rates were substituted from other populations (Taylor et al. 2008b) 40. Regehr et al. 2006, Griswold et al. 2010 41. Pokiak pers. comm. 7 Feb 2013, Carpenter pers. comm. 7 Feb 2013

58

42. Population estimate is lower but not statistically different from previous population estimates (Amstrup et al. 1986, Regehr et al. 2006). Quotas were based on the understanding that the total harvest of independent females would not exceed the modelled sustainable maximum of 1.5% of the population (Taylor et al. 1987) and that a 2:1 ratio of males to females would be maintained in the total quota harvested (Stirling 2002) 43. Based on sea ice declines (Durner et al. 2009), changes in body conditions measured in Alaska (Rode et al. 2010) and modelling (Regehr et al. 2010). Estimated risk of future decline is based on vital rates estimated from 2001-2006 data used in demographic models that incorporate sea ice forecasts 44. Obbard et al. 2015 45. Stable in James Bay, increased in eastern Hudson Bay (NMRWB Public Hearing Inukjuak February 2014) 46. Based on comparison with previous subpopulation estimates (Kolenosky et al. 1992, Obbard 2008, Obbard et al. 2015) 47. Body condition decline, vital rate declines and changes in ice conditions; Inuit observations show no decline in body condition or abundance (Obbard et al. 2016, NMRWB, unpublished) 48. Voluntary harvest agreement 49. Taylor et al. 2002 50. Canadian Wildlife Service 2009, community consultations in 2012 and 2013 51. Harvest managed for population growth since last survey including a 5 year moratorium; comparable litter size in 2012 (GNWT unpublished) 52. Vital rates for Riskman PVA are 22 years old; population reassessment currently in process 53. Stapleton et al. 2014 54. NWMB Public Hearing minutes 2005, Tyrrell 2006, Canadian Wildlife Service 2009, Kotierk 2012 55. Lunn et al. 2016 56. Based on body condition, abundance estimates, reduced reproductive productivity, and changes in ice conditions (Stirling and Parkinson 2006, Stapleton et al. 2014, Lunn pers. comm.) 57. There is no harvest of polar bears in Manitoba; for management purposes, 4 animals are assumed for defense/accidental human-caused mortalities

59

Table 3. Harvest quotas and numbers of polar bears killed1 in Canada, 2008/09 through 2014/15. Jurisdiction2

ISR4 Management Year3 (NT, YT) MB5 NL NU ON QC6 Total 2008/09 Quota 103 8 6 458 30 62 667 Killed 41 6 8 463 3 32 553 Sent to zoos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009/10 Quota 103 8 6 434 30 62 643 Killed 20 0 2 418 1 60 501 Sent to zoos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010/11 Quota 103 8 6 442 30 62 651 Killed 75 0 13 440 0 101 629 Sent to zoos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011/12 Quota 103 4 12 449 5 62 635 Killed 81 5 14 460 4 79 643 Sent to zoos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2012/13 Quota 103 4 12 453 5 62 639 Killed 63 0 9 458 2 84 616 Sent to zoos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013/14 Quota 96 4 12 425 5 62 604 Killed 53 2 12 398 0 81 540 Sent to zoos 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 2014/15 Quota 96 4 12 474 2 62 650 Killed 42 0 11 422 1 60 536 Sent to zoos 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1. All known human caused mortalities, including subsistence kills, sport-hunt kills, problem kills, illegal kills, and bears that die while being handled during research 2. ISR, Inuvialuit Settlement Region; MB, Manitoba; NL, Newfoundland and Labrador; NU, Nunavut; ON, Ontario; QC, Québec 3. Management year extends from 1 July to 30 June the following year 4. ISR includes Yukon and NWT harvests under ISR tags 5. There is no quota in Manitoba because polar bears are not hunted. For management purposes, a small number of animals are assumed for defense/accidental human-caused mortalities 6. There is no mandatory reporting of polar bear harvest in Québec. Killed numbers only represent the voluntary reported harvest. The quota represents the Guaranteed Harvest Level established through Agreements with Aboriginal peoples

60

Table 4. Total known number of polar bears killed by humans1,2 from subpopulations within or shared with Canada, 2008/09 through 2014/15. 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Subpopulation Total F M U Total F M U Total F M U Total F M U Total F M U Baffin Bay Greenland 82 29 46 7 68 12 56 0 63 66 66 Nunavut 103 40 63 0 86 35 51 0 93 31 62 0 93 36 57 0 74 35 39 0 Sub-total 185 69 109 7 154 47 107 0 156 31 62 0 159 36 57 0 140 35 39 0 Davis Strait Greenland 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 3 Nfld/Labrador 8 4 4 0 2 1 1 0 13 4 8 1 14 2 9 3 9 2 7 0 Nunavut 44 18 26 0 42 18 24 0 57 16 41 0 37 18 19 0 60 20 40 0 Québec 23 6 17 0 24 6 18 0 24 13 11 0 54 21 32 1 51 13 37 1 Sub-total 76 28 48 0 70 26 44 0 95 33 60 1 107 41 60 4 123 35 84 1 Foxe Basin Nunavut 109 31 78 0 109 40 69 0 104 38 66 0 108 38 70 0 105 51 54 0 Québec 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 4 3 1 0 2 1 1 0 Sub-total 109 31 78 0 109 40 69 0 107 40 67 0 112 41 71 0 107 52 55 0 Gulf of Boothia Nunavut 72 29 43 0 57 25 32 0 45 18 27 0 69 21 48 0 67 25 42 0 Sub-total 72 29 43 0 57 25 32 0 45 18 27 0 69 21 48 0 67 25 42 0 Kane Basin Greenland 7 1 4 2 3 2 1 0 2 6 6 Nunavut 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 7 1 4 2 4 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0

61

Table 4. Continued. 5-years 3-years Current year 2013/14 2014/15 (2010/11–2014/15) (2012/13–2014/15) (2014/15) Prop’n Prop’n Prop’n Subpopulation Total F M U Total F M U Mean F Mean F Total F Baffin Bay Greenland 61 70 Nunavut 67 20 47 0 63 22 41 0 Sub-total 128 20 47 0 133 22 41 0 143.2 0.37 133.7 0.38 133 0.35 Davis Strait Greenland 1 3 Nfld/Labrador 12 8 4 0 11 1 10 0 Nunavut 52 18 34 0 50 21 29 0 Québec 60 21 39 0 32 12 19 1 Sub-total 125 47 77 0 96 34 58 1 109.2 0.36 114.7 0.35 96 0.37 Foxe Basin Nunavut 81 30 51 0 108 44 64 0 Québec 10 5 5 0 6 2 3 1 Sub-total 91 35 56 0 114 46 67 1 106.2 0.40 104.0 0.43 114 0.41 Gulf of Boothia Nunavut 52 19 33 0 67 20 47 0 Sub-total 52 19 33 0 67 20 47 0 60.0 0.34 62.0 0.34 67 0.30 Kane Basin Greenland 6 5 Nunavut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 6 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5.0 − 5.7 − 5 −

62

Table 4. Continued. 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Subpopulation Total F M U Total F M U Total F M U Total F M U Total F M U Lancaster Sound Nunavut 94 36 58 0 73 27 46 0 84 20 64 0 93 27 66 0 91 30 61 0 Sub-total 94 36 58 0 73 27 46 0 84 20 64 0 93 27 66 0 91 30 61 0 M’Clintock Channel Nunavut 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 Sub-total 2 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 Northern Beaufort Sea NWT 25 7 14 4 11 7 4 0 42 13 28 1 48 16 32 0 39 8 30 1 Nunavut 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 4 2 2 0 4 2 2 0 Sub-total 29 9 16 4 11 7 4 0 45 14 30 1 52 18 34 0 43 10 32 1 Norwegian Bay Nunavut 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 Sub-total 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 Southern Beaufort Sea ISR (NWT+Yukon) 6 0 6 0 7 2 5 0 29 17 11 1 32 12 20 0 20 11 9 0 USA 24 1 16 7 17 10 3 4 23 4 13 6 19 3 12 4 30 4 20 6 Sub-total 30 1 22 7 24 12 8 4 52 21 24 7 51 15 32 4 50 15 29 6 Southern Hudson Bay Nunavut 26 8 18 0 25 8 17 0 30 9 21 0 25 6 19 0 26 4 22 0 Ontario 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 Québec 9 4 5 0 36 16 20 0 74 27 46 1 21 7 14 0 31 11 19 1 Sub-total 38 13 24 1 62 24 38 0 104 36 67 1 50 13 35 2 59 15 43 1

63

Table 4. Continued. 5-years 3-years Current year 2013/14 2014/15 (2010/11–2014/15) (2012/13–2014/15) (2014/15) Prop’n Prop’n Prop’n Subpopulation Total F M U Total F M U Mean F Mean F Total F Lancaster Sound Nunavut 85 28 57 0 80 20 60 0 Sub-total 85 28 57 0 80 20 60 0 86.6 0.29 85.3 0.30 80 0.25 M’Clintock Channel Nunavut 3 2 1 0 5 0 5 0 Sub-total 3 2 1 0 5 0 5 0 3.4 0.29 3.7 0.27 5 0.00 Northern Beaufort Sea NWT 40 15 25 0 35 13 22 0 Nunavut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub-total 40 15 25 0 35 13 22 0 43.0 0.33 39.3 0.32 35 0.37 Norwegian Bay Nunavut 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 Sub-total 3 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2.2 0.09 2.3 0.14 1 0.00 Southern Beaufort Sea ISR (NWT+Yukon) 4 1 3 0 3 1 2 0 USA 21 7 7 7 19 2 15 2 Sub-total 25 8 10 7 22 3 17 2 40.0 0.36 32.3 0.32 22 0.15 Southern Hudson Bay Nunavut 27 10 17 0 20 6 14 0 Ontario 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Québec 11 6 5 0 22 6 16 0 Sub-total 38 16 22 0 43 12 31 0 58.8 0.32 46.7 0.31 43 0.28

64

Table 4. Continued. 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Subpopulation Total F M U Total F M U Total F M U Total F M U Total F M U Viscount Melville Sound NWT 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 2 2 0 Nunavut 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 0 3 0 3 0 3 1 2 0 3 1 2 0 Sub-total 5 2 1 2 3 2 1 0 7 3 4 0 4 2 2 0 7 3 4 0 Western Hudson Bay Manitoba 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 Nunavut 8 4 4 0 18 3 15 0 15 6 9 0 24 8 16 0 22 5 17 0 Sub-total 14 5 9 0 18 3 15 0 15 6 9 0 29 9 20 0 22 5 17 0

Total 661 589 718 736 721

65

Table 4. Continued. 5-years 3-years Current year 2013/14 2014/15 (2010/11–2014/15) (2012/13–2014/15) (2014/15) Prop’n Prop’n Prop’n Subpopulation Total F M U Total F M U Mean F Mean F Total F Viscount Melville Sound NWT 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Nunavut 3 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 Sub-total 6 1 5 0 2 1 1 0 5.2 0.38 5.0 0.33 2 0.50 Western Hudson Bay Manitoba 5 2 1 1 0 Nunavut 25 6 19 0 26 8 18 0 Sub-total 30 6 19 0 28 9 19 0 24.8 0.29 26.7 0.27 28 0.32

Total 632 631 687.6 0.35 661.3 0.35 631 0.33 1. All known human-caused mortalities, including subsistence kills, sport-hunt kills, problem kills, illegal kills, bears that die while being handled during research, and any mortalities linked to humans (e.g., ingestion of poison) 2. Unverified males or bears of unknown sex are included in annual totals but not in M or F columns

66

Figures Fig. 1. Canadian polar bear subpopulations as of 31 December 2015 (BB – Baffin Bay; DS – Davis Strait; FB – Foxe Basin; GB – Gulf of Boothia; KB – Kane Basin; LS – Lancaster Sound; MC – M’Clintock Channel; NB – Northern Beaufort Sea; NW – Norwegian Bay; SB – Southern Beaufort Sea; SH – Southern Hudson Bay; VM – Viscount Melville Sound; WH – Western Hudson Bay).

67

Research on Polar Bears in Canada, 2009–2015 M.E. Obbard, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, DNA Building, Trent University, 2140 East Bank Dr., Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, Canada A.E. Derocher, Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB T6G 2E9, Canada M.G. Dyck, Government of Nunavut, Department of Environment, PO Box 209, Igloolik, NU X0A 0L0, Canada N.J. Lunn, Wildlife Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, CW-405 Biological Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E9, Canada E. Richardson, Wildlife Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, CW-405 Biological Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6H 3S5, Canada I. Stirling, Wildlife Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, CW-405 Biological Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6H 3S5, Canada G.W. Thiemann, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada

Research on polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in Using data from Argos telemetry collars Canada is conducted by staff of Federal, deployed on adult female polar bears in the Provincial, or Territorial governments and by Southern Hudson Bay (SH) subpopulation university faculty. This research is often from 1997–2003, Obbard and Middel (2012) collaborative between university researchers derived on-ice and off-ice 95% population and government scientists and is coordinated utilization distributions (UD) to describe the through partnership agreements. International areas occupied by SH bears. There was general cooperative projects are conducted with agreement between the on-ice UD and the research partners in Alaska, Denmark, current subpopulation boundary, at least as Greenland, and Norway. Funding is provided depicted by space use of adult females. There by government agencies, universities, wildlife was slight overlap with the southern portion of management boards, non-governmental the Foxe Basin (FB) subpopulation and with organizations, independent foundations, and the southeastern portion of the western competitive grants to graduate students. This Hudson Bay (WH) subpopulation. However, report summarises research involving Canadian the conclusion was that the currently depicted members of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear boundaries for the SH subpopulation adopted Specialist Group from 2009–2015. by the Canadian Polar Bear Technical Committee (Lunn et al. 1998) fairly represent the recent population UD and so could be used Subpopulation Delineation, confidently to manage harvest (Obbard and Abundance Estimation, and Middel 2012). Modelling Abundance Estimation Subpopulation Delineation Aerial Surveys Southern Hudson Bay Traditional capture-recapture methods have drawn criticism from various aboriginal groups,

68

including Inuit co-management boards due to during the late 1980s and early 1990s (Taylor et concerns about wildlife drugging and handling. al. 2006). This result, along with evidence of In response to these concerns, the Government robust reproductive output, suggests that FB is of Nunavut investigated alternative approaches a stable and healthy subpopulation. Abundance that might better reflect Inuit societal values as appears to have remained stable since about well as enable more rapid and frequent 1990. assessment of subpopulations. Numerous researchers have conducted aerial surveys to Southern Hudson Bay monitor polar bear populations using a variety of methods (e.g., Belikov et al. 1988, Crete et al. Obbard et al. (2015) conducted a 1991, McDonald et al. 1999, Wiig and Derocher comprehensive line transect aerial survey of the 1999, Evans et al. 2003, Aars et al. 2009); SH subpopulation using a combination of however, there remained a need for a robust distance sampling and double observer aerial survey technique to estimate abundance protocol during early fall in 2011 (mainland of subpopulations where bears are on land Ontario and Akimiski Island, James Bay) and during the ice-free months of summer and fall. 2012 (remaining islands in James Bay, Therefore, Nunavut Department of nearshore islands of the Québec coast, and Environment (NU DOE), in collaboration with islands in eastern Hudson Bay). The survey the University of Minnesota (UM) conducted could not be completed in one year due to pilot studies over Southampton Island in late- logistical and financial constraints. The summer 2008 and over the sea ice of Foxe abundance estimate from the survey was 943 Basin during the spring season of 2009 (95% CI: 658–1,350) for the entire (Stapleton et al. 2012) to assess the feasibility of subpopulation (Obbard et al. 2015). Comparing a comprehensive line transect design to this estimate to previously generated estimates estimate abundance of polar bears. Results of from capture-recapture studies suggest that the pilot studies indicated that detectability was abundance in the SH subpopulation has been poor during spring surveys, but that surveys stable since the mid-1980s. during the ice-free period held promise. Results of the pilot study over Southampton Island Western Hudson Bay were used to design subsequent surveys conducted during the late summer and fall ice- Stapleton et al. (2014) conducted a free season by NU DOE and UM for the FB comprehensive aerial survey of the WH (2009, 2010) and WH subpopulations (2011), subpopulation during August 2011 using a and by the Ontario Ministry of Natural combination of overland transects Resources (OMNR), Québec Ministère des perpendicular to the coast (distance sampling), Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (MFFP), and coastal contour transects (double observer NU DOE for the SH subpopulation (2011, protocol), and small island sampling (double 2012). observer). Stapleton et al. (2014) derived an abundance estimate of 1,030 bears (95% CI: Foxe Basin 754–1,406). This estimate was consistent with a 2004 estimate of abundance based on capture- Stapleton et al. (2016) conducted recapture (935; 95% CI: 794–1,076; Regehr et al. comprehensive aerial surveys of the FB 2007), though the vital rates estimated from the subpopulation using a combination of distance capture-recapture studies suggested that sampling protocols on inland transects and abundance could decline beyond 2004. double-observer protocol on coastal transects during 2009 and 2010. Averaging abundance estimates yielded 2,585 (95% CI: 2,096–3,189) bears. This estimate is similar to an estimate of 2,200 (SE = 260) derived from a capture- recovery tetracycline marking study conducted

69

Capture-Recapture Studies 0.37 to 0.62, from 0.22 to 0.68 for cubs of the year (COY) and yearlings, and from 0.77 to 0.92 Davis Strait for 2–4 year-olds and adults. Horvtiz- Thompson (HT) estimates of population size Peacock et al. (2013) analyzed 35 years of were not significantly different among the capture and harvest data from the Davis Strait decades of the study. The mean NB population (DS) subpopulation, including data from a new size estimated for the 2000s was 980 (95% CI: study (2005–2007). They estimated the 825–1,135). These estimates apply primarily to population size in 2007 to be 2,158 (95% CI: that segment of the NB subpopulation residing 1,833–2,542), a likely increase from the 1970s. west and south of Banks Island. This They detected variation in survival, subpopulation appears to have been stable or reproductive rates, and age-structure of polar possibly increasing slightly during the period bears from geographic sub-regions. Survival the study. This suggests that ice conditions and reproduction of bears in southern Davis have remained suitable and similar for feeding Strait was greater than in the north and tied to in summer and fall during most years and that a concurrent dramatic increase in breeding harp the traditional and legal Inuvialuit harvest has seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) in Labrador. The not exceeded sustainable levels. However, the most supported survival models contained amount of ice remaining in the study area at the geographic and temporal variables. Estimates end of summer, and the proportion that lies of declining harvest recovery rate and over the biologically productive continental increasing total survival suggest that the rate of shelf (<300 m water depth) declined over the harvest declined over time. Low recruitment 35-year period of the study. Continued climate rates, average adult survival rates, and high warming and habitat loss will eventually cause population density, in an environment of high the NB subpopulation to decline. Management prey density, but deteriorating and variable ice and conservation practices for polar bears in conditions, currently characterize the DS relation to both aboriginal harvesting and subpopulation. Low reproductive rates may offshore industrial activity will need to adapt. reflect negative effects of greater densities or worsening ice conditions. Western Hudson Bay

Northern Beaufort Sea The last re-assessment of the size of the WH polar bear subpopulation using physical Polar bears of the Northern Beaufort Sea (NB) capture-recapture was undertaken in the early subpopulation occur on the perimeter of the 2000s because of the concern of climate change polar basin adjacent to the northwestern islands impacts. The analysis showed that the of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Sea ice population had declined by 22% from converges on the islands through most of the approximately 1,200 in 1987 to 935 in 2004 year. Stirling et al. (2011) used open population (Regehr et al. 2007). Furthermore, the natural capture-recapture models to estimate survival rates of dependent young, juvenile population size and vital rates of polar bears bears, and old bears was declining and was between 1971 and 2006 to: (1) assess related to progressively earlier breakup of sea relationships between survival, sex and age, and ice. Evidence for declines in the WH time period; (2) evaluate the long-term subpopulation led to reductions in harvest importance of sea ice quality and availability in levels for aboriginal peoples. These reductions relation to climate warming; and (3) note future were controversial due to their social and management and conservation concerns. The economic effects, and the perception among highest ranking models suggested that survival some that the WH polar bear subpopulation of polar bears varied by age class and with remains abundant and healthy (Lunn et al. changes in the sea ice habitat. Model-averaged 2010). estimates of survival (which includes harvest Lunn et al. (2016) used live-recapture and mortality) for senescent adults ranged from dead-recovery data in a Bayesian

70

implementation of multistate capture-recapture habitat selection, movements and spatial models to evaluate the impacts of ecology of polar bears in Foxe Basin, Nunavut. environmental variation on demographic rates Sahanatien and Derocher (2012) used satellite and trends for the WH polar bear telemetry (2007–2011) to collect location data subpopulation from 1984–2011. Survival of of female polar bears and ice-free season female bears of all age classes, but not males, location data of male polar bears, and used was sensitive to sea ice conditions. The satellite imagery to analyse sea ice habitat in relatively high number of male bears killed by Foxe Basin, Hudson Strait, and northern humans may be sufficiently large that Hudson Bay. Using microwave satellite compensatory effects dampen fluctuations in imagery (25 × 25 km² resolution) sea ice natural survival, making a potential underlying concentration maps were classified into four relationship between male survival and sea ice habitat quality categories to examine trends in difficult to detect. The analysis indicated a fragmentation patch metrics, 1979–2008. long-term decline in abundance from 1,185 Sahanatien and Derocher (2012) found that the (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI]: 993– amount of preferred sea ice habitat declined in 1,411) in 1987 to 806 (95% BCI: 653–984) in autumn and spring, sea ice season length 2011. Over the past 10 years of the study, there decreased, and habitat fragmentation increased. was no apparent trend in numbers due to a The observed trends may affect polar bear short-term amelioration in sea ice conditions movement patterns, energetics, and ultimately (mean population growth rate for the period population trends in the future. 2001–2010: 1.02, 95% BCI: 0.98–1.06). When on the sea ice, female polar bears Looking forward, long-term growth rate for the were distributed in three spatial clusters that WH subpopulation of approximately 1.02 (95% broadly coincided with the three marine water BCI: 1.00–1.05) and 0.97 (95% BCI: 0.92–1.01) bodies, Foxe Basin, Hudson Strait, and Hudson was estimated under hypothetical ‘high’ and Bay. Differences in movement metrics (i.e., ‘low’ sea-ice conditions, respectively. home range, movement rates, time on ice) were The findings support previous evidence observed between clusters that may reflect sea for a demographic linkage between sea-ice ice habitat conditions and ocean productivity conditions and polar bear population dynamics. (Sahanatien et al. 2015). Bears showed annual Although the subpopulation is capable of and seasonal home range fidelity with two responding positively to shorter-term positive movement patterns: on-ice range residency and trends in sea ice conditions, longer-term annual migration. High-resolution (150 × 150 forecasts of decreasing duration and extent of m) synthetic aperture radar (SAR) was tested as sea-ice cover in southern and western Hudson an information source to examine sea ice Bay suggest that the long-term trend is likely to habitat structure, as described by floes and leads be negative. The study emphasized the that were available to female polar bears during importance of considering the relationships their daily movements. The fine scale ice floe between vital rates and environmental and lead patch density were the most important conditions in demographic assessments for sea ice characteristics for bears when foraging management and conservation planning (Lunn on sea ice. Standard important broad scale et al. 2016). variables, ice concentration, bathymetry and distance to land were not in the top resource Movement and Habitat Studies selection models. Sahanatien et al. (2015) examined terrestrial movement patterns and Polar bear habitat, space use, and behaviour of female and male polar bears movements in Foxe Basin during the annual period of minimum ice cover. Bears remained near the coast but were The annual phenological cycle of sea ice growth segregated by sex and reproductive status. All and decay has a strong influence on polar bear bears moved extensively and swimming was a distribution and ecology. In collaboration with regular behaviour. the Government of Nunavut, a study examined

71

Polar bear distribution in the Southern Projected polar bear sea ice habitat in the Beaufort Sea subpopulation Canadian Arctic Archipelago

Arctic sea ice extent and thickness have Hamilton et al. (2014) used sea ice projections declined in the Beaufort Sea, and have been for the Canadian Arctic Archipelago from particularly low since the first record minimum 2006–2100 to gain insight into the conservation extent in 2007. Pongracz and Derocher (2016) challenges for polar bears with respect to examined polar bear distribution in SB via habitat loss using metrics developed from polar satellite telemetry from 2007–2011, including bear energetics modelling. With projected years of record low sea ice extent, using kernel warming by the end of the 21st century, shifts density methods to evaluate how recent away from multiyear ice to annual ice cover changes to sea ice conditions may affect the throughout the region, as well as lengthening distribution of bears. Pongracz and Derocher ice-free periods, may become critical for polar (2016) related polar bear distributions to bears. All Archipelago subpopulations may bathymetry and also examined the use of land undergo 2–5 months of ice-free conditions, and sea ice as a summer refuge. Polar bear where no such conditions currently exist. movement patterns and distribution changed in Under business-as-usual climate projections, response to sea ice conditions. Bears were polar bears may face starvation and forced to travel greater distances and remain reproductive failure across the entire over deeper water longer as they maintained a Archipelago by the year 2100. presence at the edge of the pack that varies annually. Bears also used land areas in Alaska Swimming behaviour greater than previously documented (Pongracz and Derocher 2016). Comparison of satellite tracking data of bears in the Beaufort Sea and in Hudson Bay revealed Modeling sea ice in Hudson Bay from a regional differences with many more long polar bear perspective distance (>50 km) swimming events by bears in the Beaufort Sea (Pilfold et al. 2016) . Increased Castro de la Guardia et al. (2013) used a high- swimming was related to changes in the amount resolution sea ice-ocean model to examine and location of summer sea ice. In 2012, 69% break-up and freeze-up dates in western of the tracked adult females in the Beaufort Sea Hudson Bay. The model was validated and swam more than 50 km at least once, the same calibrated with GPS-data from polar bears. year in which Arctic sea ice hit a record low. Predictions were based on the IPCC Swimming frequency and other movement greenhouse gas-emission scenarios: B1, A1B factors varied among individuals and showed and A2. The model predicted significant differences dependent on age, sex, body size, changes in western Hudson Bay spring sea ice and geographic features of the region. Swims concentration in A1B and A2, and in the occurred more frequently in the Beaufort Sea seasonal ice cycle in B1, A1B and A2. From than in the Hudson Bay. Females with young 2061–2100, the mean break-up date advances cubs tended to swim less, whereas lone 15.7 days (B1), 31.5 days (A1B), and 46 days subadults swam as frequently as lone adults. (A2), and the mean ice-free period lengthens by The longest recorded swim in the study was by 4.5 weeks (B1), 8.4 weeks (A1B), and 12.5 a subadult female that travelled over 400 km in weeks (A2). Should the model projections be 9 days. realized, a viable population of polar bears will Stirling and van Meurs (2015) not likely persist for the WH subpopulation documented a long dive by an adult male polar beyond the end of this century. bear during an aquatic stalk of three bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) in the drifting pack ice north of Spitsbergen. The bear dove for a total duration of 3 min 10 s and swam 45–50 m without surfacing to breathe or reorient itself to

72

the seal’s location. require monitoring at numerous spatiotemporal scales and across various levels of biological Approaches to identifying behavioural organization. Cherry et al. (2009, 2011) used processes and define home ranges using and refined a variety of ecological monitoring animal movement data tools that evaluated the effects of seasonal and longer-term unidirectional sea ice changes to Auger-Méthé et al. (2015a) explored new various aspects of polar bear ecology. At a methods of examining polar bear movement molecular level, urea to creatinine ratios in polar and space-use patterns to study individual bear blood were used to show that an increased strategies and developed new methods to number of polar bears were in a physiological incorporate sea ice drift in home range analyses. fasting state during spring captures in 2005– Two search strategies have become prominent: 2006 compared to the mid-1980s (Cherry et al. the Lévy walk and area-restricted search (ARS) 2009). These changes corresponded to broad- (Auger-Méthé et al. 2015a). Although the scale changes in Arctic sea ice composition, processes underlying these strategies differ, which may have altered prey availability. they can produce similar movement patterns Cherry et al. (2011) used measurements of and current methods cannot reliably naturally occurring stable isotopes (δ13C, δ15N) in differentiate between them. A method was polar bear tissues to examine diet, which developed to simultaneously assess the strength included both lipid-rich blubber and the of evidence for these two strategies using polar proteinaceous tissues of their prey. Because the bear telemetry data. proportion of proteins and lipids consumed A home range represents the area an were likely dependent on prey type and size, it animal uses to perform the majority of the was necessary to consider metabolic routing of activities required for survival and these macromolecules separately when using reproduction. As such, measuring home range isotope mixing models to determine and size has been an important tool to quantity the monitor polar bear diet. amount of habitat an animal requires. However, in moving habitats, traditional home Use of fatty acid signature analysis to range estimates may be ill-suited to this task. study polar bear diets Auger-Méthé et al. (2015b) developed a new approach to estimate the amount of ice habitat Polar bears across their circumpolar range are encountered by polar bears. These estimates largely dependent on the availability of ringed showed that the traditional geographic home seals (Pusa hispida) as their primary prey. range underestimates both the movement of However, at local and regional scales polar bear bears and the amount of ice habitat that they diets can be diverse and the ecological factors encounter. The results also indicated that bears affecting prey selection are poorly understood. living on highly mobile ice might be exposed to An improved understanding of the spatial and higher energetic costs (compensating for a temporal dynamics of polar bear foraging, and moving platform), and potentially larger the constraints and flexibility around prey energetic gains (greater availability of prey), selection, may provide insights into how polar than bears inhabiting more stable ice. bears respond to future climate-driven changes in food availability. A series of recent and Feeding and Dietary Studies ongoing studies have used fatty acid signature analysis to examine the feeding behaviour of Polar bear feeding ecology in relation to polar bears across their Canadian range. For sea ice dynamics the WH and SH subpopulations, longitudinal analysis of individual polar bear diets revealed Polar bears rely upon the sea ice as the platform substantial individual dietary specialization, to access their main prey: pagophilic seals. whereby an individual exploits a subset of Determining specific effects of climate-induced resources available to the rest of the population. environmental change on polar bears will Specifically, some adult male polar bears act as

73

specialized predators of bearded seals showed that polar bears selected for active areas (Thiemann et al. 2011). In the central Arctic of sea ice near the floe edge when hunting. subpopulations of Baffin Bay (BB), Lancaster Ringed seal whelping areas were located over a Sound (LS), and Gulf of Boothia (GB) polar range of habitats, and the distribution was bears diets were regionally variable with ringed, correlated with their natality rates. In years of bearded, and harp seals , as well as beluga low natality, pup kills were observed primarily whales (Delphinapterus leucas), all serving as in shorefast ice close to land, but during years important food sources (Galicia et al. 2015). of high natality the distribution widened, and Polar bears show ontogenetic and sex-specific pup kills were observed farther from land and patterns in prey selection and their diets are more frequently near active ice areas (Pilfold et strongly influenced by local prey availability. al. 2013). Results suggest that during periods of Ongoing projects will further examine the high natality, the habitats in which ringed seals intrinsic (e.g., reproductive status) and extrinsic whelp overlaps with areas preferred by polar (e.g., sea ice conditions) factors that influence bears for hunting. The spatial overlap between polar bear predatory behaviour in the polar bears and whelping ringed seals likely subpopulations within the western Canadian influences a change in the age-class proportions Arctic (i.e., SB, NB, Viscount Melville Sound of kills, as polar bears respond to the availability [VM], FB, WH, and SH). of vulnerable pups. Exploring the assumptions of common analytical modelling approaches in Polar bear foraging ecology in the Beaufort ecology, Pilfold et al. (2015) showed that Sea including biologically relevant measures, such as the size of kills, provided significant Polar bears enter a period of intensified feeding improvement to the models in both fit and in the spring, which allows for the accumulation interpretation. Measuring only the occurrence of energy stores critical to surviving the open of an ecological event, whether temporally or water season. Studies on polar bear predation spatially was insufficient when validated against have been limited by sample size and spatial independent data. extent, and hypotheses on the demographic composition of seal kills and the spatial Other Ecological Studies distribution of polar bears and seals were incongruent. Pilfold et al. (2012) used a long- Monitoring long-term trends in sea ice and term dataset (1985–2011) of seals killed by body condition in the Southern Hudson polar bears (n = 650) and predation attempts at Bay subpopulation ringed seal subnivean lairs (n = 1396) in the Canadian Beaufort Sea to link the habitats polar In Hudson Bay the ice melts completely each bears use and the seals that polar bears kill summer, and advances in break-up have during hyperphagia. Using DNA and field resulted in longer ice-free seasons. observations, it was determined that polar bears Consequently, earlier break-up is implicated in primarily killed ringed seals, but that bearded declines in body condition, survival, and seals contributed a significant portion of kill abundance of polar bears in the WH biomass (Pilfold et al. 2012). An increase in seal subpopulation (Stirling et al. 1999, Regehr et al. kill frequency was observed as spring 2007). Obbard et al. (2016) hypothesised that progressed, associated with the onset of ringed similar patterns would be evident in the seal whelping. The influence of ringed seal neighbouring SH subpopulation. First, Obbard whelping was also observable at inter-annual et al. (2016) examined trends 1980–2012 in scales, with total kill frequency positively break-up and freeze-up dates within the entire correlated to years of high ringed seal natality, SH management unit and within smaller coastal whereas adults were killed in higher proportion break-up and freeze-up zones. Next, they in years when natality was low. Employing examined trends in body condition for 900 locations of seal kills and attempted hunts at bears captured during 1984–1986, 2000–2005, ringed seal subnivean lairs, Pilfold et al. (2013) and 2007–2009 and hypothesised that body

74

condition would be correlated with duration of physiological condition. sea ice. The ice-free season in SH increased by about 30 days 1980–2012. Body condition Genetics Studies declined in all age and sex classes, but the decline was less for cubs than for other social Canadian polar bear population structure classes. If trends towards a longer ice-free using Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms season continue in the future, further declines (SNPs) in body condition and survival rates are likely, and ultimately declines in abundance will occur Several previous studies have investigated the in the SH subpopulation. genetic structure of polar bear subpopulations in the Canadian Arctic using microsatellite Monitoring long-term trends in condition markers (e.g., Paetkau et al. 1995, Crompton et and reproduction of polar bears in relation al. 2008, Campagna et al. 2013). Malenfant et al. to climatic warming in the Western (2015) focused on assessing Canadian polar Hudson Bay subpopulation bear subpopulation structure and potential adaptive variation using a 9K Illumina The overall objective of Environment and BeadChip that contained both restriction-site Climate Change Canada’s ongoing research in associated DNA (RAD) SNPs (non-coding western Hudson Bay is to quantitatively DNA) and potentially adaptive transcriptomic evaluate the effects of global climate change on SNPs developed from fat and blood. Analysis the ecology, population dynamics, status, and of 30 individuals from each of Canada’s 13 health of polar bears. The changing climate in polar bear subpopulations revealed 4 the region has a direct impact on the long-term moderately differentiated groups viability of the WH subpopulation. The corresponding to the Beaufort Sea, the Arctic impacts of earlier sea ice breakup on polar bears Archipelago, Norwegian Bay, and the Hudson of the WH subpopulation have been previously Complex (Malenfant 2016). Rarefaction documented and include reductions in body analyses show that the Norwegian Bay cluster condition, natality, survival of cubs, juveniles, has reduced genetic variation compared to and older bears, and in overall abundance (e.g., other genetic clusters, which is likely the result Stirling et al. 1999, Regehr et al. 2007). More of its small effective population size. There are recently, Lunn et al. (2016) documented relative also two outlier loci (SNPs in PDLIM5 stability in abundance that may be related to a associated with dilated cardiomyopathy and period of temporary stability in sea ice SLC15A5 associated with visceral adipose conditions. Nevertheless, reduction of sea ice tissue deposition), that may be related to habitat remains the most significant threat to previously observed unique physical polar bears (Stirling and Derocher 1993, characteristics of Norwegian Bay bears Derocher et al. 2004, Peacock et al. 2010). (Malenfant 2016). A recent analysis of long-term trends in the body condition of polar bears of the WH Multi-generational pedigree and subpopulation (Sciullo et al. 2016) detected quantitative genetics in the Western significant declines in condition from 2004 to Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation 2014 for adult and subadult male and female polar bears. Body condition was significantly In an effort to better understand the mating related to timing of sea ice break-up and freeze- system, sexual selection and heritability of traits up. Sciullo et al. (2016) also performed a in polar bears, Environment and Climate comparative assessment of multiple condition Change Canada has invested significant metrics and found strong correlations among resources into the development of a multi- most metrics, but concluded that mathematical generational pedigree for the WH models of energy stores (i.e., energy density, subpopulation. Malenfant et al. (2016) sensu Molnár et al. [2009]) may be the most published this pedigree which contains 4,449 useful means of tracking changes in individuals inferred from both field and genetic

75

data collected over six generations of bears capture location. Combining genetic and sampled between 1966 and 2011. The pedigree telemetric data provides an alternative method identified the first case of monozygotic for understanding subpopulation delineation. twinning in polar bears, 6 new cases of cub adoption and revealed that there was little to no Re-assessment of genetic structure of inbreeding in the WH subpopulation Canadian polar bear subpopulations (Malenfant et al. 2016). The pedigree is currently being applied to further refine Peacock et al. (2015) conducted an expansive estimates of age-specific reproductive success analysis of polar bear circumpolar genetic and sexual selection in polar bears documented variation during the last two decades of decline by Richardson (2014). Further quantitative in their sea-ice habitat. They evaluated whether analysis by Malenfant (2016) has shown that genetic diversity and structure have changed polar bears exhibit moderate heritabilities for over this period, how their current genetic skeletal size traits (e.g., body length) with patterns compare with past patterns, and how relatively low levels of evolvability. genetic demography changed with ancient fluctuations in climate. Characterizing their Population structure and space-use of circumpolar genetic structure using polar bears in Hudson Bay microsatellite data, Peacock et al. (2015) defined four clusters that largely correspond to current Telemetric and genetic population structure ecological and oceanographic factors: Eastern data have rarely been examined concurrently to Polar Basin, Western Polar Basin, Canadian explore differences and similarities. Viengkone Archipelago, and Southern Canada. They (2015) investigated the utility of both provided evidence for recent (ca. last 1–3 population genetics and breeding season generations) directional gene flow from telemetry data to examine polar bear Southern Canada and the Eastern Polar Basin subpopulation structure in Hudson Bay. towards the Canadian Archipelago, an area Genetic population structure was examined in hypothesized to be a future refugium for polar 414 polar bears caught throughout Hudson Bay bears as climate-induced habitat decline using two genetic marker systems: continues. From analyses of mitochondrial microsatellites and single nucleotide DNA, the Canadian Archipelago cluster and polymorphisms (SNPs; Viengkone 2015). the Barents Sea (BS) subpopulation within the SNPs detected a larger number of biologically Eastern Polar Basin cluster did not show signals meaningful subpopulations, with higher of population expansion, suggesting these areas proportions of strongly assigned individuals may have served also as past interglacial refugia. and more precise estimates of ancestry. SNPs Peacock et al. (2015) found no genetic identified four genetic clusters that differ from signatures of recent hybridization between the the subpopulation designations currently used polar bears and brown bears (U. arctos) in their for the region. Spatial structure was assessed by large, circumpolar sample, suggesting that comparing utilization distributions (UDs) recently observed hybrids represent localized during the breeding season from two events. perspectives: 1) by grouping individuals by the management subpopulation where individuals M’Clintock Channel–Gulf of Boothia were caught and 2) by grouping individuals by subpopulation differentiation the genetic cluster they strongly assign to. A combination of high-resolution SNP Local ecological and traditional knowledge information and geographic positioning suggests that polar bears of the neighbouring system-satellite telemetry data from 62 female M’Clintock Channel (MC) and Gulf of Boothia polar bears from three subpopulations of (GB) subpopulations represent one rather than Hudson Bay displayed reduced shared space- two management units. Movement data of use between grouped UDs based on genetic bears from these two areas are sparse; however, assignment compared to those formed by tissue samples collected during the last

76

population inventories (1998–2000) were used utility of HCC as a tool for polar bear in a genetic study to examine population conservation. differentiation. Campagna et al. (2013) used DNA microsatellites and mitochondrial control Assessing stress in the Western Hudson region sequences from 361 polar bears to Bay subpopulation using hair cortisol quantify genetic differentiation, estimate gene concentration as a biomarker flow, and infer population history of polar bears of the MC and GB subpopulations. Two Cortisol is the principal effector hormone of populations, roughly coincident with GB and the stress response and has been linked to MC subpopulations, were significantly aspects of polar bear biology (e.g., differentiated at both nuclear (FST = 0.01) and reproduction, growth) that may be negatively mitochondrial (ΦST = 0.47; FST = 0.29) loci, influenced by environmental change. Mislan et allowing Bayesian clustering analyses to assign al. (2016) examined the influence of age, individuals to either group. Results imply that reproductive status, and body condition the causes of the mitochondrial and nuclear (fatness) on hair cortisol concentration (HCC) genetic patterns differ. Analysis of mtDNA in 729 polar bears from the WH subpopulation revealed the matrilineal structure dates at least sampled from 2004–2013. There was a to the Holocene, and is common to individuals negative relationship between fatness and throughout the species’ range. These mtDNA HCC, suggesting that bears in poorer body differences probably reflect both genetic drift condition experienced higher levels of stress. and historical colonization dynamics. In However, when reproductive status was contrast, the differentiation inferred from included in the analysis, this relationship only microsatellites is only on the scale of hundreds held for male and lone female bears. Females of years, possibly reflecting contemporary with dependent offspring had consistently low impediments to gene flow. Taken together, the fatness and elevated HCC, likely because of the data suggest that gene flow is insufficient to high cost of maternal care. A positive homogenize the GB and MC subpopulations correlation was found between HCC and age and support their designation as separate polar for bears in: 1) poorer body condition, possibly bear conservation units. The study also due to nutritional stress compounding effects provides a striking example of how nuclear of senescence; and 2) male bears, potentially DNA and mtDNA capture different aspects of due to stress and injury associated with a species’ demographic history. intrasexual mate competition. These findings support the use of HCC as a biomarker for Health and Environment polar bear health and have established a HCC benchmark for the WH subpopulation. Evaluating hair cortisol concentration as an indicator of stress in the Southern Serum proteins as indicators of stress and Hudson Bay subpopulation health

The effectiveness of hair cortisol concentration Polar bears from several subpopulations (HCC) as an indicator of environmental stress undergo extended fasting during the ice-free in polar bears was evaluated using samples from season. However, the animals appear to 185 bears from the SH subpopulation, 2007– conserve protein despite the prolonged fasting, 2009 (Macbeth et al. 2012). HCC was though the mechanisms involved are poorly influenced by sex, family group status, and understood. Chow et al. (2011) hypothesized capture period but not by body region or hair that elevated concentrations of corticosteroid type. HCC was negatively associated with binding globulin (CBG), the primary cortisol growth indices (length, mass, and body binding protein in circulation, lead to cortisol condition index) linked to fitness in polar bears. resistance and provide a mechanism for protein Additional research will be required across conservation during extended fasting. The several polar bear populations to establish the metabolic state (feeding vs. fasting) of 16 field

77

sampled male polar bears was determined based groups (mother, yearling, 2-year-old; Bechshoft on their serum urea to creatinine ratio (>25 for et al. 2016). Maternal THg was positively feeding vs. <5 for fasting). There were no related to body condition and litter size, while significant differences in serum cortisol levels overall offspring THg was positively related to between all male and female polar bears maternal body condition in addition to being sampled. Serum CBG expression was greater dependent on the sex and age of the offspring. in lactating females relative to non-lactating COY THg concentrations were positively females and males. CBG expression was related to maternal THg while also depending significantly higher in fasting males when on the sex of the offspring. Although compared to non-fasting males. This suggested dependent young may be particularly sensitive that CBG expression may serve as a mechanism to the effects of environmental pollutants, few to conserve protein during extended fasting in studies of polar bears report on contaminants polar bears by reducing systemic free cortisol in this group. Considering our results, future concentrations. This was further supported by studies in polar bear ecotoxicology are a lower serum glucose concentration in the encouraged to group and investigate dependent fasting bears. As well, a lack of an enhanced offspring by age and sex. adrenocortical response to acute capture stress supported the hypothesis that chronic hunger is Penile density and contaminants not a stressor in this species. Chow et al. (2011) concluded that elevated serum CBG expression As a top predator, polar bears accumulate may be an important adaptation to spare various contaminants in their tissues, which has proteins by limiting cortisol bioavailability led to ongoing circumpolar contaminants during extended fasting in polar bears. monitoring programmes. In order to understand how these contaminants could Contaminants Studies affect reproduction in the long-term, a study was undertaken to examine bone mineral Mercury in polar bear hair density (BMD) of polar bear bacula, and whether spatial trends and relationships to Bechshoft et al. (2015) studied the relationship contaminants existed. Sonne et al. (2015) between concentrations of cortisol and total analysed 279 bacula of polar bears born mercury (THg) in guard hair from 378 polar between 1990 and 2000 representing eight polar bears sampled from the WH subpopulation, bear subpopulations. Because endocrine 2004–2012. Mercury has been deemed an disrupting chemical (EDC) concentrations endocrine disruptor in other species, but this were not available from the same specimens, was the first study investigating this property in the authors compared BMD with published polar bears. The sexes did not differ in cortisol literature information on EDC concentrations. concentrations, but females had significantly Latitudinal and longitudinal BMD and EDC higher THg concentrations than males gradients were clearly observed, with WH bears (Bechshoft et al. 2015). Hair cortisol in males having the highest BMD and lowest EDC, and was significantly influenced by THg polar bears of the East Greenland (EG) concentration, age, and body condition. In subpopulation carrying the lowest BMD and females, cortisol was related to body condition highest EDC. A BMD vs. polychlorinated only. In conclusion, a significant, but complex, biphenyls (PCB) regression analysis showed relationship was found between THg and that BMD tended to decrease as a function of cortisol concentrations in hair from male, but PCB concentration though the relationship was not female, polar bears. not statistically significant (P = 0.10). Risk Another study of THg involved 24 polar quotient (RQ) estimation demonstrated that bear family groups from the WH PCBs could be in a range that may lead to subpopulation. THg concentrations increased disruption of normal reproduction and with age, with cubs-of-the-year (COY) having development. Therefore, it is likely that EDC significantly lower concentrations than other directly affects development and bone density

78

in polar bears. WH bears had in general the = 0.98) and 6.1% (R2 = 0.98) of scale weight in best health and EG bears were at the highest the earlier and later time periods, respectively. risk of having negative health effects. Though These equations were: having low levels of BMD is a general health risk, reductions in penile BMD could lead to 1980-1996 mating and subsequent fertilization failure as a M = 0.00008989 × AXG1.919 × SLEN1.026 result of weak penile bones and risk of fractures. Based on this, future studies should 2007-2009 assess how polar bear subpopulations respond M = 0.00006039 × AXG1.762 × SLEN1.249 upon EDC exposure. where M = mass (kg), AXG = axillary girth Research Techniques (cm), and SLEN = straight-line length (cm).

Estimating body mass of polar bears of the Testing high-resolution satellite images to Western Hudson Bay subpopulation monitor polar bears

The mass of Western Hudson Bay polar bears In recent years, the Government of Nunavut captured each year had been estimated from an has explored research and monitoring equation developed by Kolenosky et al. (1989) techniques that involve less or no handling of that was based on measurements of chest girth wildlife due to the concerns expressed by and weight from polar bears handled along the community members. High-resolution satellite Ontario coast over 20 years ago. Declining sea imagery is a promising tool for providing coarse ice conditions associated with Arctic warming information about polar species abundance and have significantly affected body condition, distribution, but current applications are reproduction, survival, and abundance of polar limited. For polar bears, the technique has only bears in this region (Stirling et al. 1999, Regehr proven effective on landscapes with little et al. 2007) and, although it is among the best- topographic relief that are devoid of snow and studied groups of polar bears in the world, the ice, and time-consuming manual review of relationship between morphometry and body imagery is required to identify bears. Therefore, mass had not been examined in more than 20 LaRue et al. (2015) evaluated mechanisms to years. From 2007 through 2009, bears captured further develop methods for satellite imagery each fall in western Hudson Bay were weighed by examining data from Rowley Island in Foxe on a digital scale suspended from a tripod to Basin. They attempted to automate and investigate the possibility that the expedite detection via a supervised spectral morphometry-mass relationship had changed classification and image differencing to over time. expedite image review. LaRue et al. (2015) also New predictive equations were assessed what proportion of a region should be developed to estimate the body mass of free- sampled to obtain reliable estimates of density ranging polar bears in WH (Thiemann et al. and abundance. Although the spectral 2011). Using multiple linear and non-linear signature of polar bears differed from nontarget regressions, a strong relationship between polar objects, these differences were insufficient to bear body weight and linear measures of yield useful results via a supervised straight line length and axillary girth was classification process. Conversely, automated identified. The mass-morphometry image differencing – or subtracting one image relationship appeared to change over time and, from another – correctly identified nearly 90% therefore, separate equations were developed of polar bear locations. However, this for polar bears physically weighed during two technique also yielded false positives, time periods, 1980-1996 and 2007-2009. Bears suggesting that manual review will still be were not weighed between 1996 and 2007. required to confirm polar bear locations. On Non-linear models were more accurate and Rowley Island, bear distribution approximated provided body mass estimates within 5.8% (R2 a Poisson distribution across a range of plot

79

sizes, and resampling suggests that sampling Campagna, L., Van Coeverden de Groot, P.J., >50% of the site facilitates reliable estimation Saunders, B.L., Atkinson, S.N., Weber, of density (CV <15%). Satellite imagery may be D.S., Dyck, M.G., Boag, P.T., and an effective monitoring tool in certain areas, but Lougheed, S.C. 2013. Extensive large-scale applications remain limited because sampling of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) of the challenges in automation and the limited in the Northwest Passage (Canadian environments in which the method can be Arctic Archipelago) reveals population effectively applied. Nevertheless, differentiation across multiple spatial and improvements in resolution may expand temporal scales. Ecology and Evolution opportunities for its future uses. 3:3152–3165. Castro de la Guardia, L., Derocher, A.E., References Myers, P.G., Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A.D., and Lunn, N.J. 2013. Future sea Aars, J., Marques, T.A., Buckland, S.T., ice conditions in western Hudson Bay Andersen, M., Belikov, S., Boltunov, A., and consequences for polar bears in the and Wiig, Ø. 2009. Estimating the 21st century. Global Change Biology Barents Sea polar bear subpopulation 19:2675–2687. size. Marine Mammal Science 25:35–52. Cherry, S.G., Derocher, A.E., Hobson, K.A., Auger-Méthé, M., Derocher, A.E., Plank, M.J., Stirling, I., and Thiemann, G.W. 2011. Codling, E.A., Lewis, M.A., and Börger, Quantifying dietary pathways of proteins L. 2015. Differentiating the Lévy walk and lipids to tissues of a marine predator. from a composite correlated random Journal of Applied Ecology 48:373–381. walk. Methods in Ecology and Evolution Cherry, S., Derocher, A.E., and Lunn, N.J. 6:1179–1189. 2016. Habitat-mediated timing of Auger-Méthé, M., Lewis, M.A., and Derocher, migration in polar bears: an individual A.E. 2015. Home ranges in moving perspective. Ecology and Evolution 6:5032– habitats: polar bears and sea ice. 5042. Ecography 39:26–35. Cherry, S.G., Derocher, A.E., Stirling, I., and Belikov, S.E., Chelintsev, N.G., Kalyakin, V.N., Richardson, E.S. 2009. Fasting Romanov, A.A., and Uspensky, S.M. physiology of polar bears in relation to 1988. Results of Aerial counts of the environmental change and breeding polar bear in the Soviet Arctic in 1988. behavior in the Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology Pages 75–79 in Amstrup, S., and Wiig, Ø. 32:383–391. (eds.) Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 10th Cherry, S.G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W., Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar and Lunn, N.J. 2013. Migration Bear Specialist Group, Sochi, USSR, 25–29 phenology and seasonal fidelity of an October 1988, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Arctic marine predator in relation to sea and Cambridge, UK. ice dynamics. Journal of Animal Ecology Bechshoft, T., Derocher, A.E., Richardson, E., 82:912–921. Lunn, N.J., and St. Louis, V.L. 2016. Chow, B.A., Hamilton, J., Cattet, M.R.L., Hair mercury concentrations in western Stenhouse, G., Obbard, M.E., and Hudson Bay polar bear family groups. Vijayan, M.M. 2011. Serum Environmental Science and Technology corticosteroid binding globulin 50:5313–5319. expression is modulated by fasting in Bechshoft, T., Derocher, A.E., Richardson, E., polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Comparative Mislan, P., Lunn, N.J., Sonne, C., Dietz, Biochemistry and Physiology A 158:111–115. R., Janz, D.M., and St. Louis, V.L. 2015. Crete, M., Vandal, D., Rivest, L., and Potvin, F. Mercury and cortisol in western Hudson 1991. Double counts in aerial surveys to Bay polar bear hair. Ecotoxicology estimate polar bear numbers during the 24:1315–1321. ice-free period. Arctic 44:275–278.

80

Crompton, A.E., Obbard, M.E., Petersen, S.D., IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and and Wilson, P.J. 2008. Population Cambridge, UK. genetic structure in polar bears (Ursus Lunn, N.J., Taylor, M., Calvert, W., Stirling, I., maritimus) from Hudson Bay, Canada: Obbard, M., Elliott, C., Lamontagne, G., implications of future climate change. Schaeffer, J., Atkinson, S., Clark, D., Biological Conservation 141:2528–2539. Bowden, E., and Doidge, B. 1998. Polar Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., and Stirling, I. bear management in Canada 1993–1996. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Pages 51–68 in Derocher, A.E., Garner, Integrative and Comparative Biology 44:163– G.W., Lunn, N.J., and Wiig, Ø. (eds.) 176. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the Twelfth Working Evans, T.J., Fishbach, A., Schliebe, S., Manly, Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear B., Kalxdorff, S., and York, G. 2003. Specialist Group, Oslo, Norway, 3–7 February Polar bear aerial survey in the eastern 1997. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Chukchi Sea: a pilot study. Arctic 56:359– Cambridge, UK. 366. Lunn, N.J., Servanty, S., Regehr, E.V., Galicia, M.P., Thiemann, G., Dyck, M.G., and Converse, S.J., Richardson, E., and Ferguson, S.H. 2015. Characterization Stirling, I. 2016. Demography of an apex of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) diets in the predator at the edge of its range: impacts Canadian High Arctic. Polar Biology of changing sea ice on polar bears in 38:1983–1992. Hudson Bay. Ecological Applications Hamilton, S.G., Castro de la Guardia, L., 26:1302–1320. Derocher, A.E., Sahanatien, V., Macbeth, B.J., Cattet, M.R.L., Obbard, M.E., Tremblay, B., and Huard, D. 2014. Middel, K., and Janz, D.M. 2012. Projected polar bear sea ice habitat in the Evaluation of hair cortisol concentration Canadian Arctic Archipelago. PLoS as an indicator of long-term stress in free- ONE 9: e113746. ranging polar bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113746. 36:747–758. Kolenosky, G.B., Lunn, N.J., Greenwood, C.J., Malenfant, R.M., Coltman, D.W., Davis, C.S. and Abraham, K.F. 1989. Estimating the 2015. Design of a 9K Illumina BeadChip weight of polar bears from body for polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from measurements. Journal of Wildlife RAD and transcriptome sequencing. Management 53:188–190. Molecular Ecology Resources 15:587–600. LaRue, M.A., Stapleton, S., Porter, C., Malenfant, R.M., Coltman, D.W., Richardson, Atkinson, S., Atwood, T., Dyck, M., and E.S., Lunn, N.J., Stirling, I., Adamowicz, Lecomte, N. 2015. Testing methods for E., and Davis, C.S. 2016. Evidence of using high-resolution satellite imagery to adoption, monozygotic twinning, and monitor polar bear abundance and low inbreeding rates in a large genetic distribution. Wildlife Society Bulletin pedigree of polar bears. Polar Biology 39:772–779. 39:1455–1465. Lunn, N.J., Branigan, M., Carpenter, L., Justus, Malenfant, R.M. 2016. Population Genomics J., Hedman, D., Larsen, D., Lefort, S., and Quantitative Genetics of Polar Bears Maraj, R., Obbard, M.E., Peacock, E., (Ursus maritimus). Dissertation, and F. Pokiak. 2010. Polar bear University of Alberta, Edmonton, management in Canada, 2005–2008. Alberta, Canada. Pages 87–114 in Obbard, M.E., McDonald, L.L., Garner, G.W., and Robertson, Thiemann, G.W., Peacock, E., and D.G. 1999. Comparison of aerial survey DeBruyn, T.D. (eds.) Polar Bears: procedures for estimating polar bear Proceedings of the 15th Working Meeting of the density: Results of pilot studies in IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, Northern Alaska. Pages 37–51 in Garner, Copenhagen, Denmark, 29 June–3 July, 2009. G.W., Amstrup, S.C., Laake, J.L., Manly, B.F.J., McDonald, L.L., and Robertson,

81

D.G. (eds.) Marine mammal survey and Ehrich, D., Scribner, K.T., Amstrup, assessment methods. Balkema, Rotterdam, S.C., Belikov, S., Born, E., Derocher, The Netherlands. A.E., I. Stirling, I., Taylor, M.K., Wiig, Mislan, P., Derocher, A.E., St. Louis, V.L., Ø, Paetkau, D., and Talbot, S.L. 2015. Richardson, E., Lunn, N.J., and Janz, Implications of the circumpolar genetic D.M. 2016. Assessing stress in western structure of polar bears for their ecology, Hudson Bay polar bears using hair evolution and conservation in a rapidly cortisol concentration as a biomarker. warming Arctic. PLoS ONE 10: Ecological Indicators 71:47–54. e112021. Molnár, P.K., Klanjscek, T., Derocher, A.E., doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112021. Obbard, M.E., and Lewis, M.A. 2009. A Peacock, E., Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., and body composition model to estimate Stirling, I. 2013. Population ecology of mammalian energy stores and metabolic polar bears in Davis Strait, Canada and rates from body mass and body length, Greenland. Journal of Wildlife Management with application to polar bears. Journal of 77:463–476. Experimental Biology 212:2313–2323. Pilfold, N.W., Derocher, A.E., Stirling, I., and Obbard, M.E., Cattet, M.R.L., Howe, E.J., Richardson, E. 2013. Polar bear Middel, K.R., Newton, E.J., Kolenosky, predatory behaviour reveals seascape G.B., Abraham, K.F., and Greenwood, distribution of ringed seal lairs. Population C.J. 2016. Trends in body condition in Ecology 56:129–138. polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from the Pilfold, N.W., Derocher, A.E., Stirling, I., and Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation in Richardson, E. 2015. Multi-temporal relation to changes in sea ice. Arctic factors influence predation for polar Science 2:15–32. bears in a changing climate. Oikos Obbard, M.E., and Middel, K.R. 2012. 124:1098–1107. Bounding the Southern Hudson Bay Pilfold, N.W., Derocher, A.E., Stirling, I., polar bear subpopulation. Ursus 23:134– Richardson, E., and Andriashek, D. 144. 2012. Age and sex composition of seals Obbard, M.E., Stapleton, S., Middel, K.R., killed by polar bears in the eastern Thibault, I., Brodeur, V., and Jutras, C. Beaufort Sea. PLOS One 7: e41429. 2015. Estimating the abundance of the doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041429. Southern Hudson Bay polar bear Pilfold, N.W., McCall, A., Derocher, A.E., subpopulation with aerial surveys. Polar Lunn, N.J., and Richardson, E. 2016. Biology 38:1713–1725. Migratory response of polar bears to sea Paetkau, D., Calvert, W., Stirling, I., and ice loss: to swim or not to swim. Strobeck, C. 1995. Microsatellite Ecography 40:189–199. analysis of population structure in Pongracz, J., and Derocher, A.E. 2016. Canadian polar bears. Molecular Ecology Summer refugia of polar bears (Ursus 4:347–354. maritimus) in the southern Beaufort Sea. Peacock, E., Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., and Polar Biology doi 10.1007/s00300-016- Obbard, M.E. 2010. Polar bear ecology 1997-8. and management in Hudson Bay in the Regehr, E.V., Lunn, N.J., Amstrup, S.C., and face of climate change. Pages 93–115 in Stirling, I. 2007. Effects of earlier sea ice Ferguson, S.H., Loseto, L.L., and breakup on survival and population size Mallory, M.L. (eds.) A Little Less Arctic: of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. Top Predators in the World’s Largest Northern Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2673– Inland Sea. Springer, New York. 2683. Peacock, E., Sonsthagen, S.A., Obbard, M.E., Richardson, E.S. 2014. The mating system and Boltunov, A., Regehr, E.V., Ovsyanikov, life history of the polar bear. N., Aars, J., Atkinson, S.N., Sage, G.K., Dissertation, University of Alberta, Hope, A.G., Zeyl, E., Bachmann, L., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

82

Sahanatien, V., and Derocher, A.E. 2012. Stirling, I., Lunn, N.J., and Iacozza, J. 1999. Monitoring sea ice habitat fragmentation Long-term trends in the population for polar bear conservation. Animal ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Conservation 15:397–406. Bay in relation to climatic change. Arctic Sahanatien, V., Peacock, E., and Derocher, 52:294–306. A.E. 2015. Population substructure and Stirling, I., McDonald, T.L., Richardson, E.S., space use of Foxe Basin polar bears. Regehr, E.V., and Amstrup, S.C. 2011. Ecology and Evolution 5:2851–2864. Polar bear population status in the Sciullo, L., Thiemann, G.W., and Lunn, N.J. northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971– 2016. Comparative assessment of 2006. Ecological Applications 21:859–876. metrics for monitoring the body Stirling, I., and van Meurs, R. 2015. Longest condition of polar bears in Western recorded underwater dive by a polar bear. Hudson Bay. Journal of Zoology 300:45-58. Polar Biology 38:1301–1304. Sonne, C., Dyck, M., Riget, F., Bech-Jensen, Taylor, M. K., Lee, J., Laake, J., and J.E., Hyldstrup, L., Letcher, R., McLoughlin, P.D. 2006. Estimating Gustavson, K., Gilbert, T., and Dietz, R. population size of polar bears in Foxe 2015. Globally used chemicals and penile Basin, Nunavut using tetracycline density in Canadian and Greenland polar biomarkers. Government of Nunavut, bears. Environmental Research 137:287– Department of Environment, Final 291. Wildlife Report: 1, Iqaluit, 29 pp. Stapleton, S., Atkinson, S., Hedman, D., and Thiemann, G.W., Lunn, N.J., Richardson, E.S., Garshelis, D. 2014. Revisiting Western and Andriashek, D.S. 2011. Temporal Hudson Bay: Using aerial surveys to change in the morphometry–body mass update polar bear abundance in a sentinel relationship of polar bears. Journal of population. Biological Conservation 170:38– Wildlife Management 75:580–587. 47. Viengkone, M. 2015. Population structure and Stapleton, S., Peacock, E., Garshelis, D., and space-use of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) Atkinson, S. 2012. Foxe Basin polar bear in Hudson Bay. Thesis, University of aerial survey, 2009 and 2010: Final report. Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Nunavut Department of Environment, Wiig, Ø., and Derocher, A. 1999. Application Iqaluit, Nunavut. of aerial survey methods to polar bears in Stapleton, S., Peacock, E., and Garshelis, D. the Barents Sea. Comparison of aerial 2016. Aerial surveys suggest long-term survey procedures for estimating polar stability in the seasonally ice-free Foxe bear density: Results of pilot studies in Basin (Nunavut) polar bear population. Northern Alaska. Pages 27–36 in Garner, Marine Mammal Science 32:181–201. G.W., Amstrup, S.C., Laake, J. L., Manly, Stirling, I., and Derocher, A.E. 1993. Possible B.F.J., McDonald L.L., and Robertson, impacts of climatic warming on polar D.G. (eds.) Marine mammal survey and bears. Arctic 46:240–245. assessment methods. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

83

Management on Polar Bears in Greenland, 2009–2016 A. Jessen, Department of Fisheries and Hunting, Government of Greenland, 3900 Nuuk, Greenland

The socioeconomic and cultural Greenland (EG) polar bear subpopulation along the eastern Greenlandic coast and the importance of polar bears in Davis Strait (DS) subpopulation in southwest Greenland Greenland.

For millennia, since our ancestors came to Legislation Greenland, bringing along with them a tradition of hunting land and marine mammals, polar The Greenland Home Rule Act no. 12 of 29 bears have played a central role for our hunters October 1999 on Hunting & Game is the and their families. Besides providing meat and legislative basis of wildlife management in clothing for the subsistence of the small Greenland. It sets the legal boundaries for the communities, polar bears have a strong social, protection of wildlife in Greenland, including economic and cultural role in our society and polar bears. The Executive Order on the have always been a mythical figure in our protection and hunting of polar bears (2006) culture. Thus, polar bears are a very important regulates the access to the harvest of polar bears species in Greenland. That implores the and restricts the harvest to single adult polar Greenlandic people and decision makers, to bear. It also sets the boundaries of polar bear ensure the long-term survival of the species, research. The most recent update of the through regional and international co- executive order on management of and operation. protection of polar bears was in 2005, when the current system of harvest quotas was Management introduced. A new executive order is expected to be introduced in 2018. The draft has been The Government of Greenland is the under a public hearing since spring 2017. The responsible authority of the management of Greenland Home Rule Act no. 29 of 12 polar bears in Greenland, including the national December 2003 on Nature Protection, and the legislation, national coordination and setting of Greenland Home Rule Act no. 25 of 18 hunting quotas. The Ministry of Fisheries and December 2003 on Animal Welfare, are also Hunting (APN) provides national coordination some of the legislative actions that set the basis and is the authority for international for the management of polar bears in agreements (e.g. Memorandum of Greenland. Understanding between Greenland and The Greenland Home Rule Executive Canada/Nunavut on the Kane Basin (KB) and Order from 2005 on the Protection and Baffin Bay (BB) polar bear subpopulations, Hunting of polar bears covers the land and the Range States meetings, Agreement on the economic zones of Greenland. There are Conservation of Polar Bears, IUCN Polar Bear special provisions for access to the National Specialist Group, and coordinates the polar Park in northern and eastern Greenland, and bear issues subject in the CITES Animals the Melville Bay Nature Reserve. The Committee and COP). Executive order has initiated the use of the The jurisdiction of the KB and BB Government of Greenland’s annual polar bear subpopulations of polar bears are shared quota system and monitoring, taking into between Canada/Nunavut and Greenland. account the following aspects: Greenland has also the jurisdiction of the East • international agreements;

84

• biological advice provided by introduces a specific ruling in Greenland Institute of Natural handling trophy hunting and a Resources (GINR); specific executive order on • harvest statistics; and trophy hunting of polar bears • Traditional Ecological (excluding 2016); Knowledge (TEK), through • prohibition on receiving consultations with the Hunting payment or money in relation to Council and The association of transportation of personnel in a Fishermen and Hunters in boat in connection with polar Greenland, (and other relevant bear hunting; partners). • prohibition on the use of The protective elements in the executive poison, traps, foot snares or order are as follows: self-shooting guns for polar • a quota-system to dictate bear hunting; permitted harvest level and • prohibition on the use of rim- permitted hunting period; fire rifles, shot guns or semi- or • only occupational (full time) fully automatic weapons. Only hunters can hunt polar bears; rifles with a minimum caliber of • year round protection of all 30.06 (7.62 mm) are allowed to cubs and females accompanied be used in polar bear hunting. by cubs; • prohibition on the export of Management system live polar bear cubs; • protection of polar bears in the The Minister of Fisheries and Hunting sets an EG subpopulation from 1 annual quota of polar bear for subsistence August – 30 September, and in harvest. Based on the latest scientific advice other subpopulations from 1 and figures of harvest for the preceding harvest July – 31 August; season, the Ministry drafts a preliminary • prohibition on the export of allocation of the quota. gall bladders or parts thereof; The management of polar bear resides at the Wildlife Division, which is located at the • prohibition on disturbing or APN. The Wildlife Division is the management digging out polar bears in dens; body of both marine and terrestrial mammals • mandatory reporting of all and bird species hunted in Greenlandic catches including struck and economic zones/territory. Forms and licenses lost (i.e., shot and wounded) from APN to harvest polar bears are issued by polar bears to the municipal the municipalities according to the allocated office, which will send the local quotas, within the annual quotas set by report to the APN; APN or the Cabinet. • prohibition on the use of air The Greenland Fisheries License Control craft, or motorized vehicles, Authority is tasked to enforce the regulations including snow mobiles and set by the government and the municipalities. boats larger than 20 GRT/15 A proposal of a block quotas or annual GT in the hunt or for quota has a minimum of 5 weeks consultation transportation to and from the period by the Hunters’ National Association hunting grounds; (KNAPK), the municipalities, the Ministry of • prohibition on trophy hunting Nature and Environment and the Greenland unless the Cabinet has allocated Institute of Natural Resources and the Council a specific quota and other of Hunting. A dialog between stakeholders conditions have been fulfilled. takes place between the Ministry and For example, if the Cabinet

85

stakeholders until a set date, decided at the harvesting, which are deducted in the following beginning of the consultation. quota year. Based on the consultation, the Ministry There are no quotas for the Arctic Basin drafts a final proposal to be presented to the (AB) subpopulation, and hunting is not Minister if the quota is part of a block quota for allowed. There is a Qaanaaq local ongoing 3 to 5 years. If a new block quota is based on a request to reopen the polar bear hunting in the new biological advice, then the Cabinet will area, which was closed when the quota system decide the new block quota giving a mandate to was introduced in 2006 for the KB and BB the Minister to make the final share to the 4 subpopulations. The hunters in eastern municipalities. Greenland have also an ongoing request of Since Greenland took over the increased quota; even with a political set quota responsibility for wildlife management in 1985 of 10 extra polar bears for the EG from Denmark, the legislation-executive order subpopulation has been allocated annually since on polar bear management has been updated 2011. and improved several times. A license is valid for hunting one polar Each update of the regulations has bear. It is illegal to sell polar bear meat to offered increased protection of polar bears in processing plants in Greenland. Before parts Greenland while respecting the traditional can be sold to the local market, which could be rights of hunters. This is because the everything from the meat, the skull, claws and Government of Greenland has strived to adapt skin, the license needs to be stamped by the to the challenges facing the Arctic and polar local authority. This is done when the local bears in particular. authority receives the standard form (Fig. 2) The introduction of quotas and the with details of the catch from the hunter. The subsequent quota allocations from 2006 are municipal authority forwards the filled standard based on the historical distribution of the forms to the APN. harvest, local hearing and recommendations from the scientific advisors. Catch reporting

Polar bear subpopulations Greenland is operating with two catch reporting systems. The first of which is a Greenland has 5 subpopulations of polar bears License system where local authorities issue (Fig. 1). Four of these are on the west coast and licenses for polar bear hunting to full time are shared with Canada/Nunavut/Nunavik, occupational hunters. Immediately after a hunt, and one on the East coast is Greenland’s sole the hunter reports the catch to the local responsibility. The towns and communities are authority by filling in a standardized form for all sparsely scattered and there are hundreds of polar bear kills (including shot and lost animals; kilometers of remote coastline. Fig. 2). This form includes data about the date and the position of the catch, as well as size, age The Greenland quota of polar and gender of the killed animal, and whether it had tags or tattoos. Similar forms are filled by bears 2010–2016 the authorities for polar bears have been shot either in self-defence or illegally. Data from After the introduction of the quota system in legal catches, killings of problem bears and Greenland in 2006, the annual quota for 2009 illegal catches are input into a national database. and 2010 was set to 130, each year. The annual The executive order regulating harvest of quota from 2011–2016 was set on 140 each polar bears in Greenland contains a paragraph year. An additional 10 polar bears were that permits the Minister of Fisheries and allocated politically to eastern Greenland in Hunting to enable a mandatory delivery of 2011–2016. There is no carry-over system. harvest samples as a requisite for obtaining a The fixed annual quota could vary in polar bear hunting licence (Anon 2005). This numbers in reference to incidents with over- paragraph was enforced in 2012 and polar bear

86

hunters are expected to deliver a genetic sample simple mistakes while filling in the form when to the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources reporting annual catches for all species. The (GINR) for each polar bear harvested. The catch is compiled on an annual basis (January to sample includes a small piece of tissue from the January) by APN. tip of tongue suspended in a saturated salt water This double reporting system is used to solution for DNA analyses and a premolar validate catches. In case where there are tooth for age determination. Rates of tissue inconsistencies between the systems (e.g., a sampling vary from region to region and there hunter has reported through only one system), is not full compliance; samples of 310 (44%) of hunters are contacted directly to verify the the 704 polar bears killed in Greenland between information. The Ministry is working on plan 2012 and 2016 were sent to GINR by hunters. to get a better digital reporting system. There It must be noted that genetic analysis of harvest is very close cooperation between APN and samples from the KB and BB subpopulations municipality offices and staff in obtaining the showed that Greenlandic hunters were prone to correct catch reporting and verifying the data. misclassify the gender of the harvested polar As the digital world increases it eases the work bears, with 39% of genetic females reported as and shorten the work time collecting the data. males and 12% of genetic males reported as All licenses are also made in an females (SWG 2016). The genetic composition interactive program, so the workload is also of the reported harvest was 54% females for the simpler for both the Ministry, the municipal KB and BB subpopulations in Greenland and offices and for the hunter. SWG (2016) concluded that harvest in Greenland appears to be non-selective for sex. Problem bears Local authorities may hand out more licenses than the quota dictates and stop the The number of human-polar bear interactions hunt once the quota is reached. However, this varies in Greenland (Table 2), and shows no requires a very strict control by the consistent pattern, especially in eastern and municipality. The Ministry monitors the hunt northern Greenland. With this in mind, there and will intervene if a municipality fails to do is a high level of success in deterrence measures. so. Overharvest will be deducted from the Though, there are still challenges. following year’s quota. There are few encounters which we do The formed-based scheme is put into a not receive reports on. This is an area of focus database in the APN, which monitor the hunt for the APN, where we focus on capacity in all unit areas. At least once a month, the building as well as information strategies, to APN sends a list of catches to each inform the communities and hunters on the management unit and asks each municipality to importance of reporting these encounters. The check whether the received forms are correct. APN also receives reports of encounters from If not, the municipal office will send revised research and military groups. The APN has information. formed written guidelines on handling of The second reporting system is the problem bears, which are available in three annual catch report from all hunters we call languages; Greenlandic, Danish and English. “Piniarneq”. This requires that all hunters Greenland is also part of the Polar Bear report their annual catches (including number Range States Polar Bear HIMS-project to of polar bears) to the APN every year. The collect data on incidents of problem bears. form includes name of hunter/hunters and Greenland planned to initiate a process number of bears killed (struck and lost) in each of testing the efficiency of bear spray and month. rubber bullets as physical deterrent measures, At the moment, a double reporting which has been proven to be very successful in system is used due to suspicion that the catches other range state Countries. However, the were over-reported in the annual catch reports. Government of Denmark refused the Over-reporting is suspected due to either application from APN to get a dispensation to several hunters reporting the same catch, or import the bear spray. The Government of

87

Greenland has, on that basis, decided to wait ban on export of polar bear products after a for further research results on the effects of negative NDF. bear spray on polar bears in other countries. The APN is working on a simpler Greenland/Canada/Nunavut reporting schedule for registering polar bear- human interactions in order to improve the Polar Bear Joint Commission information we are collecting. Greenland finds it important that co- management agreements are developed Habitat protection between nations sharing polar bear population to ensure that combined harvests does not Among the protected areas in Greenland of exceed sustainable levels. Greenland is which two sites are within common polar bear 2 therefore very proud of the co-management habitat. These are Melville Bay (10,500 km ) in agreement with Canada/Nunavut, which was northwest Greenland, and The Greenland 2 signed in October 2009 for the KB and BB National Park (972,000 km ) in Northeast subpopulations by the Polar Bear Joint Greenland. The protection of these areas Commission (Fig. 4). A final scientific report safeguards the preservation of the biodiversity was delivered to the JCPB by its scientific in the wild, whilst ensuring the access to working group (SWG) in July 2016 (SWG 2016) recreational use of designated areas. The and a final harvest report was delivered in July attached map of Greenland marks the 2017 (Regehr et al. 2017). protected areas (Fig. 3). The executive order The Scientific Working Group has been covers the land and the economic zones of established by the Polar Bear Joint Commission Greenland. Special provisions apply for access to: to the National Park in northeastern • provide scientific advice Greenland, and the Melville Bay Nature and recommendations with respect Reserve (Fig. 3). to the conservation and

management of the KB and BB CITES elements polar bear subpopulations; • provide Greenland is member of the Washington recommendations for proposed Convention (i.e., Convention on International Total Available Harvest for both Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna KB and BB polar bear and Flora, or CITES) through Denmark since subpopulations using best available 1983. In 1985 Greenland CITES Management scientific information; Authority (CITES M.A.) obtained authority to • recommend new issue CITES permits and has since then been estimates of abundance KB and BB issuing permits in line with CITES regulations. polar bear subpopulations. An executive order on CITES from 2004 is administered by the Ministry of Environment and Nature in Greenland. The Greenland Traditional Ecological Institute of Natural Resources is the CITES Knowledge Scientific Authority in Greenland. As such Greenland Institute of Natural Resources is Greenland has a history of good cooperation responsible for making Non-Detriment between hunters and scientists. They work Findings (NDFs) in accordance with the together in the field collecting scientific data CITES regulations. and traditional ecological knowledge. The Early 2007, the CITES M.A. in biologists have experience in collecting and Greenland started a process for making a NDF making use of the traditional ecological for the polar bear. This resulted in a negative knowledge that hunters and locals give. This non-detrimental finding. In April 2008, the traditional ecological knowledge is vital in CITES M.A. introduced a voluntary temporary

88

understanding a species that has been in the bears in Greenland, in ensuring the long-term consciousness and life of Greenlander’s conservation for polar bears. ancestors for centuries. Traditional ecological knowledge is not only important as an input to Climate change management. The hunters and their communities that rely on polar bear need to be There have been dramatic changes in weather invited in the collection of knowledge and the and the sea-ice in Greenland in the last 20 years decision-making process. in Greenland. The hunters can no longer depend on sea-ice for transportation as they IUCN Polar Bear Special Group have for many centuries (Born et al. 2011). The sea-ice is unpredictable and hunters cannot Greenland is represented with three members always drive on the ice with sledge dogs. Also in the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group by 2 due to climate change, the ability to harvest biologists and 1 manager. These individuals natural resources has been changed. Many provide advice on all 5 subpopulations along small communities depend on these resources. the coasts of Greenland both with biological These changes alone force the Greenlandic research and management issues. people to re-think the means to their own existence. That is no small challenge. Greenland and Polar Bear Range States References

Greenland is member of the Oslo Convention Anon. 2005. Hjemmestyrets bekendtgørelse Agreement on Polar Bears from 1973. nr. 21 af 22. september 2005 om Greenland is engaged in the Polar Bear Range beskyttelse og fangst af isbjørne. States dialogue that has been re-activated since Executive order from the Government 2007 and participated in its all meetings. of Greenland. Greenland hosted the last Range States meeting Born, E.W., Heilmann, A., Kielsen Holm, L., in Ilulissat 2015, where Range States members and Laidre, K.D. 2011. Polar bears in decided to launch a Circumpolar Action Plan Northwest Greenland – An interview on polar bears, following national action plans. survey about the catch and the climate. Monographs on Greenland (Meddelelser om Grønland) Volume 351 ISBN National Action Plan 9788763531689. 250 pp.

SWG [Scientific Working Group to the The Greenlandic National Action Plan for the Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on management of polar bear is due to public Polar Bear]. 2016. Re-Assessment of the hearing along with the Circumpolar Action Plan Baffin Bay and Kane Basin Polar Bear for polar bear. The objective of the action plans Subpopulations: Final Report to the is aiding the management authority for polar Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on Polar Bear. 31 July 2016: x + 636 pp.

89

Tables Table 1. The catch quota for polar bears by each Greenland (GRL) polar bear subpopulation and for South Greenland3, 2010–2016. Kane Basin (KB), Baffin Bay (BB), Davis Strait (DS), and East Greenland (EG). Source: APN.

Subpopulation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 KB 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 BB 61 67 67 67 67 67 70 2 DS 5 3 3 3 3 3 South GRL3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 EG 50 50+10 50+10 50+10 50+10 50+10 50+10 1 Total 126 140 140 140 140 140 140 1 The total quota for 2010 was originally 130 polar bears. Due to overharvesting in 2009, there was a deduction of 4 polar bears, so the 2010 quota was reduced to 126.

2 The quota for BB and DS subpopulations in 2011 were counted together, and included the region from Sisimiut to Nuuk (9 bears).

3 South Greenland includes the region from Paamiut to Nanortalik (4 bears) and includes bears of the EG subpopulation.

Table 2. Actual catch of polar bears by each Greenland (GRL) polar bear subpopulation and for South Greenland2, 2010–2016, including bears killed in self-defense (in parentheses). Polar bears killed in self-defense are not deducted from the quota. Kane Basin (KB), Baffin Bay (BB), Davis Strait (DS), and East Greenland (EG). Source: APN.

1 Subpopulation 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 KB 2 (0) 6 (0) 6 (0) 6 (0) 5 (0) 6 (5) 4 (2) BB 63 (0) 66 (0) 71(5) 61 (0) 70 (1) 72 (1) 49 (0) DS 2 (0) 3 (2) 3 (1) 1 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) 3 (0) 2 South GRL 1 (1) 3 (0) 3 (1) 4 (3) 4 (0) 4 (0) 4 (2) EG 32 53 (1) 60 (3) 55 (0) 61 (1) 60 (7) 60 (2) Total 100 (1) 131 (3) 138(10) 127(3) 143 (2) 142(13) 120 (6) 1 Catch numbers in 2016 are preliminary data 2 South Greenland includes the region from Paamiut to Nanortalik and includes bears from the EG subpopulation.

90

Figures Fig. 1. Subpopulations of polar bears within Greenland: Arctic Basin (AB), Kane Basin (KB), Baffin Bay (BB), Davis Strait (DS), and East Greenland (EG). AB, KB, BB and DS subpopulations are shared with Nunavut.

91

Fig. 2. License form issued by local authorities in Greenland to full time occupational hunters and required to be carried by the hunter during the hunt. Immediately after a hunt, the hunter records the catch of all polar bears (including struck and lost animals) on this standardized form and provides this to the local authority.

92

Fig. 3. Protected areas in Greenland which include polar bear habitat, including the National Park in northeastern Greenland (red), Melville Bay Nature Reserve (blue), and the RAMSAR areas (green).

93

Fig. 4. Flow chart showing the general working strategy of the Greenland/Canada/Nunavut Polar Bear Joint Commission. Source: APN and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources.

94

Research on Polar Bears in Greenland, 2009–2016 K.L. Laidre, University of Washington, Polar Science Center, Seattle, WA USA, and Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 570, DK-3900, Nuuk, Greenland E.W. Born, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 570, DK-3900, Nuuk, Greenland F. Ugarte, Greenland Institute of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 570, DK-3900, Nuuk, Greenland R. Dietz, Institute of Bioscience, Arctic research Centre, Aarhus University, P.O. Box 358, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark C. Sonne, Institute of Bioscience, Arctic research Centre, Aarhus University, P.O. Box 358, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

This report summarizes the research on polar management unit from the neighboring BB bears in Greenland since the 15th working subpopulation. This component is studied by meeting of the IUCN/SCC International Polar use of satellite telemetry and genetics. Results Bear Specialist Group in Copenhagen Denmark of the study were presented in a report to the in June 2009 (Obbard et al. 2010). The research CGJC in July 2016 (SWG 2016). The summary has focused on new subpopulation assessments below is based on the SWG (2016). of the Baffin Bay (BB) and Kane Basin (KB) This work had four basic field polar bear subpopulations, and research of the components: (1) biopsying polar bears along East Greenland (EG) subpopulation on eastern Baffin Island, northwest Greenland and movements and stock identity, interviews of in Kane Basin, (2) a systematic aerial survey polar bears subsistence hunters, and continued using sight-resight distance sampling in Kane analyses of concentrations of pollutants and Basin, (3) deployment of satellite transmitters their effects on polar bears. For names of on male and female polar bears in northwest places mentioned in the text see Figure 1. Greenland and Kane Basin, and (4) hunter collection of tissue samples from the catch of Studies of the Baffin Bay (BB) polar bears (harvest recoveries) in BB, KB, and adjacent subpopulations. This work was and Kane Basin (KB) conducted on the schedule as follows: fall subpopulations biopsying along eastern Baffin Island occurred in fall 2011, 2012 and 2013, fall biopsying in A multi-year collaborative research project northwest Greenland occurred in fall 2012 and involving the Greenland Institute of Natural 2013, spring biopsying occurred in northwest Resources (GINR) and the Government of Greenland 2011, 2012 and 2013, spring Nunavut (GN) was endorsed by the Canada- biopsying occurred in Kane Basin 2012–2014 Greenland Joint Commission (CGJC) on the with an aerial survey in 2013, and deployment Management of Polar Bears. This 4-year of satellite radios (collars and ear tags) occurred research project (2011–2014) was initiated in in spring on the pack ice and fast ice in 2011 to provide updated information on the northwest Greenland from 2009 to 2013. status of the BB and KB subpopulations of From 2011 to 2013, 1,111 bears were polar bears. The research design included two biopsy darted (and genotyped) along eastern components: assessment of (1) the size and Baffin Island. From 2009 to 2013, 143 bears status of the BB and KB subpopulations by were physically marked or biopsy darted (and means of genetic mark-recapture (M-R), and (2) genotyped) in western and northwest demographic closure, in particular whether the Greenland. The spring biopsying program in KB subpopulation can be considered a separate Kane Basin from 2012 to 2014 resulted in 129

95

bears physically marked and genotyped or 2012–2013 in Kane Basin) was equivalent to biopsy darted and genotyped. ~34% and ~25% of the estimated population Furthermore during 2009–2013 a total of size for the BB and KB subpopulations, 101 satellite radios (55 females, 46 males) were respectively. Despite this, instances of deployed in western and northwest Greenland emigration were ≤ 1% of the recaptures and (Figure 2). During 2012 and 2013 a total of 36 recoveries of marks for the BB subpopulation. satellite radios (21 females, 15 males) were Similarly, for the KB subpopulation, deployed in Kane Basin. Some individuals were documented cases of emigration comprised < recaptured during the study and furnished with 4% of recaptures and recoveries. new satellite radios. Hence, a total of 91 For the BB subpopulation, findings individual bears were tagged with satellite based on analyses of satellite telemetry from transmitters within the bounds of the BB adult females during the 2000s show there has subpopulation and 34 within the bounds of the been a significant reduction in the size of the KB subpopulation (SWG 2016). The satellite subpopulation range in all months and seasons radios included small ear satellite tags when compared to the range in the 1990s. The developed by GINR for tracking adult male most marked reduction was a 60% decline in polar bears and sub-adults of both sexes (Born subpopulation range size in summer. The et al. 2010, Laidre et al. 2012). overlap of the 1990s and 2000s BB A total of 234 hunter recoveries (tissue subpopulation range was < 50% in all months, samples) were obtained from the catch of polar reflecting both a contraction and shift bears in Nunavut and Greenland (1993–2013). northward of this subpopulation in the 2000s. The hunter recovery program was instituted in These shifts are related to the loss of annual sea Greenland for the first time in 2012. In ice and changes in breakup timing. With addition, 635 biopsies from physical M-R respect to movements across subpopulation operations to assess BB and KB boundaries, BB bears in the 2000s were subpopulations in the 1990s (cf. Taylor et al. significantly less likely to leave BB than in the 2005, 2008) were included in the recent M-R 1990s. In particular, there was a reduction in assessment analyses (SWG 2016). the number of collared bears moving into Davis These data were collectively analyzed to Strait (DS) and Lancaster Sound (LS) estimate the abundance and sex (and subpopulations from the BB subpopulation, approximate age) composition of polar bears in apparently due to reduced winter sea-ice the BB and KB subpopulations; compare a new coverage. This suggests the BB subpopulation estimate of abundance with those derived from has become more discrete, with less exchange previous studies (1991–1997) in-order to gain between it and other subpopulations. This is insight into subpopulations trend; delineate the supported by genetics and harvest recoveries boundaries of the BB and KB subpopulations (SWG 2016). and reassess the validity of these areas as a Furthermore, using telemetry data, SWG demographic unit; estimate survival and (2016) reports that movement rates of adult reproductive parameters (to the extent female polar bears of the BB subpopulation possible) in-order to facilitate population have significantly declined during the open viability analyses; and evaluate polar bear water period (August–October) in the 2000s distribution with respect to environmental due to disappearance of offshore and variables, particularly ice conditions, archipelago summertime sea ice. BB bears used topography and food availability/distribution. significantly lower sea-ice concentrations in Recapture and harvest recovery data winter and spring in the 2000s than the 1990s. examined during the 3-year genetic M-R studies In the 2000s, bears spent significantly more in Baffin Bay and Kane Basin had very low time on land on Baffin Island, and arrival dates levels of recapture or recovery of bears outside on Baffin Island in summer were one month their subpopulation of origin. The total earlier in the 2000s than in the 1990s. The number of bears marked in years 1 and 2 of amount of time bears spent on land has these studies (2011–2012 in Baffin Bay and increased by 20–30 days since the 1990s. Entry

96

dates into maternity dens were >1 month later the same areas within the KB subpopulation for polar bears of the BB subpopulation in the bounds. Bears of the KB subpopulation use 2000s than in the 1990s. Thus, there has been lower sea ice concentrations in summer months a significantly shorter maternity den duration in but there are largely no changes in winter and the 2000s for BB polar bears (Escajeda et al. early spring. There were no significant 2017). The first date of arrival on land by differences in movement rates of KB polar pregnant females was significantly earlier in the bears between the 1990s and 2000s. Land use 2000s than the 1990s. Maternity dens in the within the KB subpopulation region during 2000s also occurred at higher elevations and summer remains intermittent because some sea steeper slopes than maternity dens in the 1990s, ice remains inside fjords and coastal areas. likely due to reduced snow cover. From 1993 The estimated abundance of the KB to 2013, COY recruitment for the BB subpopulation was 357 polar bears (95% CI: subpopulation declined concurrent with a trend 221–493) for 2013–2014 (SWG 2016). A re- towards earlier spring sea-ice break-up. Finally, calculation of the 1990s data provided an there was evidence of declines in body estimate of 224 bears (95% CI: 145–303) for the condition amongst bears of the BB period 1995–1997. More bears were subpopulation between 1993 and 2013. Body documented in the eastern regions of the KB condition of BB polar bears declined in close subpopulation area during 2012–2014 than association with the duration of the ice-free during 1994–1997. Eastern Kane Basin was period and spring sea ice transition dates. searched during the 1990s although with less The mean estimate of total abundance of effort than in the 2010s due to the low density the BB subpopulation in 2012–2013 using of bears observed there. The presence of genetic M-R was 2,826 (95% CI: 2,059–3,593) ringed seals in eastern Kane Basin during spring polar bears. Relative to the 2010s data, the in the 1990s indicated that this area was good 1990s data were characterized by smaller polar bear habitat (Taylor et al. 2001). The sample sizes, incomplete geographic sampling, difference in distribution between the 1990s a likely higher degree of temporary emigration and 2010s may reflect differences in spatial for bears that remained on sea ice during the distribution of bears, possibly influenced by summer, and potential non-random temporary reduced hunting pressure by Greenland in emigration for adult females that moved farther eastern Kane Basin and thus an increased inland to den. These issues led to an increased density of bears in that region, but also some potential for bias in estimates of survival and differences in sampling protocols. abundance from the 1990s data. As a result, demographic parameters estimated for the BB Studies of the East Greenland subpopulation for the 1990s and 2010s are not directly comparable (EG) subpopulation For the KB subpopulation, the mean 95% kernel range has expanded since the 1990s. Polar bears in east Greenland are thought to The increase in range use in the 2000s occurred constitute a single subpopulation with limited in all seasons, however is statistically significant exchange with other subpopulations. Thus, the only in summer (June–September), where East Greenland polar bear subpopulation (EG) ranges doubled between the 1990s and the is not shared with other countries and the full 2000s (SWG 2016). This range expansion is responsibility for assessment lies on Greenland. likely related to changes in sea ice, as the KB Assessing this subpopulation, ranging along subpopulation region is trending towards the one of the longest contiguous stretches of characteristics of an annual ice ecoregion where coastline of polar bear habitat in the world, in ice melts out almost completely each summer. an uninhabited area is a large undertaking and There is still considerable seasonal overlap in requires planning and studies conducted across KB subpopulation ranges for bears in the 1990s a period of several years. and 2000s (50–98% overlap over decades), The assessment of the EG subpopulation suggesting that bears generally continue to use was initiated in 2014. The first step was a traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) survey

97

of hunters in Ittoqqortoormiit (Scoresbysund) which can be used to correct the aerial survey. and Tasiilaq in 2014–2015 (see below), To date, polar bears tagged in southeast combined with field activities focused in SE Greenland in spring 2015 and 2016 have largely Greenland in 2015 and 2016 (continuing in remained in the vicinity of where they were 2017). The purpose of the field work is to tagged, however longer-tracking periods and quantify connectivity of bears between larger sample sizes are needed before southeast and northeast Greenland and provide conclusions can be drawn about bears in the a better understanding of the ecology of polar area. bears in southeast Greenland and use of sea ice habitat. These are the first springtime studies An interview survey in eastern of polar bears in this part of Greenland. In 2015 approximately 43 flight hours Greenland were used on direct searches and captures. A total of 30 polar bears were immobilized and Between December 2015 and January 2016, 25 tagged in southeast Greenland. “Independent” polar bear hunters were interviewed in the (i.e., only adult and solitary subadult bears; municipalities of Tasiilaq (n=16) and dependent 0, 1 and 2-year-old cubs Ittoqqortoormiit (n=9) in eastern Greenland. accompanying their mother not included) The purpose was to collect information about constituted 24 individuals. The remainder were hunter’s perspectives on the impact of quotas cub-of-the-year (COYs): n=2; yearlings: n=2; in eastern Greenland, change in the catch due and 2-year-olds: n=2. Ten satellite radio collars to climate and any observed changes in the were deployed on adult female bears, and 12 ear polar bears. It also provided information for satellite radios were deployed on adult male and the future assessment of eastern Greenland as subadult individuals of both sexes. No bears hunters were asked their perspectives on had been previously captured or marked. A important areas to capture and count polar total of 42 h 30 min air time was used for active bears. Data analyses are in progress and a searching for bears during captures, with an report will be finished by spring 2017. encounter rate of approximately 1.5 bears/hour. Pilot aerial surveys were also flown Population status on two days to assess feasibility of aerial surveys for an assessment of the subpopulation. Polar bears from four subpopulations are In 2016, ~75 hours were flown in harvested in Greenland: KB, BB, DS, and EG. southeast Greenland and 58 polar bears were In addition, the northernmost part of immobilized tagged. Of these, 44 were Greenland faces the Arctic Basin (AB), where independent (i.e., only adult and solitary polar bears have not been studied and are not subadult bears; dependent 0, 1 and 2-year old harvested because there are no Inuit cubs accompanying their mother not included). settlements. The KB, BB and DS The remainder were COYs: n=4; yearlings: subpopulations are shared between and Canada n=8; and 2-year-olds: n=2. Nineteen satellite and Greenland and are exploited in both radio collars were deployed on adult female countries. The EG subpopulation ranges in bears. One adult male bear had been previously eastern and southwest Greenland and is only captured in 2015 and the satellite radio tag was hunted in Greenland. For the KB and BB still attached to the ear pinna (with destroyed subpopulations new estimates of abundance antenna). In addition to satellite radio collars, were produced after studies between 2009– 10 adult females also received Time Depth 2013 and are reported in detail in SWG (2016). Recorders (TDRs) glued to the battery pack of For the EG subpopulation, estimates of the collar and GeoLocation ear tags in the right abundance are not available. For the DS ear. These TDRs and Geolocation tags will be subpopulation, there is an estimate of retrieved if possible from recaptured bears. abundance based on studies during 2005–2007 The TDR data will be used to develop estimates (Anon. 2009, Peacock 2009). of the amount of time bears spend in the water

98

Prior to 2016, the size of the BB polar were documented in the eastern areas of the KB bear subpopulation was last estimated by use of subpopulation region during 2012–2014 than mark-recapture during the 1990s (Aars et al. during 1994–1997, possibly due to reduced 2006, Taylor et al. 2005, 2008). At that time, the hunting pressure. This suggests relatively estimate of the mean abundance for the BB strong evidence for a stable to increasing KB subpopulation during the years 1994–1997 was subpopulation, and is consistent with data on 2,074 (SE=266) bears (Taylor et al. 2005; Anon. movements, condition and reproduction (SWG 2009). The SWG determined these data to be 2016). old and out of date, and thus the new mark- In Davis Strait, a comprehensive recapture surveys were initiated in 2011. The population inventory using mark-recapture most recent estimate of mean total abundance methods (2005–2007) resulted in an estimate of in BB in 2012–2013 was 2,826 (95% CI: 2,059– 2,158 bears (SE=180) for the DS 3,593) polar bears. An evaluation of the spatial subpopulation. This subpopulation is believed distribution of onshore captures, together with at present to be stable (Peacock et al. 2013). data on habitat use from satellite telemetry, The size of the EG subpopulation is suggested that more systematic and unknown. However, studies were initiated in geographically broader live-recapture sampling, 2015 to examine stock ID and movements as including inland areas and the backs of fjords, the first step towards an assessment of the occurred during 2011–2013 compared to the subpopulation size. A rough estimate of ca. previous work in the 1990s. Furthermore, 2000 polar bears for the EG subpopulation has offshore sea ice was available to polar bears been proposed as the size required to sustain during the annual sampling periods in the the catches (cf. Lunn et al. 2002). Due to the 1990s, but largely unavailable in the 2010s. lack of an abundance estimate for the EG Considering statistical uncertainty in estimated subpopulation the effect of the subsistence parameters and evidence that the sampling hunt cannot be determined (Aars et al. 2006, design and environmental conditions likely Anon. 2007). This subpopulation has been resulted in an underestimate of abundance in proposed to be negatively influenced by high the 1990s, it is not possible to conclude that the levels of pollution (Obbard et al. 2011 and next estimate of total abundance in the 2010s section) and an overall decrease in sea ice (Stern represents an increase in the size of the BB and Laidre 2016). subpopulation. Although the 2010s abundance estimate represents the best-available Pollution studies information and is suitable for informing management, it is not possible to reliably Studies of contaminants in Greenland polar determine the trend in BB subpopulation size bears have been expanded since the last over the 1993–2013 study period (SWG 2016). IUCN/SCC PBSG Proceedings (Obbard et al. The size of the KB subpopulation was 2010). During 2009–2014 scientists attempted last assessed using mark-recapture data in 1998 to sample bears in Qaanaaq, North West and resulted in an estimate of 164 polar bears Greenland however it was not possible to get (SE=35) (Taylor et al. 2008, SWG 2016). This samples through collaboration with local was also determined to be out of date subsistence hunters. Therefore, full emphasis information by the SWG (SWG 2016). The has been placed on the East Greenland most recent estimated abundance of the KB subpopulation via multiple research projects, as subpopulation was 357 polar bears (95% CI: well as the AMAP CORE that maintains a 221–493) for 2013–2014. An estimate of collection of samples of 15 individuals annually. abundance was also calculated from a Most of the on-going work is summarized by springtime 2014 aerial survey within the KB Letcher et al. (2010) and Dietz et al. (2013a, subpopulation region and was 206 bears (95% 2015) and AMAP POPs and Hg Effect lognormal CI: 83–510). The M-R point Assessment Report AAR4 (In prep.). estimate is higher than the historical M-R estimate for the KB subpopulation. More bears

99

Persistent Organic Pollutants Studies of mercury (Hg) (POPs) Temporal and geographic trends - The temporal Temporal trends - The temporal studies of trends of mercury in polar bears is summarized contaminants in polar bears of the EG by Dietz et al. (2009, 2011, 2013a). Samples subpopulation have been updated and reported taken from polar bears of the EG by Dietz et al. (2013b, c) and Riget et al. (2013, subpopulation over the period 1892–2009 2015) reflecting the longest time series of biota show a yearly increase of 1.6–1.7% and that in the Arctic. The study revealed that while current levels are now exceed health effects most contaminants are declining over recent based on blood and hair concentrations. years, they have stabilized at relatively high Continued studies of Hg in polar bear hair concentrations that maintain the concern for document that polar bears from northwest the health of EG bears such as prenatal Greenland and the central Canadian Arctic exposure and development and cell have the highest concentrations of Hg, and differentiation. The brominated flame polar bears at Svalbard the lowest (Dietz et al. retardants increased in in bears of the EG 2011, 2013a) subpopulation until year 2014 after which a Contaminants and climate change parameters - Trends decline was observed Dietz et al. (2013c). A in contaminants in polar bears of the EG trans-Arctic survey of physiologically-based subpopulation have been linked to possible pharmacokinetic modelling of immune, changes in food preferences leading to reproductive and carcinogenic effects from increasing contaminant levels (McKinney et al. contaminant exposure in polar bears was 2013). The explanation is based on fatty acid conducted (Dietz et al. 2015). Some analyses showing that bears have increased brominated flame retardants and PCBs feeding on hooded and harp seals due to increased post-2000 probably due to changes in declining sea ice concentrations which have the food web structure and access to seals at shifted seal breeding patches closer to the coast higher trophic levels (McKinney et al. 2013). and enable bears to reach their breeding patches Further details are available in Dietz et al. (2016) on the drift and solid ice. of work conducted under the BearHealth programme. Health effects (POPs and Hg) Geographical trends - Clear regional trends in various contaminants in polar bears can be Multiple papers (~65) have been published in detected within the Arctic region. The EG, the scientific literature since the last IUCN Svalbard (i.e., Barents Sea, or BS) and Kara Sea PBSG Proceedings (Lunn et al. 2010) dealing (KS) subpopulations still have the highest levels with bioaccumulation, toxicodynamics and of most lipophilic POPs (Letcher et al. 2010). toxicokinetics. Given their nature and the This information can be used to identify multidisciplinary extent an exhaustive overview maximum human exposure, where possible is not given and we refer to the reference list of biological effects due to high levels of the Proceedings and the international scientific contaminants are most likely to occur, and literature. Briefly, studies can be categorized where the lowest exposed animals can be into organ pathology (Sonne et al. 2011, 2012b), sampled to serve as reference groups (Dietz et hormone concentrations (e.g., Bechshøft et al. al. 2015). The geographic variation in loads of 2011, Erdmann et al. 2013, Gabrielsen et al. pollutants is related to differences in global 2015a, 2015b, Styrishave et al. In press), skull atmospheric and sea current transportation and and baculum measures (Sonne et al. 2013, 2015), deposition pattern. brain hormones and neurochemicals (Pedersen et al. 2015, 2016), vitamins (Bechshøft et al. 2016) and PBPK and IBM modelling (Dietz et al. 2015, Pavlova et al., in press). Altogether these studies show that multiple organ-systems are affected by contaminants that affect the

100

bears physiology possibly making them of the IUCN/SCC Polar Bear Specialist sensitive to stress from climate change and new Group, Seattle, Washington, USA, 20–24 diseases brought into the Arctic (Desforges et June 2005. Occasional Paper of the al. 2016, Jenssen et al. 2015). IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 32. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and References Cambridge, UK. Lunn, N., Schliebe, S., and Born, E.W. (eds.). Amstrup, S.C., Durner, G.M., McDonald, T.L., 2002. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 13th Mulcahy, D.M., and Garner, G.W. 2001. Working Meeting of the IUCN/SCC Polar Comparing movement patterns of Bear Specialist Group, Nuuk, Greenland, 23– satellite-tagged male and female polar 28 June 2001. Occasional Paper of the bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:2147– IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 2158. 26. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Aars, J., Lunn, N.J., and Derocher, A.E. (eds.). Cambridge, UK. 2006. Polar Bears. Proceedings of the 14th Messier, F., Taylor, M.K., and Ramsay, M. Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar 1992. Seasonal activity patterns of female Bear Specialist Group, 20–24 June 2005, polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Seattle, Washington, USA. Occasional Canadian Arctic as revealed by satellite Paper of the IUCN Species Survival telemetry. Journal of Zoology (London) Commission No. 32. IUCN, Gland, 226:219–229. Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Peacock, E. 2009. Davis Strait polar bear Anon. 2005. Hjemmestyrets bekendtgørelse population inventory. Final report to the nr. 21 af 22. september 2005 om Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, 29 beskyttelse og fangst af isbjørne. April 2009. Project no. 2-05-06. 35 pp. Executive order from the Government Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Born, E.W., Rigét, F.F., of Greenland Kirkegaard, M., Hyldstrup, L., Letcher, Anon. 2009. Status table. Report of the R.J., and Muir, D.C.G. 2004. Is bone Canadian Polar Bear Technical mineral composition disrupted by Committee Meeting, 3–6 February 2009, organochlorines in East Greenland polar Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada (E. Peacock, bears (Ursus maritimus)? Environmental in litt. February 2009). Health Perspectives 112:1711–1716. Born, E.W., Sonne, C., and Dietz, R. 2010. Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Leifsson, P.S., Born, E.W. Research on polar bears in Greenland Kirkegaard, M., Rigét, F.F., Letcher, R. J., 2005–2009. Pages 135–148 in M.E. Muir, D.C.G., and Hyldstrup, L. 2005a. Obbard, G.W. Thiemann, E. Peacock, Do organohalogen contaminants and T.D. DeBruyn (eds.) Polar Bears: contribute to liver histopathology in East Proceedings of the 15th Working Meeting of the Greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus)? IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, Environmental Health Perspectives 113:1569– Copenhagen, Denmark, 29 June–3 July 2009. 1574. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Sonne, C., Leifsson, P.S., Dietz, R., Born, E.W., Survival Commission No. 43. IUCN, Letcher, R.J., Kirkegaard, M., Muir, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. D.C.G., L.W. Andersen, Rigét, F.F., and Born, E.W., Wiig, Ø., and Thomassen, J. 1997. Hyldstrup, L. 2005b. Enlarged clitoris in Seasonal and annual movements of wild polar bears (Ursus maritimus) can be radiocollared polar bears (Ursus maritimus) misdiagnosed as pseudohermaphro- in NE Greenland. Journal of Marine ditism. Science of the Total Environment Systems 10:67–77. 337:45–58. Lønstrup, J. 2006. Polar bear management in Taylor, M.K., Akeeagok, S., Andriashek, D., Greenland. Pages 133–134 in J. Aars, Barbour, W., Born, E.W., Calvert, W., N.J. Lunn, and A.E. Derocher (eds.) Polar Cluff, D., Ferguson, S., Laake, J., Rosing- Bears: Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting Asvid, A., Stirling, I., and Messier, F.

101

2001. Delineation of Canadian and biomonitoring tissue. Journal of Greenland Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Environmental Monitoring 14:56–63. populations by cluster analysis of Basu, N., Scheuhammer, A.M., Sonne, C., movements. Canadian Journal of Zoology Letcher, R.J., and Dietz, R. 2009. Is 79:690–709. dietary mercury of neurotoxicological Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., concern to wild polar bears (Ursus Born, E.W., Cluff, H.D., Ferguson, S.H., maritimus)? Environmental Toxicology and Rosing-Asvid, A., Schweinsburg, R., and Chemistry 28:133–140. Messier, F. 2005. Demography and Bechshøft, T. Ø., Rigét, F. F., Sonne, C., Wiig, population viability of a hunted Ø., Dietz, R., and Letcher, R. J. 2009: population of polar bears. Arctic 58:203– Skull foramina asymmetry in East 214. Greenland and Svalbard polar bears Stirling, I., and Parkinson, C.L. 2006. Possible (Ursus maritimus) in relation to stressful effects of climate warming on selected environments. Annales Zoologici Fennici populations of polar bears (Ursus 46:181–192. maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic Bechshøft, T.Ø., Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Born, 59:261–275. E.W., Novak, M.A., Henchey, E., and Verreault, J., Muir, D.C.G., Norstrom, R.J., Meyer, J.R. 2011. Cortisol levels in hair Stirling, I., Fisk, A.T., Gabrielsen, G.W., of East Greenland polar bears (Ursus Derocher, A.E., Evans, T., Dietz, R., maritimus). Science of the Total Environment Sonne, C., Sandala, G.M., Taylor, M.K., 409:831–834. Nagy, J., and Letcher, R.J. 2005. Bechshøft, T.Ø., Jakobsen, J., Sonne, C., and Chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants Dietz, R. 2011. Distribution of vitamins and metabolites in polar bears (Ursus A (retinol) and E (α-tocopherol) in polar maritimus) from Svalbard, East bear kidney: Implications for biomarker Greenland, Alaska and the Canadian studies. Science of the Total Environment Arctic during 1999−2002. Science of the 409:3508–3511. Total Environment 351:369–390. Bechshøft, T.Ø., Rigét, F.F., Sonne, C., Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., and Toudal Pedersen, L. Letcher, R.J., Muir, D.C.G., Novak, 2003. Movement of female polar bears M.A., Henchey, E., Meyer, J.S., Eulaers, (Ursus maritimus) in the East Greenland I., Jaspers, V., Covaci, A., Dietz, R. 2012. pack ice. Polar Biology 26:509–516. Measuring environmental stress in East Wiig, Ø., Derocher, A.E., Cronin, M.M., and Greenland polar bears, 1892–2009: what Skaare, J.U. 1998. Female pseudoherma- does hair cortisol tell us? Environment phrodite polar bears at Svalbard. Journal International 45:15–21. of Wildlife Disease 34:792–796. Bechshøft, T.Ø., Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Born, E.W., Muir, D.M.G., Letcher, R.J., Literature about polar bears in Novak, M.A., Henchey, E., Meyer, J.S., Jenssen, B.M., and Villanger, G.D. 2012. Greenland since 2009 Associations between complex OHC mixtures and thyroid and cortisol Åsbakk, K., Aars, J., Derocher, A.E., Wiig, Ø., hormone levels in East Greenland polar Oksanen, A., Born, E.W., Dietz, R., bears. Environmental Research 116:26–35. Sonne, C., Tryland, M., Godfroid, J., and Bechshøft, T.Ø., Sonne, C., Rigét, F.F., Kapel, C.M.O. 2010. Serosurvey for Letcher, R.J., Novak, M.A., Henchey, E., Trichinella species in polar bears (Ursus Meyer, J.S., Eulaers, I., Jaspers, V., maritimus) from Svalbard and the Barents Covaci, A., and Dietz, R. 2013. Polar Sea. Veterinary Parasitology 172:256–263. bear stress hormone cortisol fluctuates Aubail, A., Dietz, R., Rigét, F., Sonne, C., Wiig, with the North Atlantic Oscillation Ø., and Caurant, F. 2012. Temporal climate index. Polar Biology 36:1525– trend of mercury in polar bears (Ursus 1529. maritimus) from Svalbard using teeth as a

102

Bechshøft, T., Wright, A., Weisser, J.J., 2016. Immunotoxic effects of Teilmann, J., Dietz, R., Hansen, M., environmental pollutants in marine Björklund, E., and Styrishave, B. 2015. mammals. Environment International Developing a new research tool for free- 86:126–139. ranging cetaceans: recovering cortisol Dietz, R., Outridge, P.M., and Hobson, K.A. from harbor porpoise skin. Conservation 2009. Anthropogenic contribution to Physiology 3(1): cov016 doi: mercury levels in present-day Arctic 10.1093/conphys/cov016. animals – A review. Science of the Total Bechshøft, T.Ø., Derocher, A.E., Richardson, Environment 407:6120–6131. E., Mislan, P., Lunn, N.J., Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Born, E.W., Rigét, F.F., Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Janz, D., and St. Louis, V. Aubail, A., and Basu, N. 2011. Temporal 2015. Mercury and cortisol and in hair trends and future predictions of mercury from Western Hudson Bay polar bears. concentrations in Northwest Greenland Ecotoxicology 24:1315–1321. polar bear (Ursus maritimus) hair. Bechshøft, T.Ø., Sonne, C., Jakobsen, J., Rigét, Environmental Science and Technology F.F., Born, E.W., Letcher, R.J., Jenssen, 45:1458–1465. B.M., and Dietz, R. 2016. Vitamins A Dietz, R., Basu, N., Braune, B., O’Hara, T., and E in liver, kidney, and whole blood Scheuhammer, T., and Sonne, C. 2011b. from organohalogen exposed East Chapter 6. What are the Toxicological Greenland polar bears sampled 1994– Effects of Mercury in Arctic Biota? In: 2008: reference values and temporal AMAP, 2011. AMAP Assessment 2011: trends. Polar Biology 39:743–754. Mercury. Arctic Monitoring and Born, E.W., Sonne, C., and Dietz, R. 2010. Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Research on polar bears in Greenland Norway: 112–136. 2005–2009. Pages 135–148 in M.E. Dietz, R., Basu, N., Braune, B., O’Hara, T., Obbard, G.W. Thiemann, E. Peacock, Scheuhammer, T.M., Sonne, C., and T.D. DeBruyn (eds.) Polar Bears: Andersen, M., Andreasen, C., Proceedings of the 15th Working Meeting of the Andriashek, D., Asmund, G., Aubail, A., IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, Baagøe, H., Born, E.W., Chan, H.M., Copenhagen, Denmark, 29 June–3 July 2009. Derocher, A.E., Grandjean, P., Knott, Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species K., Kirkegaard, M., Lunn, N., Messier, F., Survival Commission No. 43. IUCN, Obbard, M., Olsen, M.T., Peacock, E., Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Renzoni, A., Rigét, F., Skaare, J.U., Stern, Born, E.W., Heilmann, A., Kielsen Holm, L., G., Stirling, I., Taylor, M., Wiig, Ø., and and Laidre, K.D. 2011. Polar bears in Aars, J. 2013a. What are the Northwest Greenland – An interview toxicological effects of mercury in Arctic survey about the catch and the climate. biota? Science of the Total Environment Monographs on Greenland (Meddelelser 443:775–790. om Grønland) Volume 351 ISBN Dietz, R., Rigét, F.F., Sonne, C., Born, E.W., 9788763531689. 250 pp. Bechshøft, T.Ø., McKinney, M., Muir, Dehli Villanger, G., Munro Jenssen, B., D.C.G., and Letcher, R.J. 2013b. Three Fjeldberg, R.R., Letcher, R.J., Muir, decades (1983–2010) of contaminant D.C.G., Kirkegaard, M., Sonne, C., and trends in East Greenland polar bears Dietz, R. 2011. Exposure to mixtures of (Ursus maritimus). Part 1: Legacy organohalogen contaminants and organochlorine contaminants. associative interactions with thyroid Environment International 59:485–493. hormones in East Greenland polar bears Dietz, R., Rigét, F.F., Sonne, C., Born, E.W., (Ursus maritimus). Environment International Bechshøft, T.Ø., McKinney, M., Muir, 37:694–708. D.C.G, and Letcher, R.J. 2013c. Three Desforges, J.P.W., Sonne, C., Levin, M., decades (1983–2010) of contaminant Siebert, U., De Guise, S., and Dietz, R. trends in East Greenland polar bears

103

(Ursus maritimus). Part 2: Brominated Greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in flame retardants. Environment International relation to circulating levels of 59:494–500. organohalogen pollutants in East Dietz, R., Gustavson, K., Sonne, C., Desforges, Greenland polar bear (Ursus maritimus). J.P., Rigét, F.F., McKinney, M.A., and Environmental Research 136:413–423. Letcher, R.J. 2015. Physiologically- Gebbink, W.A., Bossi, R., Rigét, F.F., Rosing- based pharmacokinetic modelling of Asvid, A., Sonne, C., and Dietz, R. 2016. immune, reproductive and carcinogenic Observation of emerging per- and effects from contaminant exposure in polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Greenland marine mammals. Chemosphere Environmental Research 140:45–55. 144:2384–2391. Dietz, R., Sonne, C., Letcher, R.J., and Munro Greaves, A.K., Letcher, R.J., Sonne, C., Dietz, Jenssen, B. 2016. IPY BearHealth: Polar R., and Born, E.W. 2012. Tissue- Bear (Ursus maritimus) Circumpolar Specific Concentrations and Patterns of Health Assessment in Relation to Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylates and Persistent Pollutants and Climate Sulfonates in East Greenland Polar Change. Chapter 11, P: 203–227. Pole Bears. Environmental Science & Technology to Pole, Implications and Consequences 46:11575–11583. of Anthropogenic Pollution in Polar DOI:10.1021/es303400f Environments. Editor Kallenborn R. Greaves, A.K., Letcher, R.J., Sonne, C., and ISBN: 978-3-642-12314-6. Springer Dietz, R. 2013. Brain region distribution Nature. 259 pp. DOI 10.1007/978-3- and patterns of bioaccumulative 642-12315-3. perfluoroalkyl carboxylates and Erdmann, S.E., Dietz, R., Sonne, C., Bechshøft, sulfonates in East Greenland polar bears T.Ø., Vorkamp, K., Letcher, R.J., Long, (Ursus maritimus). Environmental Toxicology M., and Bonefeld-Jørgensen, E.C. 2013. and Chemistry 32:713–722. Xenoestrogenic and dioxin-like activity Hansen, M.J., Bertelsen, M.F., Dietz, R., Sonne, in blood of East Greenland Polar Bears C., and Bojesen, A.M. 2013. A simple (Ursus maritimus). Chemosphere 92:583– and novel method for retrieval of 591. Pasteurellaceae from swab samples Escajeda, E., Laidre, K. L., Born, E. W., Wiig, collected in the field. Microbiology Open Ø., Atkinson, S., Dyck, M., Ferguson, S. 2:795–797. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.114. H., Lunn, N. J. 2017. Identifying shifts in Hansen, M.J., Braaten, M.S., Bojesen, A.M., maternity den phenology and habitat Christensen, H., Sonne, C., Dietz, R., and characteristics of polar bears (Ursus Bertelsen, M.F. 2016. Ursidibacter maritimus) in Baffin Bay and Kane Basin. maritimus gen. nov., sp. nov. and Polar Biology DOI: 10.1007/s00300-017- Ursidibacter arcticus sp. nov., two new 2172-6 members of the family Pasteurellaceae Gabrielsen, K.M., Krokstad, J.S., Obregon, isolated from the oral cavity of bears. M.J., Dehli Villanger, G., Sonne, C., Internatonial Journal of System Evolutionary Dietz, R., and Jenssen, B.M.D. 2015. Microbiology 65:3683–3689. Thyroid hormones and deiodinase Jensen, B.M., Villanger, G.D., Smette, E.I., activities in plasma and tissues from East Letcher, R.J., Sonne, C., and Dietz, R. Greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus) 2010. Associative interactions of during winter season. Polar Biolgy complex mixtures of organohalogen 38:1285–1296. compounds and circulating testosterone Gabrielsen, K.M., Krokstada, J.S., Dehli in polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Villanger, G., Blair, D., Obregon, M.J., Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Letcher, R.J., and A 157:541. Jenssen, B.M. 2015. Thyroid hormones (doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2010.06.116). status in plasma and tissues from East

104

Jenssen, B.M., Dehli Villanger, G., Gabrielsen, W., Xiang, X., Morgan, C.C., Doherty, K.M., Bytingsvik, J., Ciesielski, T.M., A., O’Connell, M.J., McInerney, J.O., Sonne, C., and Dietz, R. 2015. Born, E.W., Dalén, L., Dietz, R., Anthropogenic flank attack on polar Orlando, L., Sonne, C., Zhang, G., bears: Interacting consequences of Nielsen, R., Willerslev, E., and Wang, J. climate warming and pollutant exposure. 2014. Population Genomics Reveal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 3:1–7. Recent Speciation and Rapid Laidre, K.L., Born, E.W., Gurarie, E., Wiig, Ø., Evolutionary Adaption in Polar Bear. Dietz, R., and Stern, H. 2012. Females Cell 157:785–794. roam while males patrol: divergence in Letcher, R.J., Chu S., McKinney, M.A., Tomy, breeding season movements of pack-ice G.T., Sonne, C., and Dietz, R. 2014. polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Proceedings of Comparative hepatic in vitro depletion the Royal Academy of Science 280: doi: and metabolite formation of major 10.1098/rspb.2012.2371. perfluorooctane sulfonate precursors in Laidre, K.L., Born, E.W., Heagerty, P., Wiig, arctic polar bear, beluga whale, and Ø., Stern, H., Dietz, R., Aars, J., and ringed seal. Chemosphere 112:225–231. Andersen, M. 2015. Shifts in female McKinney, M.A., Dietz, R., Sonne, C., De polar bear (Ursus maritimus) habitat use Guise, G., Tomy, G.T., Skirnisson, K., in East Greenland. Polar Biology 38:879– Karlsson, K., Steingrímsson, E., and 893. Letcher, R.J. 2011. Comparative hepatic Laidre, K.L., Stern, H., Kovacs, K.M., Lowry, microsomal biotransformation of L., Moore, S.E., Regehr, E.V., Ferguson, selected polybrominated diphenyl ether, S.H., Wiig, Ø. , Boveng, P., Angliss, R. P., including decabromodiphenyl ether, and Born, E. W., Litovka, D., Quakenbush, decabromodiphenyl ethane flame L., Lydersen, C., Vongraven, D., and retardants in arctic marine-feeding Ugarte, F. 2015. Arctic marine mammal mammals. Environmental Toxicology and population status, sea ice habitat loss, and Chemistry 30:1506–1514. conservation recommendations for the McKinney, M.A., Letcher, R.J., Born, E.W., 21st century. Conservation Biology 29:724– Branigan, M., Dietz, R., Evans, T.J., 737. Gabrielsen, G.W., Peacock, E., and Letcher, R.J., Gebbink, W.A., Sonne C., Born Sonne, C. 2011. Flame retardants and E.W., McKinney M.A., and Dietz R. legacy contaminants in polar bears from 2009. Bioaccumulation and Alaska, Canada, East Greenland and biotransformation of brominated and Svalbard, 2005–2008. Environment chlorinated contaminants and their International 37:365–374. metabolites in ringed seals (Pusa hispida) McKinney, M.A., Letcher, R.J., Born, E.W., and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Branigan, M., Dietz, R., Evans, T.J., East Greenland. Environment International Gabrielsen, G.W., Peacock, E., and 35:1118–1124. Sonne, C. 2011. Regional Letcher, R.J., Bustnes, J.O., Dietz, R., Jenssen, Contamination versus Regional Dietary B.M., Jørgensen, E.H., Sonne, C., Differences: Understanding Geographic Verreault, J., Vijayan, M.M., and Variation in Brominated and Chlorinated Gabrielsen, G.W. 2010. Effects Contaminant Levels in Polar Bears. Assessment of Persistent Organohalogen Environmental Science and Technology Contaminants in Arctic Wildlife and 45:896–902. Fish. Science of the Total Environment McKinney, M.A., Atwood, T., Dietz, R., Sonne, 408:2995–3043. C., Iverson, S.J., and Peacock, E. 2014. Liu, S., Lorenzen, E.D., Fumagalli, M., Li, B., Validation of adipose lipid content as a Harris, K., Xiong, Z., Zhou, L., body condition index for polar bears. Korneliussen, T.S., Somel, M., Babbitt, Ecology and Evolution 4:516–527. doi: C., Wray, G., Li, J., He, W., Wang, Z., Fu, 10.1002/ece3.956.

105

McKinney, M.A., Iverson, S.J., Fisk, A.T., 9: e104037. Sonne, C., Rigét, F.F., Letcher, R.J., Arts, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104037. M.T., Born, E.W., Rosing-Asvid, A., and Pedersen, K.E., Basu, N., Letcher, R.J., Sonne, Dietz, R. 2013. Global change effects on C., Dietz, R., and Styrishave, B. 2015. the long-term feeding ecology and Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contaminant exposures of East (PFASs) – New endocrine disruptors in Greenland polar bears. Global Change polar bears (Ursus maritimus)? Environment Biology 19:2360–2372. International 138:22–31. McKinney, M.A., Pedro, S., Dietz, R., Sonne, C., Pedersen, K.E., Basu, N., Letcher, R.J., Fisk, A.T., Roy, D., Jenssen, B.M., and Greaves, A.K., Sonne, C., Dietz, R., and Letcher, R.J. 2015. A review of ecological Styrishave, B. 2015b. Brain region- impacts of global climate change on persistent specific perfluoroalkylated sulfonate organic pollutant and mercury pathways and (PFSA) and carboxylic acid (PFCA) exposures in arctic marine ecosystems. Current accumulation and neurochemical Zoology 61:617–628. biomarker responses in East Greenland Oksanen A., Åsbakk, K., Prestrud, K.W., Aars, polar bears (Ursus maritimus). J., Derocher, A.E., Tryland, M., Wiig, Ø., Environmental Research 138:22–31. Dubey, J.P., Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Pertoldi, C., Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Schmitz, Andersen, M., and Born, E.W. 2009. N.M., and Loeschcke, V. 2009. Prevalence of antibodies against Craniometric characteristics of polar bear Toxoplasma gondii in polar bears (Ursus skulls from two periods with contrasting maritimus) from Svalbard and East levels of industrial pollution and sea ice Greenland. Journal of Parasitology 95:89– extent. Journal of Zoology 279:321–328 95. Pilsner, J.R., Lazarus, A.L., Nam, D., Letcher, Pavlova, V., Nabe-Nielsen, J., Dietz, R., Sonne, R.J., Scheuhammer, T., Sonne, C., Dietz, C., and Grimm, V. 2016. PCB R., and Basu, N. 2010. Mercury- contamination as a potential driver of associated DNA hypomethylation in mate–finding associated Allee effect in polar bear brains via the LUminometric Svalbard polar bears: the implications Methylation Assay (LUMA): A sensitive from an individual based model. method to study epigenetics in wildlife. Proceedings of the Royal Society B doi: Molecular Ecology 19:307–314. 10.1098/rspb.2016.1883. Rigét, F.F., Braune, B., Bignert, A., Wilson, S., Pavlova, V., Grimm, V., Dietz, R., Sonne, C., Aars, J., Andersen, M., Asmund, G., Vorkamp, K., Rigét, F.F., Letcher, R.J., Aubail, A., Dam, M., Dietz, R., Evans, Gustavson, K., Desforges, J-P., and M., Evans, T., Gamberg, M., Gantner, Nabe-Nielsen, J. 2016. Modeling N., Green, N., Gunnlaugsdóttir, H., Population-Level Consequences of Kannan, K., Letcher, R.J., Muir, D., Polychlorinated Biphenyl Exposure in Ólafsdóttir, K., Renzoni, A., Roach, P., East Greenland Polar Bears. Archives of Sonne, C., Stern, G., and Wiig, Ø. 2011. Environmental Contaminant Toxicology Temporal trends of Hg in Arctic biota, an 70:143–154. doi: 10.1007/s00244-015- update. Science of the Total Environment 0203-2. 409:3520–3526. Pavlova, V., Nabe-Nielsen, J., Dietz, R., Rigét, F., Bossi, R., Sonne, C., Vorkamp, K., Svenning, J-C., Vorkamp, K., Rigét, F.F., and Dietz, R. 2013. Trends of Sonne, C., Letcher, R., and Grimm, V. perfuorochemicals in Greenland ringed 2014. Using long-term PCB seals and polar bears from Greenland: contamination data and individual-based indications of beginning to decreasing modelling for assessing metabolic rates trends. Chemosphere 93:1607–1614. and PCB absorption efficiency in East Rigét, F., Vorkamp, K., Bossi, R., Sonne, C., Greenland polar bears: perspectives from Letcher, R., and Dietz, R. 2015. Twenty an individual-based model. PLOS ONE years of monitoring of persistent organic

106

pollutants in Greenland biota: A review. maritimus). Toxicology and Environmental Environmental Pollution Chemistry 93:789–805. 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.11.006. Sonne, C., Letcher, R.J., Leifsson, P.S., Rigét, Ross, M.S., Letcher, R.J., McKinney, M.A., F.F., Bechshøft, T.,Ø., Rossana, B. Sonne, C., Dietz, R., and Wong, C.S. Asmund, G., and Dietz, R. 2012. 2011. Comparison of the enantiomer Temporal monitoring of liver and kidney distribution of chiral organochlorine lesions in contaminated East Greenland contaminants in captive West Greenland polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during sled dogs and polar bears from Baffin 1999–2010. Environment International Bay in Garrison, A.W., Gan, J., Liu, W. 48:143–149. (eds) Chiral Pesticides: Stereoselectivity Sonne, C., Letcher, R.J., Bechshøft, T.Ø., Rigét, and Its Consequences. American Chemical F.F., Muir, D.C.G., Leifsson, P.S., Born, Society Symposium Series 1085: 45–63. E.W., Hyldstrup, L., Basu, N., Routti, H., Letcher, R.J., Born, E.W., Branigan, Kirkegaard, M. and Dietz, R. 2012a. M., Dietz, R., Evans, T.J., Fisk, A.T., Two decades of biomonitoring polar Peacock, E., and Sonne, C. 2011. Spatio- bear health in Greenland: a review. Acta temporal trends of selected trace Veterinaria Scandinavica 54:S15. elements in liver tissue from polar bears Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Bechshøft, T.Ø., (Ursus maritimus) from Alaska, Canada McKinney, M., Leifsson, P.S., Born, and Greenland. Journal of Environmental E.W., Rigét, F.F., Letcher, R.J., and Muir, Monitoring 13: 2260–2267. D.C.G. 2012b. Monitoring liver and Routti, H, Letcher, R.J. Born, E.W., Branigan, kidney morphology in East Greenland M., Dietz, R., Evans, T.J., McKinney, polar bears (Ursus maritimus) during M.A., Peacock, E., and Sonne, C. 2012. 1999–2010. Environmental International Influence of carbon and lipid sources on 48:143–149. variation of mercury and other trace Sonne, C., Dietz, R., Letcher, R.J., Bechshøft, elements in polar bears (Ursus maritimus). T.Ø., Rigét, F.F., Muir, D.C.G., Leifsson, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 31: P.S., and Hyldstrup, L. 2012. Two 2739. decades of biomonitoring polar bear Sonne C., Gustavson, K., Rigét, F.F., Dietz, R., health in Greenland: a review. Birkved, M., Letcher, R.J., Bossi, R., Proceedings from NKVet Symposium 6– Vorkamp, K., Born, E.W., and Petersen, 7 October 2011, Helsinki, Finland. Acta G. 2009. Reproductive performance in Veterinaria Scandinavica 54 (Suppl 1):S1 East Greenland polar bears (Ursus Sonne, C., Letcher, R., and Dietz, R. 2013. maritimus) may be affected by Chemical cocktail party in East organohalogen contaminants as shown Greenland: A first time evaluation of by physiologically-based human organohalogen exposure from pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling. consumption of ringed seal and polar Chemosphere 77:1558–1568. bear tissues and possible health Sonne C. 2010. Health effects from long-range implications. Toxicological & transported contaminants in Arctic top Environmental Chemistry 95:853–859. predators: An integrated review based on http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gtec2 studies of polar bears and relevant model 0. species. Environmental International Sonne, C., Bechshøft, T.Ø., Rigét, F.F., Baagøe, 36:461–491. H.J., Hedayat, A., Andersen, M., Bech- Sonne, C., Leifsson, P.S., Iburg, T., Dietz, R., Jensen, J.E., Hyldstrup, L., Letcher, R.J., Born, E.W., Letcher, R.J., and and Dietz, R. 2013. Size and density of Kirkegaard, M. 2011. Thyroid gland East Greenland polar bear (Ursus lesions in organohalogen contaminated maritimus) skulls as bio-indicators of East Greenland polar bears (Ursus environmental changes. Ecological Indicators 34:290–295.

107

Sonne, C., Dyck, M., Rigét, F.F., Bech-Jensen, van Beest, F.M., Aars, J., Routti, H., Andersen, J.E., Hyldstrup, L., Letcher, R.J., M., Sonne, C., Nabe-Nielsen, J., Dietz, R. Gustavson, K., Gilbert, M.T.P., and 2016. Considering persistent organic Dietz, R. 2015. Penile density and pollutants as drivers of scale-dependent globally used chemicals in Canadian and movements: a case study of female polar Greenland polar bears. Environmental bears. Polar Biology 39:1479–1489 Research 137:287–291. Vorkamp, K., Bossi, R., Rigét, F.F., Skov, H., Styrishave, B., Pedersen, K.E., Clarke, O., Sonne, C., and Dietz, R. 2015. Novel Hansen, M., Björklund, E., Sonne, C., brominated flame retardants and and Dietz, R. 2016. Steroid hormones in dechlorane plus in Greenland air and multiple tissues of East Greenland polar biota. Environmental Pollution 196:284– bears (Ursus maritimus). Polar Biology 291. 40:37-49. Weisser, J.J., Hansen, M., Björklund, E., Sonne, SWG [Scientific Working Group to the C., Dietz, R., and Styrishave, B. 2016. A Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on novel method for analysing key Polar Bear]. 2016. Re-Assessment of the corticosteroids in polar bear (Ursus Baffin Bay and Kane Basin Polar Bear maritimus) hair using liquid Subpopulations: Final Report to the chromatography tandem mass Canada-Greenland Joint Commission on spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography B Polar Bear. 31 July 2016: x + 636 pp. 1017–1018: 45–51.

108

Figures Fig. 1. Map of Greenland including the polar bear subpopulations and localities mentioned in the text.

109

Fig. 2. Distribution of ages and family groups of a total of 139 individual polar bears captured in spring in northwest Greenland, 2009–2013.

110

Fig. 3. Search effort (black lines) and map of captures, biopsies and sightings of polar bears in in Southeast Greenland, March–April 2015 and 2016 (Laidre, unpublished data).

111

Management on Polar Bears in Norway, 2009–2016 Morten Ekker, Norwegian Environment Agency, N-7485 Trondheim, Norway Dag Vongraven, Norwegian Polar Institute, N-9296 Tromsø, Norway Paul Lutnæs, Governor of Svalbard, N-91701 Longyearbyen, Norway Jon Aars, Norwegian Polar Institute, N-9296 Tromsø, Norway Magnus Andersen, Norwegian Polar Institute, N-9296 Tromsø, Norway Heli Routti, Norwegian Polar Institute, N-9296 Tromsø, Norway

In the period 2009–2016, several important 2016) and the plan adds up to a knowledge- tasks have been completed with respect to the based and adaptive management system, where management of polar bears in Norway and the systematic and comprehensive monitoring and Barents Sea. The release of the Norwegian research represent the hub. The plan also polar bear action plan in 2013, the repetition of focuses on the need to contribute to bilateral the abundance estimate in 2015, and the and circumpolar management in line with the improved and formalized cooperation between same principles. Norway and Russia on polar bear issues have all The plan has the overall goal: "the Barents been events that have put polar bear Sea polar bear population shall be conserved as a management on the agenda in Norway. There sustainable subpopulation in the longer term, by targeted is still focus on sustainable management of the and knowledge-based management. In Svalbard the ecosystems of Svalbard and the Barents Sea, polar bear population should develop with minimal both through the implementation of impact from local activities". The plan outlines management plans for the Barents Sea and the separate objectives that underpin the main goal, Norwegian Sea and the new management plans according to priority fields: for different parts of Svalbard. As the Range State cooperation has been revitalized with 1) Habitat change: Habitat changes regular biannual meetings and reporting as well resulting from large scale as well as local as the release of the Circumpolar Action Plan factors shall be countered by with associated activities, these processes have international solutions, local/regional also significantly contributed to an upgrading of measures and regulations based upon the activity level in Norway. updated knowledge and a precautionary approach. Norwegian Polar Bear Action 2) Pollution: Direct and indirect sources of pollution shall be reduced as far as Plan possible by mutual solutions both nationally and internationally and The development of a national action plan was counteractive measures to reduce any based on agreement made at the Range State effects shall be evaluated and Meeting in 2009 held in Tromsø, Norway. The implemented. plan was commissioned by the Ministry of 3) Acute pollution/emergency response: Climate and Environment and the process Oil pollution shall be prevented and involved relevant national stakeholders. The shall be counteracted by strict plan document was published in 2013 as a regulations and requirements for risky report from the Norwegian Environment activities in polar bear habitat, as well as Agency (Norwegian Environment Agency a well-developed emergency 2013). Climate change and unpredictable plan/management. ecological responses and consequences is the 4) Disturbance/stress due to human main challenge for the Barents Sea polar bear activities: Disturbance from human population (Aars et al. 2017, Andersen and Aars

112

activities is complex and is a potentially Norwegian-Russian polar bear working group important stress factor for polar bears, under the Norwegian-Russian Environmental which largely can be prevented by good cooperation to facilitate and underpin the planning, regulation by the authorities shared responsibility for the Barents Sea and emergency solutions. population. 5) Human-bear conflicts: Conflicts between polar bears and humans shall Management plans for the be prevented and minimalized. 6) Neighboring populations: Norway Barents Sea and the Norwegian shall, in addition to developing Sea cooperation with Russia on the Barents Sea population, also contribute actively The integrated management plan for the to a proper and knowledge-based Barents Sea was finalised and presented to the management of neighboring Norwegian Parliament in March 2006, and populations. passed as a legally binding White Paper shortly 7) International cooperation: Norway after (Norwegian Ministry of Climate and shall continue its international Environment 2006). The management plan engagement and actively support was updated in 2011 (Norwegian Ministry of international cooperative initiatives for Climate and Environment 2011), and will be the circumpolar conservation of polar revised in 2020. bears. Svalbard and the northern part of the 8) Communication/outreach: Barents Sea (north of latitude 74°30’N) are Knowledge-based management areas where the industrial activity is low, e.g., depends upon good preparation and petroleum activities are still not allowed in this communication of scientific results. area. However, a dispute over the borderline Intensive gathering of knowledge shall between Norway and Russia in the Barents was be used informatively and strategically settled in 2010, an agreement which has opened in order to improve the conservation areas for national industrial priorities (e.g., status of the polar bear. petroleum resources). On the Norwegian side 9) Monitoring and research: Targeted of the new border line, a 45,000 km2 area east monitoring and research should be of longitude 32°E was officially opened by the basic elements in the polar bear Parliament in 2013, as a direct extension of the management (conservation) and already opened areas in the Barents Sea. The contribute to continuous evaluation present main threatening human activity with and improvement of conservation relevance to polar bear habitats is still tourism, actions both nationally and e.g., cruise ship traffic and snow mobiles in internationally. Conservation-oriented feeding areas. As the sea ice conditions have research shall be prioritized and will changed, more open water increases the access supplement monitoring, e.g., as a to areas (north/east) that were previously less quality control and to explain time accessible. series data to meet the need for early The hope is that the cross-sectoral and warning related to undesired integrated management plans eventually will be developments at individual and able to secure polar bear critical habitat population level. components as mentioned in Article II in the 1973 Agreement. For instance, the marginal ice The plan has a 5-year perspective and the zone (MIZ) is classified as a “Particularly implementation of the plan is ongoing while valuable and vulnerable area” in the several tasks or actions are completed. New management plan, and in these areas “special basic structures are also established; a national caution will be required and special considerations will polar bear advisory board to oversee the apply to the assessments of standards for and restrictions implementation of the plan and a joint on activities”. These are important political

113

signals as to how the management of some of and research activity in these areas have called the most critical polar bear habitats will be for an increased management effort in these managed in the future. important areas for polar bears in times of rapid The management plan for the Norwegian environmental change. In 2015 a management Sea was presented in May 2009 as a White Paper plan for the eastern parts of Svalbard from the Ministry of Environment (Norwegian (Northeast Svalbard and Southeast Svalbard Ministry of Climate and Environment 2009), nature reserves) was approved by the and was revised in 2017 (Norwegian Ministry of Norwegian Environment Agency. The plan Climate and Environment 2017). This plan is includes guidelines for local management and based on the same approach, principles and regulations by the Governor of Svalbard on, methods as the Barents Sea management plan, e.g., motor traffic related to polar bear filming, and the geographical scope includes polar bear research, etc. Similar management plans for the habitats west of Spitsbergen (Fram Strait). western and central parts of Spitsbergen are Although not directly focused on polar bear under preparation by the Governor of conservation, the plan includes tools and Svalbard. principles relevant for habitat protection and Management plans for Bear Island and may therefore contribute to the conservation of Hopen nature reserves were endorsed by the the polar bears in the area. Norwegian Environment Agency in 2005 and 2007. Especially for Hopen, which still might New Government White Paper be an important denning site for polar bears (Derocher et al. 2011), the plan is an important on Svalbard means by which to promote the conservation goals. Still, denning in Hopen has been At regular intervals, the Norwegian marginal in the entire period after 2009 due to Government releases a White Paper where lack of sea ice around the island in winter. status and intentions for management of environment and human activities in Svalbard are discussed. The last one was released in May New regulations 2016 (Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security 2016). The White Paper reconfirms In 2008 the regulations for the two large nature the high environmental objectives on Svalbard reserves in the eastern parts of Svalbard, and highlights the climate change challenges. Northeast Svalbard and Southeast Svalbard nature reserves, were adjusted to prohibit tourist ships with more than 200 passengers to Protected areas in Svalbard go there. However, the most important new adjustment was the prohibition of all heavy ship At present, there are a total of 29 protected fuels. No ship can use or bring other fuel than areas in Svalbard. There are seven national light diesel fuel, class DMA (ISO 8217 Fuel parks, six nature reserves, 15 bird sanctuaries Standard). This will eliminate the risk for oil and one geological reserve. The total area of all 2 fouling from accidental spills of heavy bunker protected areas is 115,600 km . This comprises fuel oils in these core polar bear areas in the approx. 77 % of the total area within the future. Although field data is missing that territorial borders in Svalbard. document effects on oiling on polar bears, The eastern parts of Svalbard experimental studies have shown that oiling can traditionally represent important habitats for be fatal, both due to toxic effects when bears polar bears, both for feeding and breeding. groom oiled pelts (Øritsland et al. 1981), and These areas, which are protected as nature from significant loss of insulation (Hurst and reserves, are also expected to experience the Øritsland 1982). most significant impact of climate change by In 2011 the Svalbard Environmental changing sea ice breakup and freeze-up Protection Act was changed with respect to (Førland et al. 2009,Stern and Laidre 2016). reduce the risk of fatal human bear interactions Subsequent increased traffic from cruise ships in the field. As an extension of the statutory

114

provisions regarding protection and on Svalbard. This could indicate that people are disturbance of wildlife, an injunction on better prepared and do more to avoid prevention of polar bear attacks was adopted in confrontations, since tourism and other human order to avoid unnecessary scaring, chasing and activity in more distant parts from the killings (harassment) of polar bears, as well as settlements in Svalbard have increased securing of humans. The Governor of Svalbard significantly. It might also be that there is less is authorized to give specified regulations. polar bear activity around settlements due to a New adjustments of regulations for change in the distribution and condition of sea protected areas (core polar bear habitats) ice around Svalbard, winter and summer. There include general traffic bans, duty of notification is, however, still a need to focus on correct and reporting for all activities in certain areas in human behaviour and methods to minimize the northeast parts of the archipelago, site risk for both humans and polar bears, especially specific guidelines for commercial tourism and while camping in remote areas in Svalbard. a ban on aviation below 300 m in national parks On a few occasions, "problem bears" and 500 m in nature reserves. have been immobilised and moved by helicopter to adjacent areas. In 2009 a bear was Polar bears killed in Svalbard moved from the Hopen Meteorological Station, in 2010, 2014 and 2016 single bears were 2009–2016 moved away from Longyearbyen, and in 2016 a bear was moved from the trapper station on From 2009 through 2016 a total of 14 polar Austfjordnes. bears have been killed in Svalbard (Table 1). The data on polar bears killed in self-defence since the ban of all hunting in 1973 does not Use and trade of polar bear appear to support a theory that there has been products an increase in human-bear confrontations in the last years (Figure 1). However, this Norway reports all licenses according to the observation of lack of trend is only valid if there CITES regulations and standard routines. is a direct link between the real number of Permits are administrated by the Norwegian confrontations and bears being killed. Environment Agency. In general, the level of trade/licenses is low and the main volume Human casualties and human- relates to import and re-export.

bear conflicts Population status In the period 2009–2016 there has been one fatal human casualty and several severe injuries After the protection in 1973 in Svalbard and from polar bear attacks. In 2010 two tourists 1956 in Russia, the Barents Sea population has (kayakers) were attacked in their tent, and one partly recovered in absence of hunting. The was dragged out by the bear, which was later population was estimated to be 2650 (95% CI shot by the other kayaker. In 2011 a group of = approx. 1900–3600) bears in August 2004 British students were attacked in their tent (Aars et al. 2009). In August 2016, the camp, and one person was killed and four Norwegian part of the population was others were injured. The bear was shot by one estimated as 973 (95% CI = 665-1884), of the expedition participants. In 2015 a man compared to 685 (CI = 501–869) in 2004. The was dragged out of his tent by a young bear, and estimated increase in numbers was not the bear was injured by a shot from a revolver, statistically significant (Aars et al. 2017). On and later killed. mainland Svalbard, the numbers of bears As mentioned above, there appears to be estimated were similar in the two study years, no support in the data on killed bears for a close to 250, thus the increased number was due theory that there has been an increase in the to more bears estimated in the pack ice. The number of conflicts between humans and bears increase needs to be interpreted with care, not

115

only because it is not statistically significant, but several important denning areas in Svalbard, also because the distribution of bears along the and even the important area of Kong Karls ice edge could be different between the two Land has experienced so little sea ice in fall that surveys. However, comparisons between the no dens were found during surveys the two estimates indicate that bears in the Svalbard following spring (www.mosj.no). Both body area do quite well despite the change to less condition and reproduction are currently available sea ice. The monitoring program on monitored in Svalbard polar bears. No trend reproduction and condition (www.mosj.no) is over time has so far been seen, but for both data designed to follow the population and reveal series a significant relationship with the AO- any severe changes in the biology as soon as index is seen, indicating an effect of climate on possible if they do occur, in a population the parameters. experiencing a rapid reduction in sea ice The new PBSG sea ice metric, published availability. One logical reason why the Barents by Stern and Laidre (2016) shows that the ice Sea population may increase despite rapid loss free period between spring thaw and fall freeze of sea ice is that it likely was depleted to well has increased by 40 days per decade since 1979, below its carrying capacity before the i.e., more than 140 days, within the protection in 1973. Due to the documented, subpopulation area, which is by far the most severe reductions of the sea ice habitat (Stern dramatic change when compared with any and Laidre 2016) and prognoses for a further other subpopulation area. decline (Durner et al. 2009), a future new It is likely that polar bears will be lost population estimate for the Barents Sea from many areas where they are common today subpopulation, also including the Russian part and also that the total population will change of the area, is considered important. into a few more distinctly isolated populations (Wiig et al. 2008). It is expected that polar bear Threats from climate change habitat in the Barents Sea will be substantially decreased during this century (Durner et al. Northern ice covered areas are sensitive to 2009). effects of climate change (global warming) and NorACIA1 models that the most significant Threats from industrial change in Svalbard will occur in the north eastern part of the archipelago (Førland et al. developments

2009). Climate change will both reduce polar The southern part of the Barents Sea was legally bear critical habitat and at the same time opened for oil and gas developments in 1989 improve the access for human activities (south of 74° 30' N). Petroleum exploration is (tourism, research, resident traffic etc.). still prohibited in the northern part of the Derocher et al. (2011) studied the denning Barents Sea, north of latitude 74°30’N, but has, ecology of female polar bears at Hopen Island. as mentioned above, recently been opened in a It was concluded that climate change may be new 45,000 km2 area east of longitude 32°E, negatively affecting the denning ecology of due to agreement between Norway and Russia polar bears at the southern extent of their range about the border delineation. in the study population. Fall ice cover around The present main threatening human important denning areas in Svalbard is activity with relevance to polar bear habitats is monitored, based on the findings that timing of still tourism, e.g., cruise ship traffic and snow fall sea ice is dictating whether bears can get mobiles in feeding areas. As the sea ice access to the area or not for denning the coming conditions have changed, more open water winter. There is currently a trend towards later increases the access to areas (north/east) that sea ice formation and earlier breakup around were previously "protected" by ice coverage.

1 Norwegian domestic follow-up of the circumpolar ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) program. See http://noracia.npolar.no.

116

In the south, the large gas field of Snøhvit the ice. Pilot studies of disturbance from has produced Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) snowmobiles have not surprisingly shown that since 2007. This is the first developed gas field females with small cubs seem to be easier in the Barents Sea. Gas has been the main disturbed than males and single females discovered hydrocarbon reserve in the region (Andersen and Aars 2008). Other studies, from until there was an oil discovery in the Goliat various regions, have shown both behavioural block in 2000, 30 nautical miles southeast of and physiological impacts on wildlife from Snøhvit. This was the first oil field to be put in motorised traffic (Creel et al. 2002, Dyck and production in the Barents Sea (April 2016). The Baydack 2004, Overrein 2002). The real field is located 30 nautical miles off the negative impact from disturbance from tourism Norwegian coast. and other activities are unknown. Should The most immediate risk for acute oil future studies indicate that such impacts are spills in polar bear habitats are thus still only significant, the existing legislation allows from acute oil spills from ship traffic (tourist necessary steps to regulate tourism activities ships, fishing vessels, research vessels or ice stronger to reduce the total pressure on polar breakers with conventional fuel). However, as bears. oil developments seem to move north and ice cover continues to recede as climate warms, Harvest there is an increased concern about oil drilling in ice-infested waters as polar bear critical The polar bear has been protected in Norway habitat decreases. since 1973, and there has consequently been no harvest of the Barents Sea subpopulation in Threats from tourism and Norwegian territories. The previous concerns disturbance related to possible high levels of illegal harvest in northwest Russia are reduced, partly due to Tourism has been, and will continue to be, one the establishment of the new national park of the main commercial activities in Svalbard. "Russian Arctic" covering Franz Josef Land Tourism is described as one of the main pillars and north part of Novaya Zemlya. In eastern of the societal development as the coal mining Greenland, harvest is still set without a industry is terminated (Norwegian Ministry of population estimate, so whether this harvest is Justice and Public Security 2016). Tourism sustainable is still unknown. Studies have activities are increasing at and around Svalbard, shown that there are some overlap of home both in winter and summer. Both expedition ranges in the Fram Strait area, and thus that cruises and daytrips have more than doubled some interaction between East Greenland and since 2001. In addition, the winter tourism Svalbard/Barents Sea bears is likely (Born et al. (snowmobile traffic) is increasing and 2012). Population genetics indicate that gene expanding. The Governor of Svalbard has put flow is very high between the populations effort into monitoring and patrolling the areas (Paetkau et al. 1999). most commonly used during winter- /springtime, with special attention to polar Threats from pollution bears. As the traditional polar bear habitats are Circumpolar studies indicate that polar bears shrinking throughout the archipelago, from the Barents Sea are among the most particularly in the warmer parts of the year, due contaminated of all subpopulations for levels of to reduced sea ice, there is an increased concern the most important lipophilic compounds that polar bears are disturbed in sensitive areas (PCBs and PBDEs) and perfluoroalkyl and periods. Although the protection regime in substances (McKinney et al. 2011, Smithwick et Svalbard is strict, and in large is a success, there al. 2005). Concentrations of most lipophilic are times of the year when snow mobile tourism pollutants and perfluoroctane sulfonate (PFOS) is intense in areas were females with COYs have have decreased over time, whereas emerged from their dens and start to hunt on perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFCAs) are

117

increasing (www.mosj.no; Routti et al., under and modelled linkages between reductions in review; Bytingsvik et al. 2012). Concentrations habitat and population size (Wiig et al. 2015). of mercury and hexachlorobenzene do not Any change of status on the Norwegian Red show any trend over time (Riget et al. 2011). List will not have any immediate practical The high levels of pollutants in polar bears consequence for the management of polar from the Barents Sea area have been related to bears in Norwegian territory since they have physiological effects such as disruption of been totally protected since 1973 and the Red hormone and immune system at individual level List status has no automatic legal implications. (reviewed by Jenssen et al. 2015). Also, comparison of pollutants in polar bears to Bilateral and international threshold levels in experimental animals suggest that polar bear health is affected by pollutants cooperation (Dietz et al. 2015, Pavlova et al. 2016). However, impact of pollutants on population growth is As the Barents Sea polar bear population is challenging to quantify (Derocher 2005). shared between Norway and Russia, a targeted Declining sea ice leads to increased tissue cooperation is important in order to exchange concentrations of lipophilic pollutants, as in the data and information, coordinate activity, absence of sea ice polar bears have reduced improve and calibrate methods, etc. Two feeding opportunities, they become thinner and bilateral expert meetings were arranged in 2011 pollutants get more concentrated (Tartu et al. and 2012, before a Memorandum of 2017). Furthermore, pollutants may affect the Understanding (MoU) was signed in February processes how polar bears store fat, but the 2015. The intention behind this MoU was to consequences at individual/population level are contribute to formalize the bilateral unknown (Routti et al. 2016). Given the high cooperation with an aim to strengthen the pollutant concentrations of Barents Sea polar cooperation on polar bear management, bears and associated health effects, ecotox monitoring and research. A working group was studies in the area have high priority due to the established to implement the cooperation in the possible importance in future management. framework of the MoU and the first meeting Documenting presence and effects of was arranged in 2016. pollutants in the Arctic ecosystems gives input In March 2009 Norway invited the to international conventions, such as the Contracting Parties to the 1973 polar bear Stockholm Convention, that regulates the use Agreement to a meeting of the parties in and production of persistent organic pollutants. Tromsø, after the five Contracting Parties (the Range States) had not met since 1981 in Oslo to decide that the 1973 agreement should be National Red Listing valid indefinitely. At the Tromsø meeting, it was decided to create a joint circumpolar action In 2006, a Norwegian Red List of threatened plan for the polar bear. Since this meeting, the species was prepared in accordance with the Range States have met on a biannual basis and IUCN criteria by the Norwegian Biodiversity developed the plan. At their meeting in Ilulissat Information Centre in 2015, the Circumpolar Action Plan (Polar (http://www.biodiversity.no). Svalbard was Bear Range States 2015) was approved by the for the first time included and the polar bear Range States. The plan is a result of targeted was listed as vulnerable (VU) according to effort from the Range States. Work is still on- criteria A3c: a suspected population reduction going in relevant thematic subgroups of the during the coming three generations (45 years) Range States collaboration (Heads of based on a decline in the area of occupancy, delegation, Conflict Working Group, extent and habitat quality. This was in line with Communication Working Group, and the CAP the global assessment (Schliebe et al. 2006). The implementation team), and these international last update of the Red List assessment efforts have increased the national focus on the confirmed the initial assessment, this time polar bear species in decision-making founded on new estimates of generation length processes.

118

International cooperation is one specific Centre for Environment and Energy No. objective under the national action plan 22, Aarhus University. (Norwegian Environment Agency 2013). Also, Bytingsvik, J., van Leeuwen, S.P.J., Hamers, T., Norway supported a listing of polar bears under Swart, K., Aars, J., Lie, E., Nilsen, Convention of Migratory Species - CMS), and E.M.E., Wiig, O., Derocher, A.E., and polar bears were added on its Appendix II in Jenssen, B.M. 2012. Perfluoroalkyl November 2014 at their COP112. According to substances in polar bear mother-cub CMS, the listing "introduces the global pairs: A comparative study based on perspective of existing threats to Arctic species plasma levels from 1998 and 2008. stemming from shipping and oil exploration, Environment International 49:92–99. doi: making it a case for all CMS Parties". CMS has 10.1016/j.envint.2012.08.004. 124 Parties worldwide and given their Creel, S., Fox, J.E., Hardy, A., Sands, J., responsibility to halt global warming in order to Garrott, B., and Peterson, R.O. 2002. conserve polar bears, this CMS listing is a Snowmobile activity and glucocorticoid valuable contribution. stress responses in wolves and elk. Conservation Biology 16(3):809–814. References Derocher, A.E. 2005. Population ecology of polar bears at Svalbard, Norway. Aars, J., Marques, T., Lone, K., Andersen, M., Population Ecology 47(3):267–275. Wiig, Ø., Fløystad, I.M.B., Hagen, S.B., Derocher, A.E., Andersen, M., Wiig, Ø., Aars, and Buckland, S.T. 2017. The number J., Hansen, E., and Biuw, M. 2011. Sea and distribution of polar bears in the ice and polar bear den ecology at Hopen western Barents Sea area. Polar Research, Island, Svalbard. Marine Ecology Progress in press. Series 441:273–297. Aars, J., Marques, T.A., Buckland, S.T., Dietz, R., Gustayson, K., Sonne, C., Desforges, Andersen, M., Belikov, S., Boltunov, A., J.P., Riget, F.F., Pavlova, V., McKinney, and Wiig, O. 2009. Estimating the M.A., and Letcher, R.J. 2015. Barents Sea polar bear subpopulation Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic size. Marine Mammal Science 25(1):35–52. modelling of immune, reproductive and doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00228.x. carcinogenic effects from contaminant Andersen, M., and Aars, J. 2008. Short-term exposure in polar bears (Ursus maritimus) behavioural response of polar bears across the Arctic. Environmental Research (Ursus maritimus) to snowmobile 140:45–55. doi: disturbance. Polar Biology 31(4):501–507. 10.1016/j.envres.2015.03.011. Andersen, M., and Aars, J. 2016. Barents Sea Durner, G.M., Douglas, D.C., Nielson, R.M., polar bears (Ursus maritimus): population Amstrup, S.C., McDonald, T.L., Stirling, biology and anthropogenic threats. Polar I., Mauritzen, M., Born, E.W., Wiig, Ø., Research 35. doi: DeWeaver, E., Serreze, M., Belikov, S.E., 10.3402/polar.v35.26029. Holland, M.M., Maslanik, J., Aars, J., Born, E.W., Laidre, K., Dietz, R., Wiig, Ø., Bailey, D.A., and Derocher, A.E. 2009. Aars, J., and Andersen, M. 2012. Polar Predicting 21st century polar bear habitat bear Ursus maritimus. Pages 102–115 in distribution from global circulation D. Boertmann and A. Mosbech (eds.) The models. Ecological Monographs 79:25–58. western Greenland Sea: a strategic Dyck, M.G., and Baydack, R.K. 2004. environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon Vigilance behaviour of polar bears (Ursus activities. Scientific Report from Danish maritimus) in the context of wildlife- viewing activities at Churchill, Manitoba,

2 Cf.http://www.cms.int/en/news/governments- commit-step-action-migratory-animals-un-wildlife- conference

119

Canada. Biological Conservation 116:343– Lofoten Area. Report No. 10 to the 350. Parliament. Førland, E.J., Benestad, R.E., Flatøy, F., Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Hanssen-Bauer, I., Haugen, J.E., Isaksen, Environment. 2017. First update of the K., Sorteberg, A., and Ådlandsvik, B. management plan for the Norwegian Sea 2009. Climate development in North (in Norwegian). Report No. 35 to the Norway and the Svalbard region during Parliament. 1900–2100. Norsk Polarinstitutt Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Rapportserie 128. Norwegian Polar Security. 2016. Svalbard. White Paper Institute, Tromsø. from the Norwegian Cabinet to Hurst, R.J., and Øritsland, N.A. 1982. Polar Parliament. bear (Ursus maritimus) thermoregulation: Overrein, Ø. 2002. Impacts of motorized Effect of oil on the insulative properties traffic on fauna and vegetation (in of fur. Journal of Thermal Biology 7(4):201– Norwegian). Norwegian Polar Institute 208. Report Series No. 119. Jenssen, B.M., Villanger, G.D., Gabrielsen, Paetkau, D., Amstrup, S.C., Born, E.W., K.M., Bytingsvik, J., Bechshøft, T.Ø., Calvert, W., Derocher, A.E., Garner, Ciesielski, T.M., Sonne, C., and Dietz, R. G.W., Messier, F., Stirling, I., Taylor, 2015. Anthropogenic flank attack on M.K., Wiig, Ø., and Strobeck, C. 1999. polar bears: Interacting consequences of Genetic structure of the world's polar climate warming and pollutant exposure. bear populations. Molecular Ecology Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 3. doi: 8:1571–1584. 10.3389/fevo.2015.00016. Pavlova, V., Nabe-Nielsen, J., Dietz, R., Sonne, McKinney, M.A., Letcher, R., Aars, J., Born, E., C., and Grimm, V. 2016. Allee effect in Branigan, M., Dietz, R., Evans, T., polar bears: a potential consequence of Gabrielsen, G.W., Peacock, E., and polychlorinated biphenyl contamination. Sonne, C. 2011. Flame retardants and Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological legacy contaminants in polar bears from Sciences 283(1843):9. doi: Alaska, Canada, East Greenland and 10.1098/rspb.2016.1883. Svalbard, 2005-2008. Environmental Polar Bear Range States. 2015. Circumpolar International 37:365–374. doi: Action Plan: conservation strategy for 10.1016/j.envint.2010.10.008. the polar bear. A product of the Norwegian Environment Agency. 2013. representatives of the Parties to the 1973 Norwegian national polar bear action Agreement on the Conservation of Polar plan (in Norwegian). Report No. M16 - Bears. 2013. Riget, F., Braune, B., Bignert, A., Wilson, S., Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Aars, J., Born, E., Dam, M., Dietz, R., Environment. 2006. Integrated Evans, M., Evans, T., Gamberg, M., Management of the Marine Environment Gantner, N., Green, N., of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off Gunnlaugsdottir, H., Kannan, K., the Lofoten Islands. Report No. 8 to the Letcher, R., Muir, D., Roach, P., Sonne, Parliament. C., Stern, G., and Wiig, Ø. 2011. Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Temporal trends of Hg in Arctic biota, an Environment. 2009. Integrated update. Science of The Total Environment management of the marine environment 409(18):3520–3526. doi: of the Norwegian Sea. White Paper No. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.002. 37 to the Parliament. Routti, H., Lille-Langøy, R., Berg, M.K., Fink, Norwegian Ministry of Climate and T., Harju, M., Kristiansen, K., Environment. 2011. First update of the Rostkowski, P., Rusten, M., Sylte, I., Integrated Management Plan for the Øygarden, L., and Goksøyr, A. 2016. Marine Environment of the Barents Sea- Environmental chemicals modulate polar

120

bear (Ursus maritimus) peroxisome Tartu, S., Bourgeon, S., Aars, J., Andersen, M., proliferator-activated receptor gamma Polder, A., Thiemann, G.W., Welker, (PPARG) and adipogenesis in vitro. J.M., and Routti, H. 2017. Sea ice- Environmental Science & Technology associated decline in body condition 50(19):10708–10720. doi: leads to increased concentrations of 10.1021/acs.est.6b03020. lipophilic pollutants in polar bears (Ursus Schliebe, S., Wiig, Ø., Derocher, A., and Lunn, maritimus) from Svalbard, Norway. Science N. 2006. Ursus maritimus. IUCN Redlist of The Total Environment 576:409–419. doi: of Threatened Species http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2 http://iucnredlist.org. 016.10.132. Smithwick, M., Mabury, S.A., Solomon, K.R., Wiig, Ø., Aars, J., and Born, E.W. 2008. Sonne, C., Martin, J.W., Born, E.W., Effects of climate change on polar bears. Dietz, R., Derocher, A.E., Letcher, R.J., Science Progress 91(Pt 2):151–173. Evans, T.J., Gabrielsen, G.W., Nagy, J., Wiig, Ø., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Laidre, K., Stirling, I., Taylor, M.K., and Muir, Lunn, N., Obbard, M., Regehr, E., and D.C.G. 2005. Circumpolar study of Thiemann, G. 2015. Ursus maritimus. perfluoroalkyl contaminants in polar IUCN Redlist of Threatened Species bears (Ursus maritimus). Environmental http://iucnredlist.org. Science & Technology 39(15):5517–5523. Øritsland, N.A., Engelhardt, F.R., Juck, F.A., doi: 10.1021/es048309w. Hurst, R.J., and Watts, P.D. 1981. Effect Stern, H.L., and Laidre, K.L. 2016. Sea-ice of crude oil on polar bears. indicators of polar bear habitat. The Environmental Studies No. 24, Northern Cryosphere Discussions 2016:1–36. doi: Affairs Program, Indian and Northern 10.5194/tc-2016-110. Affairs Canada.

121

Tables Table 1. Polar bears killed in Svalbard 2009–2016 (SD=self defence, AM=act of mercy, PM=precautionary measure, GO=Governor’s Office, C=station crew, S=scientist, T=tourist). Source: Governor of Svalbard, 2016. Date Location Cause Sex Recapture? Age (years) 10.05.2009 Kinnvika, Nordaustlandet SD M Yes 3-4 18.07.2009 Hopen SD M No Adult 08.07.2010 Hyttevika SD M Yes 10 29.07.2010 Ekstremhuken SD M Yes 11 05.08.2011 Von Post breen SD M No 24 24.03.2013 Hyttevika SD M Yes 6 18.04.2013 Isbukta SD M No Subadult 04.09.2013 Freeman Sound S M Yes 2 11.04.2014 Petuniabukta S? F Yes 1 19.03.2015 Fredheim GO ? ? ? 16.04.2016 Verlegenhuken GO F No 2 13.06.2016 Austfjordneset SD M Yes 21 13.06.2016 Austfjordneset GO M Yes 0,5 10.08.2016 Selvågen, Forlandet S M Yes 2,5

122

Table 2. CITES permits for import, export and re-export of polar bear skins and parts of polar bears in Norway, 2009–2015. Year Import Export Re-export

2009 19 SKI (CA), 1 BOD - 10 SKI to JO, SE, RU, (CA), 2 SKU (CA) CY and CN (all origin CA). 2010 9 SKI (CA) - 11 SKI to NL, RU, CN and GL, (3 origin CA and 8 origin GL) and 2 claws to GL (origin GL) 2011 10 SKI (CA), 1 SKI (IS), 1 SPE (DK) 1 SPE (GB) 1 SKI & 1 BOD (SE), 1 1 SKI & 1 SKU (GL), 2 BOD (DK) - all origin SKU (DK-origin GL), 2 CA SKI (DK- origin GL) 2012 7 (4 SKI, 2TRO, 1 BOD 5 SPE (DK) 1 SKI (CA), 4 SKP & 4 CA), 3 SPE (DK, GL) LPS (GL) 2013 9 SKI (CA) 1 SKI (2), 3 SPE 1 SKI (CA), 10 SKP (GL)

2014 2 TRO (CA) 2 SPE (NL, FR), BOD 1 BOD (China- origin (ES) CA), SKI (UK- origin CA) 2015 1 SKU (DK), 30 SKI 30 SKP (DK), 70 HAI - (CA) (DK), 3 SKI (SE), 2 SKI (FR)

Material abbreviations: SPE=Specimen, SKI=Skin, TRO=Trophy, SKP=Skin pieces, TEE=Teeth, BOD=Body, SKU=Skull, HAI=hair, LPS=Leather product small. Country abbreviations: Canada=CA, CN=China, CY=Cyprus, DK=Denmark, FR=France, DE=Germany, GL=Greenland, IT=Italy, IS=Iceland, JO=Jordan, NL=Netherlands, RU=Russia, ES=Spain, SE=Sweden, UK=United Kingdom

123

Figures Fig. 1. Annual number of polar bears shot in defence of humans or property, 1974–2016.

124

Research on Polar Bears in Norway, 2009–2016 J. Aars, Norwegian Polar Institute, N-9296, Tromsø, Norway M. Andersen, Norwegian Polar Institute, N-9296, Tromsø, Norway H. Routti, Norwegian Polar Institute, N-9296, Tromsø, Norway Ø. Wiig, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, N-0318 Oslo, Norway

The Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI) leads animals captured in spring in different years polar bear research in Norway. The (Lone et al. 2013). programme aims to produce knowledge needed There is limited information about by management authorities through population movements of polar bears between eastern monitoring (for an overview see MOSJ, Greenland and the Barents Sea. Results from http://www.mosj.no/en/; Sander et al. 2005). one study on bears tagged with satellite While maintaining its long-term perspective, transmitters in the East Greenland pack ice and the programme has adapted to answer new in the northern part of the Svalbard archipelago questions as they have arisen. The NPI did show some overlap of home ranges in the programme initially focused on studying the Fram Strait area (Born et al. 2012) but none of effect of the century-long period of hunting on the East Greenland bears moved into the the population, but pollution, anthropogenic Barents Sea (Laidre et al. 2015). activity and climate change currently are During the last couple of decades, as the prioritized issues (for an overview see Andersen Barents Sea area has experienced a shortening and Aars 2016). Long-term research and of the sea ice season of several months (Stern monitoring of key population biology issues is and Laidre 2016), data on collared females a major part of the program, and current show that the pelagic bears have had a dramatic activities line up well up with circumpolar shift in distribution range. They are now using recommendations (Vongraven et al. 2012). areas several degrees further north much of the year, and frequently even north of the Movements and habitat use continental shelf. It is therefore assumed that they spend more time in areas with lower Satellite telemetry collars have been employed productivity (Lone et al. 2017), although the on a number of adult females in the Barents Sea effects are not yet analysed. Ongoing work on subpopulation since 1988. In recent years, NPI resource selection function modelling (RSF) has deployed between 10 and 20 annually. Data along the ice edge so far also confirm general from later years confirms earlier findings of two findings from other studies regarding ecotypes of female polar bears in the Barents preference for ice coverage of less than 100%, Sea with very different strategies. One ecotype varying with time of year, and preference for is local and stays close to the Svalbard shallower waters (Lone et al. 2017). archipelago year-round. Another ecotype is In Svalbard, satellite telemetry data pelagic and follows the pack ice in the Barents showed that polar bears use glacier fronts Sea during most of the year and have much frequently in spring, and in particular females larger home ranges. Pelagic bears from SE with cubs that just had emerged from den Svalbard migrate northeast, to the pack ice and (Freitas et al. 2012). These glacier fronts are over to Franz Josef Land. Pelagic bears from prime ringed seal habitat, and have a high northern and north-western parts of Svalbard density of lairs with pups. Females with cubs may migrate north and in some cases likely prefer near shore areas with less risk for northwest. Within Svalbard, capture-recapture cubs being exposed to cold water (Aars and data show very limited movement between the Plumb 2010), and seal pups are easier to catch area in north-west and areas in south-east for than adult seals that may be a preferred prey for

125

bears hunting out in the pack ice. Hunting adult Denning ecology seals may also be difficult for females with small cubs present. NPI has a GIS database of more than 500 maternity den positions that have been Population ecology recorded from 1972 until present in the Svalbard area. A study (Andersen et al. 2012) Demographic parameters are part of a monitor investigated the distribution of the dens and program (Monitoring of Svalbard and Jan how this may have changed over time since Mayen, MOSJ, www.mosj.no). While there has 1972, with indications that more bears now den been a tendency for a decrease in reproduction in the western areas of Svalbard than earlier over time based on capture data from spring during this period. This may be caused by local (from 1992 to present), it is a question whether bears starting to return to these areas after over- this is a local effect of surveyed areas, or if a harvestinging before their protection in 1973. geographic shift in denning areas (e.g., to the Derocher et al. (2011) demonstrated that on Russian western Arctic) could be influencing Hopen, an island in Svalbard, many bears used this pattern. Female reproduction and to den here in years when the drifting sea ice condition of adult males are negatively arrived at the island within early November but impacted by warmer years (www.mosj.no). very few pregnant females were able to reach From 2015, NPI has cooperated with Centre the island for denning if sea ice arrived in late d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, France December or later. Further north, the (CEFE) for modelling of survival and traditionally very important denning area reproduction based on capture-recapture data. Kongsøya experienced the same pattern, and A recent review paper (Descamps et al. 2016) very few denning bears have been located here discusses climatic impacts on both polar bears during surveys in recent years (Aars 2013, and other wildlife in the Svalbard area. www.mosj.no). A project that combined snow Reliable age determination is important drift models with terrain models succeeded to for demographic studies. Christensen- map polar bear denning habitat with very high Dalsgaard et al. (2010) evaluated accuracy in age accuracy (evaluated using known denning determination by reading of age layers in positions in different years). A paper on this rudimentary teeth from the Barents Sea area. It work is currently in revision (Merkel et al., in was found that the method is not very accurate prep). In cooperation with Polar Bear for this area. The age of older animals tends to International (PBI), two camera systems were be underestimated, and different labs and in spring 2016 placed out at known denning different persons may bias estimates differently. sites (located from satellite collar data). One of Mating in polar bears has been studied in the cameras successfully filmed the emergence Svalbard using both capture data (Derocher et of a female and a cub, and the behaviour at the al. 2010) and genetic data to construct family den the following days. The project is planned trees (Zeyl et al. 2009). The first study show that to continue in 2017. The system was developed older males are fighting most and more by PBI. frequently found with females in spring. One key question is whether females that However, the latter study shows that younger do not reach important denning areas in East males are more successful siring cubs than what Svalbard in years with late formation of sea ice, should be expected. Smith and Aars (2015) skip reproduction or den somewhere else. reported a case on mating in late June, much Current research aims to address this question later than the normal mating season, and by a) collaring more bears in east Svalbard, and discuss how such flexibility in a species with b) using light loggers (i.e., geolocators) delayed implantation makes sense. implemented in the ear tags of females. The loggers provide unique profiles for bears in den (little light and high temperature) as well as a rough position (based on time for sunrise and sunset) in spring. Light loggers have been used

126

on female bears in Svalbard since 2011, and are Aerial surveys and population currently produced by Migratetech (www.migratetech.co.uk/). size A study using genetic markers showed that over generations, female relatives tend to The Barents Sea polar bear population was use the same local denning areas within islands, estimated as 2650 (95% CI approximately but low genetic variation between islands may 1900–3600) for August 2004 (Aars et al. 2009). indicate that they use alternative denning areas A repeated survey in 2015 partly failed as no in years when they fail to reach the preferred permission was granted to work in the Russian areas where they were born (Zeyl et al. 2010). part of the area. A partial survey covered the Norwegian part in August 2015, with helicopter surveys using distance sampling methods and Diet also biopsy darting of bears for identification of recaptures. It was found that an estimate of less Samples of polar bear scats collected mainly than 300 bears stayed in Svalbard, similar to from early spring were analysed for food what was found in 2004. The biopsy data species contents, both visually and using DNA indicated that these bears were to a large degree analyses (Iversen et al. 2013). It was found that local bears that had earlier been captured in ringed seal was the by far most common prey spring during the annual monitoring program. in areas close to shore in Svalbard in spring. In the pack ice, that was separated from Reindeer was also frequently found in the scats, Svalbard as the ice edge was located far north, while bearded seals (which are an important the estimate was considerably higher than in prey in summer; Derocher et al. 2002) was 2004, but the statistical uncertainty was too present with very low frequency in spring. Both large to conclude about trend. Also, most bears plant material and kelp was also very frequent were located close to the Russian border, and in scats. Likely predation and later scavenging thus net movement east or west along the ice of carcasses of white beaked dolphins was edge could easily have influenced the change in documented in northern Svalbard (Aars et al. estimate. It was estimated that a total of about 2015). More frequent utilization of eggs and 1000 bears were located in the Norwegian chicks in bird colonies in western Svalbard has Arctic in August 2015 (Aars et al., 2017). A very been documented, and explained by more bears low recapture rate based on biopsy DNA- spending increasing amounts of time on land profiles in the pack ice area indicate that this due to less sea ice being available during the part of the population is more isolated from hatching season, and possibly also more bears Svalbard than what may have been appreciated returning to these areas after decades of earlier, and that the current capture program in protection from hunting and trapping (Prop et Svalbard is well suited for our understanding on al. 2015). These results are supported by Tartu the ecology of local bears, but less so for the et al. (2016), who described the diet of Svalbard larger pelagic part of the population. female polar bears based on stable isotope and Morphometric studies of polar bear fatty acid analyses. The results suggest that skulls collected at Svalbard and in East polar bears feed more on seabirds in areas with Greenland (Pertoldi et al. 2012) indicated that less sea ice whereas polar bears inhabiting areas many Barents Sea polar bears are with more stable sea ice conditions are more morphometrically similar to the East selective towards seals. Waterfowl and reindeer Greenland ones, suggesting an exchange of also make a part of autumn diet in areas where individuals between the two subpopulations. the sea ice retreats. Furthermore, solitary Furthermore, a structure within the Barents Sea females were more selective and prey on higher subpopulation was also indicated. trophic level species compared to females with cubs.

127

Genetics involve other institutes from Norway and other countries. In recent years, samples from Svalbard have contributed to several genetic studies on Contaminant levels and trends evolution and large-scale structure, studies that are more pan Arctic and thus will not be Monitoring data on adult female polar bears discussed further here (Lindqvist et al. 2010, show that concentrations of PCBs, Miller et al. 2012, Peacock et al. 2015). Biopsy organochlorine pesticides and BDE47 have samples from the 2015 survey (see above) and decreased over time (www.mosj.no), whereas updated lab analyses from later years now have Hg concentrations do not show any trend over provided a library of about 1000 individuals time (Riget et al. 2011). Circumpolar studies with known profile based on microsatellites for indicate that polar bears from the Barents Sea the Barents Sea area, with Svalbard as the core are among the most contaminated sampling area. subpopulations for levels of PCBs and PBDEs, whereas HCH concentrations are higher in the North-American subpopulations (McKinney et Ecotoxicology al. 2011a, b). Also, mercury concentrations are generally low in polar bears from Svalbard Temporal trends of PCBs, organochlorine (Braune et al. 2011). Specific studies pesticides, BDE47, PFOS and mercury are part (BearHealth) comparing mother-cub pairs of an ongoing program on environmental during two time periods, 1997–1998 and 2008, monitoring of Svalbard and Jan Mayen (MOSJ). show that plasma PCB concentrations were Screening of new contaminants is conducted by approximately twice as high in the first time the Norwegian Environment Agency and under period compared to the second (Bytingsvik et specific research projects. During recent years al. 2012a). In the same dataset, plasma PFOS three major research projects have investigated concentrations decreased during the study more specific questions related to pollutant period whereas most perfluoroalkyl levels and effects in polar bears from the carboxylates showed an opposite trend Svalbard area. Two projects focusing on (Bytingsvik et al. 2012b). These studies also interactions between pollutants, energy show that cubs of the year are exposed to high metabolism and sea ice conditions are led by the concentrations of lipophilic POPs due to Norwegian Polar Institute. “BearEnergy - maternal transfer. Plasma PCB levels were over Synergistic effects of sea ice free periods and two and a half times higher in cubs compared contaminant exposure on energy metabolism in to their mothers, whereas opposite pattern was polar bears” (2012–2016), funded by the observed for less lipophilic OH-PCBs and Norwegian Research Council, uses correlative perfluoalkyl substances. approaches on field samples whereas Screening studies on new pollutants “Contaminant effects on energy metabolism” show that “new” brominated flame retardants (2011–2015), funded by Fram Centre decabromodiphenyl ethane and 2,4,6- Hazardous Substances Flagship, focuses on in tribromophenol were found at higher vitro and in silico methods. IPY-project concentrations in polar bear plasma than the BearHealth, led by the Norwegian University of major PBDE, BDE47 (Harju et al. 2013). Also Science and Technology has focused on chlorinated paraffins were present in polar bear mother-cub pairs sampled in two time periods plasma samples whereas only few which are contrasted by pollutant exposure organophosporous flame retardants were (1997–1998 and 2008) using both field and in detected in some of the samples (Hallanger et al. vitro approaches. The project has also 2015, Harju et al. 2013). In addition, investigated relationships between pollutants nonylphenol has been reported in plasma and physiological parameters in male vs. female sample of polar bear cubs (Simon et al. 2013). polar bears. All the research projects also Ongoing activities using non-target screening will give more information about chemical

128

exposure in polar bears from Svalbard. Aubail chlorinated pesticides, PBDEs and et al. (2012) observed a decreasing time trend in perfluoroalkyl substances), dietary tracers, and Hg concentrations in teeth of polar bears from physiological and molecular parameters related Svalbard over the recent four decades while no to energy metabolism and general health. temporal changes were found in the stable So far, the data has been presented in two isotope ratios of nitrogen (d15N) and carbon peer-reviewed publications and 3 MSc-thesis. (d13C). This suggests that the decrease of Hg Two more manuscripts are submitted and three concentrations over time was more likely due to under preparation. As described earlier, we a lower environmental Hg exposure in this investigated diet in these polar bears (Tartu et al. region rather than a shift in the feeding habits 2016). Next, we tested whether environmental of Svalbard polar bears. Samples from Svalbard factors (year, season and sampling area), and have also been included in large scale studies reproductive status influenced concentrations looking at geographical structure in pollutant of POPs in plasma and fat, and, POP levels (McKinney et al. 2011a, 2011b; Rigét et al. biotransformation through changes in body 2011, Dietz et al. 2012, Harju et al. 2013). Also condition and diet (Tartu et al. 2017). The chlorinated paraffins were present in polar bear results indicate that concentrations of the plasma samples whereas only few highly lipophilic POPs such as PCBs, organophosporous flame retardants were chlordanes and HCB in polar bear females are detected in some of the samples (Hallanger et al. driven by body condition followed by diet. As 2015, Harju et al. 2013). In addition, retreat of sea ice was related to lower body nonylphenol has been reported in plasma condition and higher POP concentrations, we sample of polar bear cubs (Simon et al. 2013). suggest that loss of sea ice (particularly in Nonylphenol, phthalates and tonalide were also winter) leads to increased concentrations of identified in fat and/or liver extracts from one lipophilic pollutants in Svalbard polar bears. polar bear using non-target screening (Routti et The study also indicates that less lipophilic al. 2016); however these findings should be POPs such as β-HCH is excreted via milk. confirmed using more specific analytical Surprisingly, biotransformation of PCBs to techniques on a bigger number of samples. OH-PCBs was more efficient in fatter bears, Ongoing activities using non-target screening probably due to the influence of nutritional will give more information about chemical status on activities of xenobiotic enzymes. This exposure in polar bears from Svalbard. paper gives a background for further studies on pollutant levels, which indicate that plasma and Pollutants, health and energy fat levels of lipophilic POPs are higher in spring metabolism in relation to sea ice compared to autumn, whereas contrasting pattern is seen for perfluoroalkyl substances conditions (Tartu et al., submitted; Bourgeon et al., in prep).

Seasonal variations in thyroid disrupting Recent knowledge suggests that contaminants effects of persistent organic pollutants were may interfere with energy metabolism, it can examined in a MSc-thesis (Riemer 2016). thus be hypothesized that exposure to Thyroid hormone levels are generally higher in contaminants may lead to suboptimal energy spring compared to autumn although this metabolism during ice free periods in polar seasonal effect was mainly observed in solitary bears. As a part of the BearEnergy project, females. Plasma concentrations of free blood and fat samples were collected from 112 triiodothyronine were negatively related to adult female polar bears sampled during two contaminant concentrations, which is in seasons (April and September) in 2012 and accordance with previous polar bear studies. 2013. The bears were caught at three locations Furthermore, linear relationships between of Svalbard with contrasting sea ice conditions contaminants and thyroid hormone ratios and information on body condition, differed between bears sampled in spring and reproductive status and age were collected. autumn. Multiple analyses have been performed including concentrations of pollutants (PCBs,

129

Plasma clinical-chemical parameters were Mechanistic studies on thyroid- investigated in a MSc-thesis in relation to disruptive effects of pollutants season, reproductive status and pollutants (Torget 2015). The ratio of urea to creatinine A series of in vitro studies has focused on as well as triglyceride levels indicates that the interactions between pollutants and polar bears bears were fasting in the autumn and feeding in and plasma proteins that transport thyroid spring, whereas body condition was higher in hormone. Gutleb et al. (2010) extracted thyroid spring compared to autumn (Bourgeon et al., transporting proteins from polar bear plasma submitted). Lipid related physiological and found that one of the major OH-PCBs in parameters were positively related to polar bear plasma has much higher affinity perfluoroalkyl substances. A manuscript is towards transthyretin (TTR) than its natural under revision. ligand thyroxine. The study suggested that Health status of the polar bears in TTR in free-ranging polar bears are completely relation to sampling season and reproductive saturated by contaminants. As a part of the status was assessed by measures of oxidative BearHealth project, Simon et al. (2011) stress and antioxidative defence in whole blood developed a sample preparation method to (Bingham 2015). In total nine enzymatic and extract a broad range of thyroid hormone non-enzymatic parameters analysed showed disrupting compounds in plasma and test the little differences between seasons and status. binding potency towards human TTR. The Two of the parameters were higher in autumn method was further used by Bytingsvik et al. than spring, which could be related to increased (2013), who showed that contaminant related oxidative stress due to fasting. TTR-binding activity in was twice as high in Parallel to the BearEnergy project, effects polar bear cubs sampled in 1997–1998 of pollutants on polar bear energy metabolism compared to those sampled in 2008. have been investigated in vitro and in silico. An Furthermore, OH-PCBs explained ~60% of MSc-student (Berg 2013) developed assays the TTR-binding activity. The binding activity which allow study effects of pollutants and their was also positively correlated with plasma levels mixtures on polar bear nuclear receptors that of OH-PCBs. A followed-up study using are major regulators of energy consumption effect-directed analyses revealed that the and storage (peroxisome proliferator-activated remaining TTR-binding activity of plasma from receptor; PPAR). Furthermore, Øygarden polar bear cubs was explained by nonylphenol (2015) established a method using polar bear and higher chlorinated OH-PCBs not analysed adipose tissue-derived stem cells (pbASCs) to in the previous study (Simon et al., 2013). In study fat accumulation by contaminants. A conclusion, the studies suggest that several study using the above-mentioned methods and compounds present in plasma of polar bear in silico modeling (Routti et al. 2016) indicates cubs have very high affinity to TTR. As these that the main lipophilic POPs in polar bear fat compounds are found at high concentrations, inhibit the activity of polar bear PPAR-gamma, they can occupy all circulating TTRs leaving no which is the major regulator of fat accumulation place to the natural hormone thyroxine. Exact in fat cells. However, the same study showed consequences of fully saturated TTR are not that fat accumulation increased in polar bear known. However, as thyroid hormones are and mouse cells when the cells were given polar essential for growth and development, thyroid bear tissue extracts that also contained disrupting properties of pollutants in small emerging compounds. As polar bears’ energy polar bear cubs raises concern for effects on balance is already challenged by climate change, neurological development (Jenssen et al. 2015). additional pressure by contaminants affecting energy metabolism induces a multi-stress situation that might be hard to withstand.

130

Physiological parameters and Health, disease and parasites pollutants in male vs. female polar bears Jensen et al. (2010) studied prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii among polar bears sampled Relationships between physiological from 2007-2008 in Svalbard, and among some parameters and pollutants in male vs. female marine mammal prey species. The prevalence polar bears have been compared by several among bears had increased very significantly studies. A steroid hormone profile in 15 the last decade (compared to results from Svalbard female polar bears was characterized Oksanen et al. 2009), nearly doubled, and was as by Gustavson et al. (2015a). A further study high as 52% among males and 39% among (Gustavson et al. 2015b) on correlations females. Furthermore, it was found that the between steroid hormones and contaminants prevalence among ringed seals (19%, no age showed inverse relationships between plasma effect) and adult bearded seals (67% among levels of pregnenolone (PRE) and adults) was high, despite T. gondii being absent androstenedione (AN), and OH-PCBs. This among 48 ringed seals in an earlier Svalbard suggests that the enzyme CYP17 may be a study (Oksanen et al. 1998). T. gondii is potential target for OH-PCBs. A MSc-thesis prevalent in the terrestrial ecosystem in on steroid hormones on male polar bears (n = Svalbard (Prestrud et al. 2007), but it seems like 23) suggests that concentrations of pollutants a marine transmission with recent increase in were negatively related on dihydrotestosterone waterborn oocysts could possibly explain the concentrations (Hansen 2012). recent increase in polar bear prevalence. Relationships between individual Oocysts may be transferred by seawater from pollutant concentrations and plasma clinical- Norway and filtered by mollusks later eaten by chemical parameters (Ormbostad 2012) were seals. compared between male and female polar Analyses of blood samples from Svalbard bears. A similar study was done on vitamin D and offshore Barents Sea areas revealed that in relation to pollutants and thyroid hormones exposure to Trichinella was very high among (Grønning 2013). Both MScs theses, based on adults, and considerably higher in Svalbard than multivariate analyses on approximately 20 off-shore (Åsbakk et al. 2010). No recent males and 20 females, suggest that relationships temporal trend was found (from 1991–2000 to between pollutants and physiological 2006–2008). parameters are different between males and Scanning of presence of different viruses females. in serum samples is ongoing. The last years, a MSc-thesis of Gilmore (2015) closer follow up of immobilized bears has investigated relationships between started, with the aim of better analyses to reveal contaminants and genotoxicity and mRNA absence or presence of short term effects from expression of genes related to oxidative stress handling. and biotransformation in 13 male and 34 female polar bears. No differences in contaminant References levels or effect parameters were found between males and females. Of the ten mRNA Aars, J., and Plumb, A. 2010. Polar bear cubs expressions measured in skin one gene related may reduce chilling from icy water by to biotransformation (CYP1B1) and another sitting on mother's back. Polar Biology related to oxidative stress were positively 33:557–559. related to contaminant exposure. In contrast, Aars, J., Andersen, M., Brenière, A., and Blanc, DNA strand breaks in lymphocytes decreased S. 2015. White-beaked dolphins trapped with contaminant exposure. in the ice and eaten by polar bears. Polar Research 34: 26612 Aars, J., Marques, T.A., Buckland, S.T., Andersen, M., Belikov, S., Boltunov, A., and Wiig, Ø. 2009. Estimating the

131

Barents Sea polar bear subpopulation Braune, B., Carrie, J., Dietz, R., Evans, M., size. Marine Mammal Science 25:35–52. Gaden, A., Gantner, N., Hedman, J., Aars, J. 2013. Variation in detection Hobson, K.A., Loseto, L.L., Muir, D., probability of polar bear maternity dens. Outridge, P., Riget, F., Rognerud, S., Polar Biology 36:1089–1096. Stern, G., Verta, M., Wang, F., and Aars, J., Marques, T., Lone, K., Andersen, M., Wangberg, I. 2011. Are mercury levels Wiig, Ø., Bardalen Fløystad, I.M., Hagen, in Arctic biota increasing or decreasing, S.B., and Buckland, S.T. 2017. Polar and why? Pages 85–111 in Outridge, P., bear population structure and trend in Dietz, R. (eds.) AMAP Assessment 2011: the western Barents Sea area. Polar Mercury in the Arctic. AMAP. Research, Bytingsvik, J., Lie, E., Aars, J., Derocher, A.E., doi:10.1080/17518369.2017.1374125. Wiig, Ø., and Jenssen, B.M. 2012a. Andersen, M., and Aars, J. 2016. Barents Sea PCBs and OH-PCBs in polar bear polar bears (Ursus maritimus): population mother-cub pairs: A comparative study biology and anthropogenic threats. Polar based on plasma levels in 1998 and 2008. Research 35:26029. Science of the Total Environment 417:117– Andersen, M., Derocher, A.E., Wiig, Ø., and 128. Aars, J. 2012. Polar bear (Ursus Bytingsvik, J., Simon, E., Leonards, P.E.G., maritimus) maternity den distribution in Lamoree, M., Lie, E., Aars, J., Derocher, Svalbard, Norway. Polar Biology 35:499– A.E., Wiig, Ø., Jenssen, B.M., and 508. Hamers, T. 2013. Transthyretin-binding Åsbakk, K., Aars, J., Derocher, A.E., Wiig, Ø., activity of contaminants in blood from Oksanen, A., Born, E.W., Dietz, R., polar bear (Ursus maritimus) cubs. Sonne, C., Godfroid, J., and Kapel, C.M. Environmental Science and Technology 2010. Serosurvey for Trichinella in polar 47:4778–4786 bear (Ursus maritimus) from Svalbard and Bytingsvik, J., van Leeuwen, S.P.J., Hamers, T., the Barents Sea. Veterinary Parasitology Swart, K., Aars, J., Lie, E., Nilsen, 172:256– 263. E.M.E., Wiig, Ø., Derocher, A.E., and Aubail, A., Dietz, R., Riget, F., Sonne, C., Wiig, Jenssen, B.M. 2012b. Perfluoroalkyl Ø., and Caurant, D. 2012. Temporal substances in polar bear mother-cub trend of mercury in polar bears (Ursus pairs: A comparative study based on maritimus) from Svalbard using tooth as a plasma levels from 1998 and 2008. biomonitoring tissue. Journal of Environment International 49:92–99. Environmental Monitoring 14:56–63. Christensen-Dalsgaard, S.N., Aars, J., Berg, M.K. 2013. Peroxisome proliferator- Andersen, M., Lockyer, C., and Yoccoz, activate receptors (PPARs) in polar bear N.G. 2010. Accuracy and precision in (Ursus maritimus) as a target for estimation of age of Norwegian Arctic environmental pollutants. Master Thesis, polar bears (Ursus maritimus) using dental University of Bergen, 2013. cementum layers from known age Bingham, C. 2015. Seasonal differences of individuals, Polar Biology 33:589–597. oxidative stress in polar bears. Master Derocher, A., Andersen, M., Wiig, Ø., Aars, J., Thesis, University of Helsinki, 2015. Hansen, E., and Biuw, M. 2011. Sea ice Born, E.W., Laidre, K., Dietz, R., Wiig, Ø., and polar bear den ecology at Hopen Aars, J., and Andersen, M. 2012. Polar Island, Svalbard. Marine Ecology Progress bear Ursus maritimus. Pages 102–115 in D. Series 441:273–279. Boertmann and A. Mosbech (eds.) The Derocher, A., Andersen, M., Wiig, Ø., and western Greenland Sea: a strategic Aars, J. 2010. Sexual dimorphism and environmental impact assessment of hydrocarbon the mating ecology of polar bears (Ursus activities. Scientific Report from Danish maritimus) at Svalbard. Behavioral Ecology Centre for Environment and Energy No. and Sociobiology 64:939–946. 22, Aarhus University, 267 pp.

132

Derocher, A.E., Wiig, Ø., and Andersen, M. Gustavson, L., Jenssen, B.M., Bytingsvik, J., 2002. Diet composition of polar bears in Styrishave, B., Hansen, M., Aars, J., Svalbard and the western Barents Sea. Eggen, G.S., and Ciesielski, T.M.. 2015a. Polar Biology 25:448–452. Steroid hormone profile in female polar Descamps, S., Aars, J., Fuglei, E., Kovacs, bears (Ursus maritimus). Polar Biology K.M., Lydersen, C., Pavlova, O., 38:1183–1194. Pedersen, Å.Ø., Ravolainen, V., and Gutleb, A.C., Cenijn, P., van Velzen, M., Lie, Strøm, H. 2016. Climate change impacts E., Ropstad, E., Skaare, J.U., Malmberg, on wildlife in Svalbard, High Arctic. T., Bergman, A., Gabrielsen, G.W., and Global Change Biology doi: Legler, J. 2010. In vitro assay shows that 10.1111/gcb.13381. PCB metabolites completely saturate Dietz, R., Sonne, C., Basu, N., Braune, B., thyroid hormone transport capacity in O’Hara, T., Letcher, R.J., Scheuhammer, blood of wild polar bears (Ursus T.M., Andersen, M., Andreasen, C., maritimus). Environmental Science & Andriashek, D., Asmund, G., Aubail, A., Technology 44:3149–3154. Baagøe, H., Born, E.W., Chan, H.M., Hallanger, I.G., Sagerup, K., Evenset, A., Derocher, A.E., Grandjean, P., Knott, Kovacs, K.M., Leonards, P., Fuglei, E., K., Kirkegaard, M., Krey, A., Lunn, N., Routti, H., Aars, J., Strøm, H., Lydersen, Messier, F., Obbard, M., Olsen, M.T., C., and Gabrielsen, G.W. 2015. Ostertag, S., Peacock, E., Renzoni, A., Organophosphorous flame retardants in Rigét, F.F., Skaare, J.U., Stern, G., biota from Svalbard, Norway. Marine Stirling, I., Taylor, M., Wiig, Ø., Wilson, Pollution Bulletin 101:442–447. S., and Aars, J. 2013. What are the Hansen, I.T. 2012. Effects of Persistent Toxicological Effects of Mercury in Organic Pollutants on Reproductive Arctic Biota? Science of the Total Hormones in Male Polar Bears (Ursus Environment 443:775–790. Maritimus) from Svalbard. Master Thesis, Freitas, C., Kovacs, K.M., Andersen, M., Aars, Norwegian University of Science and J., Sandven, S., Skern-Mauritzen, M., Technology, 2012. Pavlova, O., and Lydersen, C. 2012. Harju, M., Herzke, D., and Kaasa, H. 2013. Importance of fast ice and glacier fronts Perfluorinated alkylated substances for female polar bears and their cubs (PFAS), brominated flame retardants during spring in Svalbard, Norway. (BFR) and chlorinated paraffins (CP) in Marine Ecology Progress Series 447:289–304 the Norwegian Environment Screening Gilmore, E. Do contaminants in polar bear 2013. M40, report, Miljødirektoratet. (Ursus maritimus) modulate the expression Iversen, M., Aars, J., Haug, T., Alsos, I.G., of selected genes and cause DNA strand Lydersen, C., Bachmann, L. and Kovacs, breaks? Master Thesis, University of K. 2013. The diet of polar bears (Ursus Oslo, 2015. maritimus) from Svalbard, Norway, Grønning, H.M. 2013. Combined Effects of inferred from scat analysis. Polar Biology Persistent Organic Pollutants and 36:561–571. Biological Variables on Vitamin D in Jensen, S.K., Aars, J., Lydersen, C., Kovacs, Polar Bears. Master Thesis, Norwegian K.M. and Åsbakk, K. 2010. The University of Science and Technology, prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in polar 2013. bears and their marine mammal prey; Gustavson, L., Ciesielski, T.M., Bytingsvik, J., evidence for a marine transmission Styrishave, B., Hansen, M., Lie, E., Aars, pathway? Polar Biology 33: 599–606. J., and Jenssen, B.M.. 2015b. Jenssen, B.M., Villanger, G.D., Gabrielsen, Hydroxylated polychlorinated biphenyls K.M., Bytingsvik, J., Bechshøft, T.Ø., decrease circulating steroids in female Ciesielski, T.M., Sonne, C., and Dietz, R. polar bears (Ursus maritimus). 2015. Anthropogenic flank attack on Environmental Research 138:191–201. polar bears: Interacting consequences of

133

climate warming and pollutant exposure. Miller, W., Schuster, S.C., Welch, A.J., Ratan, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 3: A., Bedoya-Reina, O.C., Zhao, F., Kim, doi:10.3389/fevo.2015.00016. H.L., Burhans, R.C., Drautz, D.I., Riemer, A.K. 2016. Seasonal Variations in Wittekindt, N.E., Tomsho, L.P., Ibarra- Thyroid Disrupting Effects of Persistent Laclette, E., Herrera-Estrella, L., Organic Pollutants in Polar Bears (Ursus Peacock, E., Farley, S., Sage, G.K., Rode, maritimus) from Svalbard. Master Thesis, K., Obbard, M., Montiel, R., Bachmann, Norwegian University of Science and L., Ingólfsson, Ó., Aars, J., Mailund, T., Technology, 2016. Wiig, Ø., Talbot, S.L., and Lindqvist, C. Laidre, K..L, Born, E.W., Heagerty, P., Wiig, 2012. Polar and brown bear genomes Ø., Stern, H., Dietz, R,, Aars, J., and reveal ancient admixture and Andersen, M. 2015. Shift in female polar demographic footprints of past climate bear (Ursus maritimus) habitat use in East change. Proceedings of the National Academy Greenland. Polar Biology 38:879–893. of Science 109:E2382–E2390. DOI 10.1007/s00300-015-1648-5. Oksanen, A., Tryland, M., Johnsen, K., and Lindqvist, C., Schuster, S.C., Sun, Y., Talbot, Dubey, J.P. 1998. Serosurvey of S.L., Qi, J., Ratan, A., Tomsho, L.P., Toxoplasma gondii in North Atlantic Kasson, L., Zeyl, E., Aars, J., Miller, W., marine mammals by the use of Ingólfsson, Ó., Bachmann, L., and Wiig, agglutination test employing whole Ø. 2010. Complete mitochondrial tachyzoites and dithiothreitol. genome of a Pleistocene jawbone unveils Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and the origin of polar bear. Proceedings of the Infectious Diseases 21:107–114. National Academy of Science 107:5053– Oksanen, A., Åsbakk, K., Prestrud, K.W., Aars, 5057. J., Derocher, A., Tryland, M., Wiig, Ø., Lone, K., Aars, J., and Ims, R.A. 2013. Site Dubey, J.P., Sonne, C., Dietz, R., fidelity of Svalbard polar bears revealed Andersen, M., and Born, E.W. 2009. by mark-recapture positions. Polar Biology Prevalence of antibodies against 36:27–39. Toxoplasma gondii in polar bears (Ursus Lone, K., Merkel, B., Lydersen, C., Kovacs maritimus) from Svalbard and East K.M., and Aars, J. 2017. Sea ice resource Greenland. Journal of Parasitology 95:89– selection models for polar bears in the 94. Barents Sea subpopulation, Ecography, Ormbostad, I. 2012. Relationships between doi: 10.1111/ecog.03020. persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and McKinney, M.A., Letcher, R.J., Aars, J., Born, plasma clinical-chemical parameters in E.W., Branigan, M., Dietz, R., Evans, polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from T.J., Gabrielsen, G.W., Muir, D.C.G., Svalbard, Norway. Master Thesis, Peacock, E,. and Sonne, C. 2011b. Norwegian University of Science and Regional contamination versus regional Technology, 2012. diet differences: Understanding Øygarden, L. 2015. Polar bear adipose tissue- geographic variation in brominated and derived stem cells as an in vitro model for chlorinated contaminant levels in polar effects of environmental contaminants bears. Environmental Science and Technology on adipogenesis. Master Thesis, 45:896–902. University of Bergen, 2015. McKinney, M.A., Letcher, R.J., Aars, J., Born, Peacock, E., Sonsthagen, S.A., Obbard, M.E., E.W., Branigan, M., Dietz, R., Evans, Boltunov, A., Regehr, E.V., Ovsyanikov, T.J., Gabrielsen, G.W., Peacock, E., and N., Aars, J., Atkinson, S.N., Sage, G.K., Sonne, C. 2011a. Flame retardants and Hope, A.G., Zeyl, E., Bachmann, L., legacy contaminants in polar bears from Ehrich, D., Scribner, K.T., Amstrup, Alaska, Canada, East Greenland and S.C., Belikov, S., Born, E., Derocher, Svalbard, 2005–2008. Environment A.E., I. Stirling, I., Taylor, M.K., Wiig, International 37:365–374. Ø, Paetkau, D., and Talbot, S.L. 2015.

134

Implications of the circumpolar genetic Environmental Science & Technology structure of polar bears for their ecology, 50:10708–10720. evolution and conservation in a rapidly Sander, G., Hanssen-Bauer, I., Bjørge, A., and warming Arctic. PLoS ONE 10: Prestrud, P. 2005. Miljøovervåking av e112021. Svalbard og Jan Mayen – MOSJ. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112021. Rapportserie nr. 123, Norsk Pertoldi, C., Sonne, C., Wiig, Ø., Baagø, H.J., Polarinstitutt, Tromsø, Norge, 70 pp. Loeschcke, V., and Bechschøft, T.Ø. Simon, E., Bytingsvik, J., Jonker, W., Leonards, 2012. East Greenland and Barents Sea P.E.G., de Boer, J., Jenssen, B.M., Lie, E., polar bears (Ursus maritimus): Adaptive Aars, J., Hamers, T., and Lamoree, M.H. variation between two populations using 2011. Blood plasma sample preparation skull morphometrics as an indicator of method for the assessment of thyroid environmental and genetic differences. hormone-disrupting potency in effect- Hereditas 149:99–107. directed analysis. Environmental Science & Prestrud, K.W., Asbakk, K., Fuglei, E., Mørk, Technology 45:7936–7944. T., Stien, A., Ropstad, E., Tryland, M., Simon, E., van Velzen, M., Brandsma, S.H., Lie, Gabrielsen, G.W., Lydersen, C., Kovacs, E., Loken, K., de Boer, J., Bytingsvik, J., K.M., Loonen, M.J., Sagerup, K., and Jenssen, B.M., Aars, J., Hamers, T., and Oksanen, A. 2007. Serosurvey for Lamoree, M.H. 2013. Effect-directed Toxoplasma gondii in arctic foxes and analysis to explore the polar bear possible sources of infection in the high exposome: identification of thyroid Arctic of Svalbard. Veterinary Parasitology hormone disrupting compounds in 150:6–12. plasma. Environmental Science & Technology Prop, J., Aars, J., Bårdsen, B.J., Hanssen, S.A., 47:8902–8912. Bech, C., Bourgeon, S., Fouw, J. de, Smith, T., and Aars, J. 2015. Polar bears, Ursus Gabrielsen, G.W., Lang, J., Noreen, E., maritimus, mating during late June on the Oudman, T., Sittler, B., Stempniewicz, L., pack ice of northern Svalbard, Norway. Tombre, I., Wolters, E., and Moe, B. Polar Research 34:25786. 2015. Climate change and the increasing Stern, H.L., and Laidre, K.L. 2016. Sea-ice role of polar bears on bird populations. indicators of polar bear habitat. The Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 3: doi: Cryosphere 10:1–15. doi:10.5194/tc-10-1- 10.3389/fevo.2015.00033. 2016. Rigét, F., Braune, B., Bignert, A., Wilson, S., Tartu, S., Bourgeon, S., Aars, J., Andersen, M., Aars, J., Born, E., Dam, M., Dietz, R., Ehrich, D., Thiemann, G.W., Welker, Evans, M., Evans, T., Gamberg, M., J.M., and Routti, H. 2016. Geographical Gantner, N., Green, N., area and life history traits influence diet Gunnlaugsdóttir, H., Kannan, K., in an Arctic marine predator. PLoS ONE Letcher, R., Muir, D., Roach, P., Sonne, 11: e0155980. C., Stern, G., and Wiig, Ø. 2011. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155980. Temporal trends of Hg in Arctic biota, an Tartu, S., Bourgeon, S., Aars, J., Andersen, M., update. Science of the Total Environment 409: Polder, A., Thiemann, G.W., Welker, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.002. J.M., and Routti, H. 2017. Sea ice- Routti, H., Lille-Langøy, R., Berg, M.K., Fink, associated decline in body condition T., Harju, M., Kristiansen, K., leads to increased concentrations of Rostkowski, P., Rusten, M., Sylte, I., lipophilic pollutants in polar bears (Ursus Øygarden, L., and Goksøyr, A. 2016. maritimus) from Svalbard, Norway. Science Environmental chemicals modulate polar of the Total Environment 576:409–419. bear (Ursus maritimus) peroxisome Torget, V. 2015. Relationships between proliferator-activated receptor gamma environmental and biological variables, (PPARG) and adipogenesis in vitro. plasma clinical-chemical parameters and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in

135

polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Recent references not cited Svalbard, Norway. Master Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Gilg, O., Kovacs, K.M., Aars, J., Fort, J., Technology, 2015. Gauthier, G., Gremillet, D., Ims, R.A., Vongraven, D., Aars, J., Amstrup, S., Atkinson, Meltofte, H., Moreau, J., Post, E., S.N., Belikov, S., Born, E.W., DeBruyn, Schmidt, N. M., Yannic, G., and T.D., Deroche,r AE., Durner, G., Gill, Bollache, L. 2012. Climate change and M., Lunn, N., Obbard, M.E., Omelak, J., the ecology and evolution of Arctic Ovsyanikov, N., Peacock, E., vertebrates. Annals of the New York Richardson, E., Sahanatien, V., Stirling, Academy of Sciences 1249:166–190. I., and Wiig, Ø. 2012. A circumpolar Glad, T., Bernhardsen, P., Nielsen, K.M., monitoring framework for polar bears. Brusetti, L., Andersen, M., Aars, J., and Ursus 23(sp2):1–66. Sundset, M.A. 2010. Bacterial diversity doi:10.2192/URSUS-D-11-00026.1. in faeces from polar bear (Ursus maritimus) Zeyl, E., Aars, J., Ehrich, D., Bachmann, L., and in Arctic Svalbard. BMC Microbiology. Wiig, Ø. 2009. The mating system of doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-10, polar bears: a genetic approach. Canadian http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471- Journal of Zoology 87:1195–1209. 2180/10/10. Zeyl, E., Ehrich, D., Aars, J., Bachmann, L., and van Beest, F., Aars, J., Routti, H., Lie, E., Wiig, Ø. 2010. Denning-area fidelity and Andersen, M., Pavlova, V., Sonne, C., mitochondrial DNA diversity of female Nabe-Nielsen, J., and Dietz, R. 2016. polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Spatiotemporal variation in home range Barents Sea. Canadian Journal of Zoology size of female polar bears and 88:1139–1148. correlations with individual contaminant load. Polar Biology 39:1479–1489. doi: 10.1007/s00300-015-1876-8. Zeyl, E., Aars, J., Ehrich, D., and Wiig, Ø. 2009. Families in space: relatedness in the Barents Sea population of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Molecular Ecology 18:735–749.

136

Management and Research on Polar Bears in Russia, 2009–2016 S.Е. Belikov, All-Russian Research Institute for Environment Protection, Znamenskoye-Sadki, Moscow, 113628, Russian Federation А.N. Boltunov, Marine Mammal Council (regional non-governmental organization) М.V. Gavrilo, Russian Arctic National Park А.А. Kochnev, Institute of Biological Problems of the North, Far East Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences I.N. Mordvintsev, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences N.G. Platonov, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences V.V. Rozhnov, A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences

Management Book animals, decrease of their populations, or damage to their habitats. Companies or individuals conducting business in the areas of Legal framework for the polar bear Red Data Book species' habitats are responsible subpopulations protection and for their conservation consistent with Russian management federal and regional laws. The Ministry of Natural Resources and In Russia, conservation and management of Environment of the RF oversees governmental rare and endangered species (including polar policy for conservation and restoration of Red bears) is regulated by federal laws "On Data Book species. Russian regional Protection of the Environment" (2002) and governments are responsible for monitoring "On Wildlife" (1995). The law "On Protection and supervision, and in the case of specially of the Environment" has established the Red protected natural areas at the federal level (such Data Book of the Russian Federation (RF) and as state strict nature reserves or national parks), constituents for the purpose of protecting and this responsibility is placed on the Federal monitoring rare and endangered species. Supervisory Natural Resources Management Animals included on the Red Data Book of the Service and its territorial bodies. RF can be removed from the wild in the following cases: A note to the reader • wildlife conservation • monitoring of their populations Within this section on activities in Russia status related to polar bear conservation, the reader is • regulating their abundance made aware that subpopulation designations • protection of public health used in Russia for research and management objectives differs from that used by the IUCN • elimination of threats to human life Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG). In the • prevention of epidemics among Red Data Book of the RF (2001) subspecies farm livestock and other domestic and populations are specified. Under the Red animals Data Book, polar bears in Russia are segregated • supplying traditional needs of into three different populations: Kara-Barents indigenous people Sea, Laptev Sea, and Alaska-Chukotka The law "On Wildlife" prohibits any populations. This designation differs from the actions that may lead to death of Red Data convention used by the IUCN PBSG in that,

137

first, the single Kara-Barents Sea population is Although the Action Plan is non-binding, considered two subpopulations (i.e., Barents certain conservation measures have already and the Kara Sea) by the IUCN PBSG, and been implemented on the federal and regional second, the Alaska-Chukotka population is levels. To provide for more efficient referred to as the Chukchi Sea subpopulation conservation of the Alaska-Chukotka polar by the IUCN PBSG. Currently a new edition bear population, the Governor of Chukotka of the Red Data Book is under preparation Autonomous Okrug in October 2011 approved where the polar bear will be included again for a Plan of Priority Conservation Measures in the consideration of its current relevant status. region. The signed document envisages a comprehensive set of conservation activities Management plan for polar bear aimed at protecting polar bears and their conservation habitats.

The Strategy for Polar Bear Conservation in the New regulations RF was approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the RF Measures aimed at prevention and termination directive on 5 July 2010. The national Strategy of poaching are particularly important. aims to determine mechanisms that will Accomplishment of this task will be facilitated preserve species inhabiting the Russian Arctic by amendments introduced in 2013 to the under conditions of intensifying anthropogenic Russian Criminal Code. These amendments impact on marine and coastal ecosystems as increase penalties, up to a criminal penalty, for well as Arctic climate change. persons involved in "illegal harvesting, The Action Plan on polar bear possession, acquiring, storing, transporting, conservation for the period through 2020 was sending, and selling wild animals and aquatic developed based on the Strategy. This plan biological resources red-listed in the RF and/or aims to either eliminate or minimize negative protected under the RF international treaties". impact from anthropogenic activities on the The polar bear is one of the red-listed species. polar bear and thereby to contribute to the Wildlife listed in the Data Book of the RF polar bear conservation efforts in the Arctic. are covered by provisions of the Strategy for the The Action Plan includes the following 8 Conservation of Rare and Endangered Species of key components: Animals, Plants and Fungi in the RF (Strategy) 1) development of international for the period up to 2030 (was endorsed by the cooperation; decree of the Government of the RF on 17 2) improvement of the legal framework; February 2014, N 212-р.). The Strategy 3) improvement of the network of determines goals, tasks and primary areas of specially protected natural areas state policy in the area of conservation of rare (SPNA); and endangered species of animals, plants and 4) improvement of the effectiveness of fungi required to streamline management. The polar bear conservation outside SPNA; Strategy aims at ensuring a long-term conservation and restoration of rare and 5) scientific research; endangered species of animals, plants and fungi 6) monitoring of polar bear populations; for the benefits of sustainable development of 7) prevention and resolution of human- the RF. bear conflicts; and According to the results of the meeting 8) raising awareness and education. on efficient and safe exploration of the Arctic that was held on 5 June 2014, the President of Each component outlines priority the RF on 29 June 2014 issued a number of conservation measures for the polar bear assignments to the Government of the RF. establishes timelines for their implementation Namely, the Government of the RF, jointly and designates executing and supervising with the scientific and environmental governmental agencies. institutions, was commissioned to develop a set

138

of measures meant for biodiversity reserve Wrangel Island, and the Unified conservation, including measures to prevent Directorate of Taimyr strict nature reserves, loss of wildlife in the event of an of oil spill and with participation of the experts from various for the prevention as well as reduction of scientific and research institutes, developed the negative environmental impact of economic polar bear population monitoring program in and other activities on the environment in the the federal Special Protected Natural Areas Arctic area of the RF. These new measures (SPNA) of Russia. The resulting document were gradually introduced by the companies represents a coordinated polar bear monitoring that have acquired licenses for exploration of program along with the specific techniques and hydrocarbon reserves in the Russian Arctic data collection protocols. Currently this such as Rosneft and Gazprom. To monitor the document is undergoing approval process in Arctic marine ecosystem, the RF Ministry of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Natural Resources and Environment approved Environment of the RF. a check-list of the flora and fauna species acting as indicators of a sustainable marine ecosystem Specially protected natural areas in the Arctic area of the RF. Among marine mammals, the ringed seal, walrus, white whale, Many of the key polar bear habitats are kept bowhead whale, and polar bear fall into the under protection in SPNAs both at the federal indicator species category. and regional level (Figure 1). With regards to problem resolution Other actions related to polar bear conservation, a significant focus is on the further development of the A. N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and SPNA system along with restricting human Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences (IEE activities at places where the animals aggregate RAS) developed an educational program for during migration, focal feeding areas, and specialists from Arctic regions, enabling them reproduction periods. To further this effort, in to resolve issues related to problem animals 2014, under support of WWF Russia, a project locally. The training course organized by IEE on expanding SPNAs in the Russian Arctic was RAS and the Permanent Expedition of Russian launched (Solovyev et al. 2015). Specialists Academy of Sciences for study of the Russian from several scientific institutions are involved Red Data Book animals and other key animals in the project implementation activities. Also, of the Russian fauna incorporates both leading experts from field-specific institutes are theoretical as well as hands-on exercises at the engaged in the program. The polar bear was Chernogolovka Biological Station of IEE RAS, chosen as one species for which the target and includes training on animal immobilization indicators on reaching a sufficient coverage of methods. Two training workshops were held key habitats by protected areas are developed. (May 2015 and March 2016) with participation This project is scheduled to be completed by of Yamalo-Nenets and Nenets Autonomous the end of 2016. Conservation of wildlife Okrugs representatives. species, as well as their habitats in the territory IEE RAS developed and proposed a of all SPNAs is performed in line with the system of parameters to assess the polar bear regulation on each specific area. and white whale populations for the purpose of using them as indicator species on the state of Russian Arctic National Park Arctic ecosystems (Rozhnov, 2015). This work was presented at the scientific session in In 2009, by a decree issued by the Government December 2014 of the Russian Academy of of the RF, the Russian Arctic National Park Sciences dedicated to the problems related to (RANP) was established which occupies the exploration of the Arctic. northern top-end of the Severny Islands in the Within 2014–2015 the experts from the Novaya Zemlya archipelago. Its total area Arctic national refuges, Russian national parks amounts to 1,426,000 hectares, including (Russian Arctic, Beringia), the strict nature 793,910 hectares of marine area. Important

139

polar bear habitats, including denning areas, are includes vast coastal areas of Chukotka in this protected natural area. In summer Peninsula, was established. A priority task for months, under the current conditions the park is to execute monitoring and characterized by ice cover shrinkage, the conservation of the Alaska-Chukotka polar northern end of Novaya Zemlya is becoming a bear subpopulation (i.e., referred to as the resting area for polar bears who failed to leave Chukchi Sea polar bear subpopulation in all the island along with the retreating ice. other sections of these proceedings). The Franz Josef Land wildlife sanctuary Kolyuchin Island and areas of Chukchi seacoast is also managed by the park administration. including Inkigur Cape, the estuary of Chegitun Therefore, key denning areas for the Barents River with adjacent areas, and Dezhnev Cape Sea polar bear subpopulation in the Russian were included in BNP boundaries. These areas Arctic are managed. Further expansion of are known to be important polar bear habitats SPNA areas in the northeast Barents Sea is also along the coast of Chukotka during the winter planned. Currently, the RANP includes the when polar bears scavenge marine animal Franz Josef Land nature reserve along with carcasses (for the most part walrus that failed to Victoria Island. The establishment of a park survive at the coastal rookeries), as well as use buffer zone at Novaya Zemlya, including a by females for maternal denning. sizable marine area, is also under consideration. During 2014–2015, the employees of An argument to grant the status of a Natural BNP, with participation of specialists from the Protected Area to Victoria Island is based on Institute of Biological Problems of the North, information regarding the importance of this Far East Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences region for sustaining the Barents Sea polar bear (IBPN FEB RAS) developed principles for subpopulation. polar bear monitoring in BNP. This new The RANP performs regular monitoring protocol will collect year-round observations of polar bears in its territory as well as adjacent and documentation of polar bear encounters areas of the seas and islands according to the and signs of activity, including denning protocols of the polar bear population locations. The observations tracked in a BNP monitoring program in federal SPNA’s. All database. polar bear encounters along with signs of bear In 2015, with support from WWF Russia, activities, including denning, are registered. BNP started to prepare for establishment of Data is also obtained from tour ships in the marine protected area to include polar bear and region. Concurrently, via non-invasive other marine mammals coastal habitats in the techniques, samples hair and scat are collected Chukchi and Bering seas. In support of this for further molecular and genetic analysis (the project, BNP, jointly with IBPN FEB RAS, samples are split between the A. N. Severtsov performed stationary surveys and observations Institute of Ecology and Evolution, and the at several coastal areas of the park during Institute of General Genetics, RAS). All polar summer and winter. A Rationale and Draft bear encounters are recorded into a Regulation on the proposed marine protected georeferenced database. Currently, data from zone in BNP will be completed in 2016. 450 encounters including over 600 individual animals for the period from 2010 to 2015 is U.S.-Russia polar bear cooperation stored in the database. Recording of conflict encounters is kept in a separate database. The In the framework of the International Polar RANP has developed draft guidelines to Bear Forum that took place in Moscow on 2 minimize the number of conflict situations December 2014, a declaration of responsible between humans and polar bears. ministers representing the Polar Bear Range Countries was signed. The declaration says that Beringia National Park it is necessary to use the Circumpolar Action Plan (CAP) on the polar bear conservation as In 2013, by the Decree of the Government of indispensable tool for international cooperation the RF, Beringia National Park (BNP), which in the area of management and reduction of the

140

impact factors on polar bears and their their traditional subsistence needs and to ecosystems in the perspective of implementing manufacture and sell handicrafts and clothing. the 1973 Agreement. It was emphasized that That is why one of the primary goals for the reductions of the summer time ice extent, Scientific Working Group, as well as the reduction of the ice thickness, and commission, is to determine a sustainable fragmentation of the ice-cover in the Arctic harvest level and set quotas. The U.S. plans to under the impact of global warming represents introduce a quota (or a long-term system of a major threat for polar bears. quotas) on polar bears harvesting in Alaska- The CAP for polar bear conservation was Chukotka polar bear subpopulation for the adopted by the Polar Bear Range States on 3 coming years. In Russia (Chukotka), the September 2015 in Ilulissat, Greenland. moratorium on harvest from this Namely, it envisages further development of subpopulation is still in effect. cooperation between the Polar Bear Range Another important component of U.S.- States on study and preservation of shared Russia cooperation is the development of populations of the species. Such cooperation comprehensive studies and monitoring of between Russia and U.S. is implemented in a Alaska-Chukotka polar bear subpopulation’s framework between the Government of the RF status. The Scientific Working Group and the Government of the United States of developed a draft Plan for joint research on the America on the Conservation and Management Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population that of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population, was approved by the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear signed October 2000 in Washington, DC, and Commission. Research on polar bears at entered into force September 2007. According Wrangel Island represents one of the priority to Article 2 of this agreement, the parties shall areas in this plan. cooperate with the goal of ensuring the Both Russia and the U.S. are actively conservation of the Alaska-Chukotka polar pursuing efforts to nominate a Bering Strait bear population, conservation of its habitat, and Protected Area, including the southern part of regulation of its use for subsistence purposes by the Chukchi Sea to be included in the list of native peoples. In doing so, the parties should UNESCO World heritage sites. pay particular attention to denning areas and areas of high polar bear concentration during Norway-Russia polar bear feeding and migration. Thus, the parties cooperation emphasize consistency of the Government of the RF and the Government of the United In 2015 Norway and Russia signed a States of America agreement with the principles Memorandum of Understanding for of the 1973 agreement between the five Arctic cooperation on monitoring of polar bears in the states on the conservation of polar bears. Barents Sea region. The parties agreed to In 2009 a U.S.-Russia Polar Bear establish a Norway- Russia working group Commission was established that is responsible which is commissioned to develop a joint plan for coordinating conservation and research on research related to the Kara-Barents Sea activities concerning the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear subpopulation. polar bear population. The Commission is Upon the initiative of A.N. Severtsov composed of native and federal representatives Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian from Alaska and Chukotka. The Commission Academy of Sciences, and Barents Sea branch established a Scientific Working Group to assist of WWF, an expert-advisory group was created the Commission on accomplishment of tasks with a mandate to coordinate efforts of various related to the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear RF institutions and organizations in the area of population conservation and management. research and conservation of the Kara-Barents The U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Commission Sea subpopulation of polar bears. authorizes only the indigenous people of Alaska and Chukotka, in accordance with each party's domestic laws, to harvest polar bears to satisfy

141

Polar bear harvest movements in Kara Sea was also investigated (Rozhnov et al. 2017). Biological samples were During the 2010–2015 period, 1–3 polar bears obtained from all animals and later processed were legally removed in response to conflict by the respective institutes. incidents. Illegal shootings were recorded at During the ice-free period in 2010–2014, several locations. It is especially sizable in field-work was conducted at Franz Josef Land Chukotka, where, according to regional expert Nature Reserve and the Russian Arctic opinion (Kochnev and Zdor 2014) in the above National Park (Zhelaniya Cape, Severny Island, period 18–56 (in average 32) polar bears are and Novaya Zemlya) with park employees to harvested annually. observe polar bears behavior (Rozhnov et al. 2014b). Based on observations and findings during 2010–2012, cannibalism cases among Research polar bears on Franz Josef Land were

documented. Following the meeting of PBSG in Fort Collins, In 2012, a number of islands in Franz Colorado, scientific research projects on polar Josef Land Nature Reserve as well as Victoria bears were conducted by individual scientific Island were surveyed. Twenty-one individual institutions and non-governmental polar bears were observed – one was a female organizations. These research efforts touched bear with two cubs of the year and three female upon different subpopulations of polar bears. bears with single two-year old cubs.

Seropositivity towards various pathogens Kara-Barents Sea subpopulation among 26 individual polar bears caught within 2010–2011 period at Franz Josef Land federal The Permanent Expedition of RAS for study of nature reserve was determined via an enzyme- the Russian Red Data Book fauna along with immunoassay method. The samples were specialists from A.N. Severtsov Institute of tested in labs against presence of anti-bodies to Ecology and Evolution (IEE RAS), with canine distemper virus, Aujeszky’s desease, financial support provided by the Russian influenza А, toxoplasma, dirofilarias, and Geographical Society, conducted a set of Trichinellaspiralis (Naydenko et al. 2013). One of research projects on polar bears over six years. the conclusions from this work was that all Between 2010–2015, 42 polar bears were adult and sub adult polar bears captured at captured. Among them: in the area in the Franz Franz-Jozef Land had all six pathogens. Josef Land federal nature reserve–35 animals, in However, cubs-of-the-year were seronegative the territory of the Russian Arctic national park for all pathogens. Seropositivity for Dirofilaria at the northern top-end of Novaya Zemlya–2 sp., influenza А, and Aujeszky’s disease among animals, near Kamenny Islands in the vicinity polar bears in the wild was registered for the of the northwest coast of Taimyr peninsula–6 first time. animals. Ten polar bear females were fitted Genetic analysis of tissue samples was with satellite radio transmitters at Franz Josef completed for more than 40 polar bears, the Land, and 1–at on the Taimyr. Information majority of which were from the Franz Josef obtained from the collars enabled researchers Land. Similarity of polar bears’ haplotypes for to keep track of the detailed movements from the archipelago with those from other (Platonov et al. 2011, Rozhnov et al. 2014a, regions was demonstrated. Research on Rozhnov et al. 2017). The movements of one mercury content in the polar bear hair has also polar bear female along the Barents Sea ice was shown that the animals from Franz Josef Land estimated both considering the ice-drift and have lower mercury levels compared to polar without such consideration (Platonov et al. bears from the western part of the Arctic. 2014). By means of satellite telemetry, the In September 2014, during a survey of relationship between polar bear movements the Kara Sea coast, specialists from the Russian and spring phenology of the sea ice was also Arctic National Park performed additional estimated. The influence of the summer ice polar bear counts along 5,000 km of coastline melting on directionality of polar bears

142

from Vaigach Island and the eastern coast of We should say that there are neither Novaya Zemlya to the northwestern Taimyr reliable estimates of Alaska-Chukotka polar Peninsula. A total of 25 polar bears were bear subpopulation size, nor its survival rates. observed during this survey. The size of Alaska-Chukotka polar bear Following a request from the Russian subpopulation in the early 1990s was estimated Arctic National Park, the Arctic and Antarctic as 2,000–5,000 animals (Belikov 1992, 1993). Research Institute performs weekly monitoring The estimate was based on the number of with satellite remote sensing data of the ice- maternal dens found on the Wrangel Island and cover development at the north and east along the northern coast of the Chukotka regions of the Kara and Barents seas in the peninsula during aerial surveys in the 1970s– areas within the park. They observed that, from 1980s. Considering that the survey 2011–2015 at the end of summer, abnormally methodology for dens count along the light ice-conditions dominated the region. continental coastline has been imperfect, and During the 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015 seasons, the surveys were conducted at different times, overall ice-coverage in the area of Franz Josef the total estimate should rather be considered Land was below the average values both for the an expert judgment even for that period. In entire satellite remote sensing period (1979– 2005, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group 2015), as well as for the last 15 years. However, estimated the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear the 2014 season, was abnormally difficult in subpopulation size at approximately 2,000 terms of overall ice-coverage being above the animals based on historic data and expert average. opinions. In 2014, the PBSG revised this estimate and replaced it with "unknown" due to Alaska-Chukotka subpopulation lack of any recent data. Polar bears are widely scattered on sea ice across a huge territory with The Wrangel Island Nature Reserve has no observation support infrastructure in place continued its long-term polar bear monitoring and that makes it very difficult to get a reliable program, including observations of polar bears estimate of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear on Wrangel Island in spring, summer, and subpopulation size or survival. autumn. Observations are made during hikes However, despite different conclusions across the island, from cruise ships, and in the about the Chukotka-Alaska polar bear course of stationary observations at fixed sites subpopulation status today, most researchers of the island. All sightings were recorded in agree that the biggest long-term danger to this compliance with standard protocols. The bears' population is the loss of sea ice. This loss will gender, age category, body condition, and the change the time-space distribution of polar age of dependents in family groups, were bears and some other characteristics of the estimated when the survey conditions allowed. population status, which most likely will have a The collected data was used to examine negative impact according to the long-term the possible effects of climate change on the forecasts. However, if the global warming Alaska- Chukotka polar bear subpopulation trend is reversed, other anthropogenic impacts (Ovsyanikov 2012, 2014). Observations will constitute the greatest threat for the polar indicated a sustained decrease of polar bear bear (Belikov 2011). observations on Wrangel Island, a declining Within 2010–2015 at Chukotka the number of families with dependents, a low monitoring of the polar bear autumn average size of litters, and suggested a high concentrations near the coastal walrus rookery mortality rate of cubs in the first 18 months of areas on the Chukotka shore which was life. These observations may reflect the initiated back in 1999 by Chukotka branch of progressive decrease in reproductive potential TINRO-Center (Chukot-TINRO) was of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear continued. In 2014 Beringia National Park as subpopulation due to significant loss of sea ice well as Biological Problems of the North in this region. Institute joined this work. The research activity incorporated a field-gathering of data on

143

abundance, demography, diet, nutritional status the 2010–2012 period (Kochnev and Zdor and behavior of the polar bears who after the 2016). break-up of the ice during the summer-autumn In 2013, the Chukot-TINRO jointly with period stay at Chukotka shore and regularly visit the ATMMHC, Alaska Nanuuk Commission the surroundings of the walrus rookeries (ANC), and the Alaska office of the USFWS (Kryukova et al. 2010, Pereverzev and Kochnev conducted a specialized survey in thirteen 2012, Kryukova and Kochnev 2014). Key villages along the coast of the East Siberian Sea, observation points were situated at Kolyutchin the Chukchi Sea, and the Bering Strait. They Island as well as in the vicinity of Serdtse- interviewed 72 local residents to provide Kamen, Vankarem and Shmidt Cape along the detailed accounts of conflicts during human- Chukchi Sea coast. We obtained additional polar bear encounters. Information on 184 information from various sites in the Bering Sea conflicts that occurred from 1944 to 2013 was and Bering Strait where observations were obtained during through the project. In performed by indigenous people in a addition, information on 34 conflicts within framework of the “Rookery keepers” project 1958–2013 period was also added from run by the Association of Traditional Marine published stories of the incidents. IBPN FEB Hunters of Chukotka (ATMMHC). Over the RAS will undertake data analysis and course of six years the polar bears did not form structuring for integration into the international any considerable gatherings (no more than ten database on human polar bear conflicts. animals at the same place) before freeze-up of Material from this project was also used for the sea apart from the year of 2012 when only preparation of a circumpolar review on polar at Kolyutchin Island 42 animals were bear attacks on humans (Wilder et al. 2017). aggregated concurrently. During 2010–2015, the sociological and Observations over relationships between ethnographic studies the polar bears role in the polar bears and walruses constituted an material and spiritual culture of indigenous important aspect of the research that enabled to peoples of Chukotka were conducted estimate a degree of this predators’ impact as a (Kochnev 2016). In 2012 the ChukotTINRO disturbance and mortality factor for walruses at in cooperation with IBPN FEB RAS, Chukotka coastal rookeries. Materials pertaining to the union of mammal hunters, and ANC initiated a initial step of such observations gathered within project to gather the traditional knowledge on the 1989–1998 period at Wrangel Island were polar bears and its habitats. This project was a presented in A.A. Kochnev theses (Kochnev continuation of similar work performed from 2015). 1999–2002 (Kochnev et al. 2003). Both projects Within 2011–2012 period, the Chukot- are an effort to identify changes in polar bear TINRO in cooperation with the ATMMHC distribution, abundance, and behavior at and WWF Russia surveyed 24 residential Chukotka over the decade that passed since the communities at Chukotka. The questionnaires first project was completed. contained a number of questions related to In 2010–2011 the employees of A.N. harvesting and use of polar bears, conflict Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution situations and humans’ attitude towards polar and RAS performed both vessel and aerial bears as well as polar bear harvesting. For observations of marine mammals and polar further analysis, we engaged data obtained in bears in the waters of Arctic Russia from the the course of interviewing indigenous people scientific and research vessel “Michail Somov”. within the 1999–2006 period. Following that, In 2010 they also incorporated polar bear we obtained information on a multi-year polar observations from the coast of Wrangel Island bear visits to residential communities, local (Solovyev et al. 2012). Based on these surveys population protection techniques, scale of an attempt was undertaken to evaluate a illegal hunting and its methods, and use of number of polar bears at the island using harvested products. Additionally, we estimated simplified modeling as well as polar bear density a size of illegal harvesting at Chukotka within values depending on distance from the shore. The team also assessed a pilot effort analyzing

144

the potential to observe marine mammals and Protection and the Marine Mammal Council, polar bears via high resolution satellite imagery along with representatives of local and near Herald Island in Chukchi Sea (Platonov et indigenous people from a number of coastal al. 2013). This technique enabled the detection communities located along the Russian Arctic of animals and traces of recent activity, coast. Initially, the network of Polar Bear suggesting a promising future for further Patrols included 14 communities, one protected applications. area, and 5 polar weather stations. The initiative received support from the Other polar bear research projects administration of Chukotka Autonomous Okrug along with public associations of Under the framework of the Working Group indigenous people. In the community of on Area 5 U.S.-Russia cooperation on the Vankarem, the Polar Bear Patrol also environment, the employees of A.N. Severtsov incorporates data on maternal dens, including Institute of Ecology and Evolution and RAS the number of cubs, into their observation continue to study the ice distribution and ice notes. volume in the areas of polar bear habitat. The The initial task for the Polar Bear Patrol last assessment was done during the time of was guarding the outskirts of communities summer minimum extent along the length of during times of polar bear activity. Work sea ice habitat for polar bears in 2011–2013 included the prevention of conflicts between using satellite passive microwave sensing of the humans and polar bears and remains one of Russian Arctic seas and adjacent Arctic basin their key tasks today. Today, these patrols areas (Mordvintsev et al. 2011; Platonov et al. collect basic information on polar bears, taking 2012). Comparing the ice-conditions over a notes of time and place of the encounters, period of satellite-based observations (from number of animals, gender, as well as age 1979 to 2013), it was identified that the sea ice composition when possible. Lastly, some extent was close to the record low value patrol participants are also involved in the non- recorded in 2007. However, the spatial invasive collection of biological samples from distribution of the ice at the end of summer in polar bears for genetic analysis. 2007 and 2011 was not the same due to impacts The Marine Mammal Council, a regional of atmospheric circulation on the ice-edge non-governmental organization, conducted a location. It was also demonstrated that, starting research project in 2013 that received support from 2003, the speed of ice cover reduction from the Russian Geographical Society. increased by a factor of 4. Additional analysis Experts from All-Russian Research Institute allowed the creation of a linear model that for Environmental Protection also enables short-term forecasts of ice-conditions participated in the project. The following in the Arctic, as well as reconstruction of activities were executed (Boltunov et al. summer ice concentration values down to the 2014b): а) aerial survey of the spring coastal middle of this century using air temperature habitats of polar bears along the Arctic shore data. of Chukotka during the maximum ice-cover In addition, IEE RAS examined the period, and collection of biological samples; b) impacts of different polar bear immobilization aerial survey of the Arctic shore of Chukotka, techniques using cortisol measures in the blood approximately 800 km, and polar bear count at as a proxy. The lowest levels of blood cortisol the coast during the ice-free season, along with correlated to immobilization done from a the collection of biological samples; c) genetic helicopter and through use of a honey-trap (i.e., analysis of the polar bear samples collected. baited trap). These techniques appeared During the spring 2013 survey, the comparable with controlled immobilization project participants registered all observations trials using captive bears. of polar bears along the coast. Special In 2006, WWF initiated the Polar Bear attention was given to searching for females Patrol project in collaboration with the All- with cubs-of-the-year or traces of them. This Russian Research Institute for Environmental data enables us to identify probable maternal

145

denning areas. All polar bears encountered polar bear was discovered near the during the aerial survey in summer 2013 (15 northwestern top end of Vaigach Island. animals, including one female with a cub) were In April 2015, in collaboration with observed either on shore or in water WWF Russia, staff from the Russian Arctic nearshore. Survey flights over the tundra that National Park and the Marine Heritage were approximately 10–20 kilometers from Association explored the seas at the shore, with a total transect length of around northeastern part of the Kara Sea as well as a 150 km, failed to locate any polar bears. piece of area at the northeast part of Laptev Sea Apparently, polar bear distribution is and down east from Severnaya Zemlya determined by two major factors: archipelago, including a polynya in order to • availability of abundant and assess a status of spring habitats of polar bears, accessible food resources on shore marine mammals and birds. In the course of (the field-project participants have helicopter surveys along the route, around 2500 discovered 7 grey whale and walrus km, 11 polar bears were observed, including carcasses that washed ashore two family groups. Locations of bear and track (Belikov et al. 2014); observations were mapped along with marine • weather conditions during the mammal prey sighted. project execution period were calm From 2014–2015 the Marine Mammals and sunny, so the animals tend to Council performed a number of studies (field, stay by a cooler marine shore where laboratory and office studies) with funding the wind blows. Also, whenever from OJSC Arctic Scientific Center, a danger occurs polar bears always try subsidiary company for OJSC Rosneft Oil to walk away to the sea. Company. All-Russia Research Institute for Genetic analysis of the samples obtained Environmental Protection employees also took from the survey work shows relations between part in this work. The following activities were polar bears from 2013 sampling to the animals performed: whose samples were taken via non-invasive • collection of polar bear encounter techniques during several previous years in data and evidence of polar bear Chukotka. Polar bears whose samples were presence (tracks, kills, etc); taken in 2013 were related to at least 6 other • collection of biological samples animals represented by the previous years’ from polar bears and remains of samples. their prey; From 24–27 April 2014 an aerial survey • capture and satellite collaring of of the sea ice was performed from Russky polar bears; Zavorot Cape in the northeast part of the • deployment of autonomous photo- Barents Sea to the Kara Sea areas that are recorders at Wrangel Island adjacent to Vaigach Island and the Field research activities were performed northwestern part of the Baidaratskaya Bay as three complex expeditions organized by (Boltunov et al. 2014a). The survey flights were Rosneft Oil Company in 2014 and 2015 on a performed by МI-8МТ helicopter. The work route from the Barents Sea to the Chukchi Sea: was organized by the Marine Mammals Council • 13 August–29 September 2014 in cooperation with WWF Russia. The study 2 helicopter operations based on area was approximately 30,000 кm ; total “Academic Treshnikov” scientific distance was 3600 km, of which the length of research vessel; and ground based “effective” transects accounted for 2,700 km. work on Wrangel Island; Altogether, 18 observations of polar bears (27 • 8 April–15 June 2015 helicopter bears in total) were registered, and traces of operations based on “Yamal” polar bear presence were encountered 42 times. atomic ice-breaker; In the territory of a polar station at Bolvansky Nos Cape, at Vaigach Island, the carcass of • 14 September–14 October 2015 polar bear was found. Another recently killed helicopter and ground based work

146

on the coast of the East Siberian Pukhova, M.A. 2014a. Aerial survey of and Chukchi Seas as well as on the Pechora Sea and the area of Vaigach Wrangel Island. Island in spring 2014. In Marine Mammals As a result of field activities, the of the Holarctic. Collection of Scientific Papers. following was accomplished: Eighth International Conference Marine • approximately 400 biological Mammals of the Holarctic, St. samples were taken from polar Petersburg, Russia, 24–27 September bears and prey species; 2014. • more than 300 encounters with Boltunov, A.N., Belikov, S.E., Nikiforov, V., polar bears were registered; and Semenova V.S. 2014b. Aerial survey • the condition of over 20 polar bears of polar bears on the Arctic coast of was comprehensively studied Chukotka in autumn 2013. In Marine through capture; Mammals of the Holarctic. Collection of Scientific Papers. Eighth International • satellite collars were deployed to Conference Marine Mammals of the monitor movements; Holarctic, St. Petersburg, Russia, 24–27 • more than 50 trail cameras were September 2014. mounted at Wrangel and Herald Кochnev, A.A., Etylin, V.M., Kavry, V.I., Siv- islands; Siv, E.B., and TankoI, V. 2003. • obtained biological samples were Traditional knowledge of Chukotka submitted for further lab native peoples regarding polar bear processing to perform genetics, habitat use. Final report prepared for the hematological tests, and identify U.S. National Park Service. –Anadyr: composition and content values of ATMMHC Executive Secretariat. 180 some pollutants. pp. Kochnev, A., and Zdor, E. 2016. Harvest and References use of polar bears in Chukotka: Results of 1999–2012 studies. Moscow: Pi Belikov, С.Е. 1992. Polar bears abundance, Kvadrat. 140 pp. distribution and migrations in the Soviet Kochnev, А.А. 2016. Legendary polar bear Arctic. Large predators. Moscow. Pp. monsters in oral tradition of the native 74–84. In Russian. people of Chukotka. Pages 41–67 in Belikov, С.Е. 1993. Polar bear. Ursus. Krupnik, I.I. (ed.) Beringia Heritage. Issue Moscow: Nauka. p. 420–478. In 3. Faced to the sea. In the memory of Lyudmila Russian. Bogoslovskaya. Moscow. Belikov, С.Е. 2011. Polar bear of the Russian Kryukova, N.V., and Kochnev, А.А. 2014. Arctic. Terrestrial and marine eco- Marine mammals in the area of systems. OJSC Paulsen. Moscow - Saint- Vankarem Cape (Chukchi Sea) in Petersburg. Pp. 263–291. In Russian. August–November 2010–2011. Belikov, S.E., Boltunov, A.N., Semenova, V.S., Zoological Magazine 93(2):274–283. In and Nikiforov, V.V. 2014. Occurrences Russian of gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) death Kryukova, N.V., Pereverzev, А.А., Kochnev, near the shore of Chukotka in autumn А.А., and Ivanov, D.I. 2010. Marine 2013. In Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. mammals in the coastal waters of the Collection of Scientific Papers. Eighth Northern part of Anadyr bay (Bering Sea) International Conference Marine during summer-autumn period of 2007– Mammals of the Holarctic, St. 2008. Study of Water Biological Resources of Petersburg, Russia, 24–27 September Kamchatka and Northern-Western Part of 2014. Pacific Ocean 19:127–132. In Russian Boltunov, A.N., Belikov, S.E., Nikiforov, V., Mordvintsev, I.N., Platonov, N.G., and Semenova, V.S., Stishov, M.S., and Alpatsky, I.V. 2011. Arctic sea ice long-

147

term dynamics according to the satellite detection of marine mammals. Biology microwave data. Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Bulletin 40(2):197–205. Oceanic Physics 47(9):1127–1134. http://link.springer.com/article/10.113 http://link.springer.com/article/10.113 4%2FS1062359013020106. 4%2FS0001433811090106. Platonov, N.G., Rozhnov, V.V., Alpatsky, I.V., Naydenko, S.V., Ivanov, E.A., Mordvintsev, Mordvintsev, I.N., Ivanov, E.A., and I.N., Platonov, N.G., Ershov, R.V., and Naydenko, S.V. 2014. Evaluation of Rozhnov, V.V. 2013. Serum prevalence polar bear movements relative to sea ice of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) to various drift. Doklady Biological Sciences pathogens on the Barents Sea islands. 456(3):191–194. Biology Bulletin 40(9):779–782. http://link.springer.com/article/10.113 http://link.springer.com/article/10.113 4%2FS0012496614030090. 4%2FS1062359013090082. Platonov, N.G., Mordvintsev, I.N., Rozhnov, Ovsyanikov, N.G., and Menyushina, I.E. 2008. V.V, and Alpatsky, I.V. 2012. Analysis Specifics of polar bears surviving an ice of the Arctic sea ice conditions for 2011 free season on Wrangel Island in 2007. at the onset of summer minimum. Pages 407–412 in Marine Mammals of the Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics Holarctic. Collection of scientific papers. Fifth 48(9):1027–1038. International Conference Marine http://link.springer.com/article/10.113 Mammals of the Holarctic, Odessa, 4%2FS0001433812090125. Ukraine, 14–18 October 14–18. Polar Bear Range States. 2015. Circumpolar Ovsyanikov, N.G. 2012. Occurrence of family Action Plan: Conservation Strategy for groups and litter size of polar bears (Ursus Polar Bears. A product of the maritimus) on Wrangel Island in the representatives of the parties to the 1973 autumns of 2004–2010 as an indication Agreement on the Conservation of Polar of population status. Pages 503–510 in bears. 80 рp. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. Collection Rozhnov, V.V. 2015. Large mammals as of Scientific Papers. Seventh International indicator species of the ecosystems state Conference Marine Mammals of the in Russian Arctic. Pages 286–297 in Holarctic, Suzdal, Russia, 24–28 Scientific and technical problems of the September, 2012. development of Arctic. Russian Academy of Ovsyanikov, N.G., and Menyushina, I.E. 2014. Sciences. Moscow: Nauka. In Russian. Demographic processes in Chukchi- Rozhnov, V.V., Ershov, R.V., Ivanov, E.A., Alaskan polar bear population as Kirilov, A.G., Kotrekhov, I.A., Kryukov, observed in Wrangel Island region. In D.R., Mizin, I.A., Molodtsov, I.Y., Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. Collection Molodtsova, T.A., Mordvintsev, I.N., of Scientific Papers. Eighth International Naidenko, S.V., Perkhurov, R.A., Conference Marine Mammals of the Platonov, N.G., Pokrovskaya, I.V., and Holarctic, St. Petersburg, Russia, 24–27 Pukhova, M.A. 2014. Occurrence of September 2014. polar bears at the Cape Zhelaniya Pereverzev А.А., and Kochnev, А.А. 2012. (Novaya Zemlya archipelago) in the Marine mammals near the Shmidt Cape summer season during 2011–2014. In (Chukotka) in September–October 2011. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. Collection Pages 176–181 in Marine Mammals of the of Scientific Papers. Eighth International Holarctic. Collection of Scientific Papers. Conference Marine Mammals of the Seventh International Conference Holarctic, St. Petersburg, Russia, 24–27 Marine Mammals of the Holarctic, September 2014. Suzdal, Russia, 24–28 September, 2012. Rozhnov, V.V., Platonov, N.G., Mordvintsev, Platonov, N.G., Mordvintsev, I.N., and I.N., Naydenko, S.V., Ivanov, E.A., and Rozhnov, V.V. 2013. The possibility of Ershov, R.V. 2015. Movements of polar using high-resolution satellite images for bear females (Ursus maritimus) during an

148

ice-free period in the fall of 2011 on Solovyev, B., Onufrenya, I., Glazov, D., Alexandra Land Island (Franz Josef Land Saveliev, A., Spiridonov, V., Dobrynin, Archipelago) using satellite telemetry. D., Pantyulin, A., Chuprin,a E., and Biology Bulletin 42(8):728–741. Platonov, N. 2015. Development of Rozhnov, V.V., Platonov, N.G., Naydenko, representative network of Marine S.V., Mordvintsev, I.N., and Ivanov, E.A. Protected Areas in the Russian Arctic. 2017. Movement of a female polar bear International Geographical Union (Ursus maritimus) in the Kara Sea during Regional Conference Geography, the summer sea-ice break-up. Doklady Culture And Society For Our Future Akademii Nauk 472(3):359–363. In Earth 2015, Book of Abstracts. 46 pp. press. Strategy for Polar Bear Conservation in the Solovyev, B.A., Platonov, N.G., Rozhnov, Russian Federation. 2010. Moscow. 34 V.V., and Mordvintsev, I.N. 2012. The pp. aerial and shipboard observation of Polar Wilder, J.M., Vongraven, D., Atwood, T., bears (Ursus maritimus) along coastline of Hansen, B., Jessen, A., Kochnev, A., Wrangel Island in October 2010. Pages York, G., Vallender, R., Hedman, D., and 622–626 in Marine Mammals of the Gibbons, M. 2017. Polar bear attacks on Holarctic. Collection of Scientific Papers. humans: implications of a changing Eighth International Conference Marine climate. Wildlife Society Bulletin. DOI: Mammals of the Holarctic, Suzdal, 10.1002/wsb.783. Russia, 24–28 September, 2012.

149

Figures Fig. 1. Specially Protected Natural Areas in the Russian Arctic where regular appearance of polar bears is observed. State strict nature reserves (zapovedniks): 1. Wrangel Island; 2. Great Arctic; 3. Ust-Lensky; 4. Gydansky; 5. Nenets; 6. Taimyr (part of Great Arctic). State federal nature reserves (zakazniks): 7. Franz Josef Land; 8. Severozemelsky. State regional nature reserves: 9. Vaigach; 10. Chaunskaya Guba; 11. Yamalsky; 12. Yanskiye Mammoths. Regional natural monuments: 13. Cape Vankarem; 14. Cape Kozhevnikov. National parks: 15. Beringia; 16. Russian Arctic. Resource reserves: 17. Kurdigino-Krestovaya; 18. Lena Delta; 19. Medvezh’yi islands; 20. Terpey-Tumus; 21. Chaigurgino; 22. Katalyk.

150

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Management and Conservation on Polar Bears, 2010–2016 J. Wilder, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, USA H. Cooley3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, USA B. Crokus, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, USA S. Miller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, USA C. Perham4, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, USA E. Regehr5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, USA M. St. Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, USA R. Wilson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, USA

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Conservation of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar has primary management responsibility for Bear Population (U.S.-Russia Bilateral polar bears in Alaska. The objective of the Agreement). The subsistence harvest of polar USFWS Polar Bear Program is to ensure that bears from the SB subpopulation is managed polar bear populations in Alaska continue to be voluntarily by Alaska Natives in the U.S. under healthy, functioning components of the Bering, a user-to-user agreement, the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Chukchi, and Beaufort Sea ecosystems. The Polar Bear Management Agreement in the USFWS’s conservation activity is largely Southern Beaufort Sea (I-I Agreement), which mandated by the Marine Mammal Protection was signed in 1988 and reaffirmed in 2000 by Act (MMPA) and by the Endangered Species the Inuvialuit Game Council and the North Act (ESA). The U.S. is also a member of Slope Borough (NSB) Fish and Game international treaties and agreements calling for Management Committee. coordinated polar bear conservation. To inform management and The U.S. is in the range of two polar bear conservation actions required under the ESA subpopulations: the Chukchi Sea6 (CS) and the and MMPA, USFWS conducts a range of Southern Beaufort Sea (SB). Polar bear management, monitoring, and research subsistence harvest from the CS subpopulation activities on both the CS and SB is managed jointly by the U.S. and Russia under subpopulations. These activities involve the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Agreement on the collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey,

3 Present address: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, USA. 4 Present address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage Alaska, 99503, USA 5 Present address: Polar Science Center - Applied Physics Laboratory, Box 355640, University of Washington, 1013 NE 40th Street, Seattle, Washington, 98105, USA 6 Also referred to as the “Alaska-Chukotka” subpopulation, noting differences in management boundaries as recognized by the PBSG and under the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Agreement on the Conservation of the Alaska- Chukotka Polar Bear Population (US-Russia Bilateral Agreement).

151

NSB, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, obligations under the ESA and MMPA. The Alaskan Native organizations and communities, CMP outlines actions that will help polar bears industry, non-governmental organizations, and persist in the wild in the near-term, while also other organizations in the U.S. and acknowledging that addressing the primary internationally. threat of climate change will require longer- term global actions. The CMP was developed Endangered Species Act (ESA) by a diverse team of experts and partners and reflects input on the draft plan submitted On May 15, 2008, the USFWS published a Final during the 2015 public comment period. It calls Rule in the Federal Register listing the polar for reducing human-bear conflicts, bear as a threatened species under the ESA (73 collaboratively managing subsistence harvest, FR 28212).7 The listing was based on the best protecting denning habitat, and minimizing the available science, which shows that loss of sea risk of contamination from oil spills. Most of ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten these actions are already underway, in polar bear habitat. Any significant changes in partnership with Alaska Native communities, the abundance, distribution, or existence of sea nonprofit groups, and industry representatives ice will have effects on the number and who participated in the CMP’s creation. The behavior of these animals and their prey. This CMP also calls for increased monitoring and loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of research to determine the health of Alaska’s becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, two subpopulations and whether the plan’s the standard established by the ESA for actions are being effective or need to be designating a threatened species. modified. Further, the CMP calls for a science- The USFWS published a Special Rule (78 based communication effort to highlight the FR 11766)8 on February 20, 2013, establishing urgent need for significant reductions in how activities that may harm the threatened emissions to help achieve a global atmospheric polar bear will be managed under the ESA. The level of greenhouse gases that will support Special Rule effectively maintains the conditions for recovery of polar bears from management and conservation framework that projected declines. The USFWS will continue has been in effect for the polar bear since it was to work with diverse partners to implement the first protected under the ESA in 2008. The CMP. The team will share information, identify Special Rule, issued under Section 4(d) of the priorities, leverage resources and adapt the plan ESA, avoids redundant regulation under the according to new and emerging science and ESA by adopting the longstanding and more information. While the CMP focuses on stringent protections of the MMPA and the management actions for the two U.S. Convention on International Trade in subpopulations of polar bears that live off the Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora coast of Alaska, it also contributes to efforts to (CITES) as the primary regulatory provisions conserve polar bears in the other four range for this threatened species. states of Norway, Greenland, Canada, and Russia. Conservation Management Plan Critical Habitat On January 7, 2017, the USFWS released a final The USFWS designated critical habitat for the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the 9 polar bear (USFWS 2016), which fulfills polar bear on January 6, 2011 (75 FR 76086).

7 Available at 0/2013-03136/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife- https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/05/1 and-plants-special-rule-for-the-polar-bear-under- 5/E8-11105/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and- section-4d-of. plants-determination-of-threatened-status-for-the- 9 Available at polar-bear. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/12/0 8 Available at 7/2010-29925/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife- https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/02/2

152

The critical habitat designation identified details of specific provisions are provided in the geographic areas that contained features sections below. essential for the conservation of the polar bear within Alaska. Polar bear critical habitat Incidental Take and Intentional included the following habitat types: barrier Take Programs island habitat, sea ice habitat (both habitats are described in geographic terms), and terrestrial Under the Incidental and Intentional Take denning habitat (described as a functional Program, citizens or groups covered by determination). Barrier island habitat includes incidental take regulations, such as oil and gas coastal barrier islands and spits along Alaska’s operators, may apply for a Letter of coast, which is used for denning, refuge from Authorization (LOA), which, if granted, allows human disturbance, access to maternal dens, for incidental “take” (as defined under the feeding habitat, and travel along the coast. Sea MMPA)10 of polar bears during authorized ice habitat is located over the continental shelf, activities. Prior to issuance of an LOA, the and includes water 300 m ( 984 ft) or less in USFWS requests companies submit, with the depth. Terrestrial denning habitat includes USFWS’s assistance if necessary, a plan of lands within 32 km ( 20 mi)∼ of the northern cooperation. Most “take” resulting from coast of Alaska between the Canadian border industry interactions with polar bears is limited and the Kavik River and∼ within 8 km ( 5 mi) to short-term changes in bear behavior (e.g., a of the northern coast of Alaska between the bear may avoid or investigate an area of Kavik River and Barrow. The total∼ area industry activity). The LOAs include measures designated covers approximately 484,734 km2 to minimize such impacts; examples include ( 187,157 mi2), and is entirely within the lands proper management of “attractants” (such as and waters of the U.S. food and garbage) or placement of a “no ∼ activity” one-mile buffer around known dens. 5-year Review At present, regulations for incidental take related to oil and gas activities are in effect in As required by the ESA, on February 22, 2017, the Chukchi Sea region until 2018. New the UFSWS completed a status review of the regulations for the Beaufort Sea region were polar bear (USFWS 2017). After a thorough promulgated in August 2016 for a five-year review of new and updated scientific period. information on polar bear biology and threats, Directed take (also referred to as the USFWS concluded that the species intentional harassment or deterrence) continues to meet the definition of a threatened authorization is requested when bears may need species under the ESA. to be deterred from human-use areas. An example of this type of take is the NSB’s Polar Marine Mammal Protection Act Bear Patrol Program, funded by the USFWS. (MMPA) The NSB’s program works with coastal communities to deter bears. A similar program

exists in oil field areas. The MMPA was enacted in 1972 for the For both incidental and intentional take protection and conservation of marine activities, LOAs include monitoring and mammals and their habitats. The MMPA reporting requirements. Monitoring and includes provisions for a variety of activities; reporting results provide a basis for evaluating

and-plants-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-the- detention of a marine mammal, no matter how polar-bear. temporary; tagging a marine mammal; or the 10 “Take”, as defined under the MMPA, is “to harass, negligent or intentional operation of an aircraft or hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, vessel, or the doing of any other negligent or capture, or kill any marine mammal, including, intentional act which results in the disturbing or without limitation, any of the following: the collection molesting of a marine mammal.” of dead animals or parts thereof; the restraint or

153

current and future impacts of activities on feeding ecology; distribution and habitat use; bears. During the most recent five-year period and population dynamics (e.g., reproductive for which data are complete (2010 to 2014), the and survival rates). In 2016, the USFWS and oil and gas industry reported a total of 1,234 partners analyzed data collected during live- observations of 1,911 polar bears. Of the 1,911 recapture research on the Chukchi Sea bears observed, no incidental (i.e., disturbance) subpopulation conducted during the periods take of bears were reported for 81 percent of 2008–2011, 2013, and 2015–2016. The core the bears (1,549 bears). Of the remaining 362 data consist of 421 physical captures collected bears observed, incidental takes were reported during springtime sampling in the U.S. portion for 78 bears. The oil and gas industry reported of the Chukchi Sea region between the Seward intentional takes by deterrence activities for 260 and Lisburne peninsulas; and movement data bears. Effects were unknown for 23 bears, and from 107 radiocollars and 77 ear-mounted or one lethal take of a bear occurred as a result of glue-on satellite tags. industrial activity. Auxiliary data that were analyzed include search effort from helicopter tracklogs, Co-management with Alaska Natives information on whether bears denned successfully (obtained from radiotelemetry On November 8, 2016, the USFWS published data), spring-time weaning status of two-year- an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking olds, and litter size distribution of yearlings. (81 FR 78560) that has two purposes: 1) to The goals of the analysis were to estimate solicit public comments on developing and abundance and vital rates (e.g., recruitment, administering a co-management partnership survival) and/or related indices for this with Alaska Natives for their subsistence use of subpopulation. Analyses were conducted using polar bears in Alaska; and 2) to solicit a multi-event, integrated capture-recapture preliminary ideas about the best way to ensure model that was based on the polar bear life polar bear take limits established by the U.S.- cycle and included “un-observable states”, Russia Bilateral Agreement are not exceeded. which allowed modeling the movement of Because Alaska Native harvest of polar bears bears with respect to the sampling area and thus has never been federally regulated, the USFWS reduce potential bias in estimated parameters. believes it is important to hear from the public, Density estimates (bears/km2) were and especially Alaska Natives, on potential derived for the sampling area and then management options for this subsistence extrapolated to larger geographic areas of harvest. The public comment period closed interest (e.g., the management boundaries of January 9, 2017. The USFWS hopes to have a the Chukchi Sea subpopulation) based on new Alaska Native co-management partner indices of habitat use derived from resource formed and functioning in 2017. selection functions. Findings from this analysis will be submitted for publication in 2017. Research Activities Southern Beaufort Sea Coastal Chukchi Sea Capture-recapture Surveys Popuation Studies Fall coastal surveys for polar bears along the Accurate scientific information is needed for northern Alaskan coastline, between Barrow, management and conservation of the Chukchi Alaska, and the Canadian border, were Sea subpopulation of polar bears. The Chukchi conducted by the USFWS between 2000 and Sea subpopulation inhabits the Bering, 2014. The USFWS has analyzed those data Chukchi, and eastern Siberian seas, located west (USFWS unpublished data) to estimate the of Alaska. The USFWS and collaborators weekly number of polar bears on shore in fall; reinitiated research on the Chukchi Sea identify annual trends, if any, in the number of subpopulation in 2008. Focal areas of study bears on shore; and determine which factors include nutritional condition, health, and

154

influence the number and distribution of bears Performance and retention of lightweight satellite radio along the coast. Preliminary results suggest: tags applied to the ears of polar bears ― Satellite (a) The mean annual number of polar telemetry studies provide information that is bears onshore during the study was critical to the conservation and management of 140 (95% CI: 127–157). species affected by ecological change. Here we (b) The number of polar bears on shore report on the performance and retention of two each week was strongly related to types (SPOT-227 and SPOT-305A) of ear- sea ice conditions; with more bears mounted Argos-linked satellite transmitters on shore when ice return dates were (i.e., Platform Transmitter Terminal, or PTT) later. deployed on free-ranging polar bears in Eastern (c) Distribution of polar bears on shore Greenland, Baffin Bay, Kane Basin, the was affected by sea ice conditions, southern Beaufort Sea, and the Chukchi Sea presence of barrier islands, and during 2007–2013. Transmissions from 142 presence of subsistence-harvested out of 145 PTTs deployed on polar bears were whale carcasses. Polar bears tended received for an average of 69.3 days. The to occur in greater numbers in areas average functional longevity, defined as the with whale remains, more barrier number of days they transmitted while still island habitat, and earlier dates of attached to polar bears, for SPOT-227 was 56.8 sea ice return in fall. days and for SPOT-305A was 48.6 days. Thirty-four of the 142 (24%) PTTs showed Instrument-based Aerial Surveys for signs of being detached before they stopped Polar Bears and Ice Seals in the transmitting, indicating that tag loss was an important aspect of tag failure. Furthemore, 10 Chukchi Sea of 26 (38%) bears that were re-observed

following application of a PTT had a split ear The National Marine Fisheries Service, in pinna, suggesting that some transmitters were collaboration with USFWS and other partners, detached by force. All six PTTs that were still conducted instrument-based aerial surveys for on bears upon recapture had lost the antenna, ice seals and polar bears in U.S. portions of the which indicates that antenna breakage was a Chukchi Sea region in spring 2016. Surveys significant contributor to PTT failure. Finally, consisted of 25 flights totaling 15,720 km (9,768 only nine of the 142 (6%) PTTs - three of which mi) of search effort in Alaska. Concurrent were still attached to bears - had a final voltage surveys were flown by a Russian research team reading close to the value indicating battery in Russian portions of the Chukchi Sea region. exhaustion. This suggests that battery Data were collected remotely via an array of exhaustion was not a major factor in tag thermal cameras on which marine mammals performance. The average functional longevity show up as “hot spots”, and high-resolution of approximately two months for ear-mounted digital cameras that can subsequently determine PTTs (this study) is poor compared to PTT the species of animal. Preliminary results collars fitted to adult female polar bears, which suggest that images from the thermal-digital can last for several years. Early failure of the camera combination, when processed using ear-mounted PTTs appeared to be caused automated software, successfully detected primarily by detachment from the ear or approximately 75% of the polar bears on the antenna breakage. We suggest that much surface of the sea ice. Therefore, based on a smaller and lighter ear- mounted transmitters study design analysis that was completed prior are necessary to reduce the risk of tissue to the surveys (Conn et al. 2016), indications are irritation, tissue damage, and tag detachment, that the instrument-based approach will and with a more robust antenna design. Our provide a useful estimate of abundance for the results are applicable to other tag types (e.g., Chukchi Sea polar bear subpopulation. Results Iridium and VHF systems) and to research on from this effort are expected to be published in other large mammals that cannot wear radio 2018 or 2019. collars.

155

Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., Laidre, K.L., Deitz, R., to judge future changes to non-denning adult Jensen, M.V., Durner, G.M., Pagano, female polar bear resource selection in the A.M., Regehr, E.V., St. Martin, M., Chukchi Sea and help guide offshore Atkinson, S., and Dyck, M. 2017. development in the region. Lastly, our study Performance and retention of lightweight provides a framework for assessing potential satellite radio tags applied to the ears of impacts of offshore oil and gas development to polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Animal other polar bear populations around the Arctic. Biotelemetry 5:9. Wilson, R.R., Horne, J.S., Rode, K.D., Regehr, E.V., and Durner, G.M. 2014. Identifying polar bear resource selection patterns to Identifying polar bear resource selection inform offshore development in a dynamic and changing patterns to inform offshore development Arctic ― Although sea ice loss is the primary in a dynamic and changing Arctic. threat to polar bears, little can be done to Ecosphere 5:136. mitigate its effects without global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Other Invariant polar bear habitat selection during a period of factors, however, could exacerbate the impacts sea ice loss ― Climate change is expected to alter of sea ice loss on polar bears, such as exposure many species’ habitat. A species’ ability to to increased industrial activity. The Arctic adjust to these changes is partially determined Ocean has enormous oil and gas potential, and by their ability to adjust habitat selection its development is expected to increase in the preferences to new environmental conditions. coming decades. Estimates of polar bear Sea ice loss has forced polar bears to spend resource selection will inform managers how longer periods annually over less productive bears use areas slated for oil development and waters, which may be a primary driver of to help guide conservation planning. We population declines. A negative population estimated temporally-varying resource selection response to greater time spent over less patterns for non-denning adult female polar productive water implies, however, that prey bears in the Chukchi Sea population (2008– are not also shifting their space use in response 2012) at two scales (i.e., home range and weekly to sea ice loss. We show that polar bear habitat steps) to identify factors predictive of polar selection in the Chukchi Sea has not changed bear use throughout the year, before any between periods before and after significant sea offshore development. From the best models ice loss, leading to a 75% reduction of highly at each scale, we estimated scale-integrated selected habitat in summer. Summer was the resource selection functions to predict polar only period with loss of highly selected habitat, bear space use across the population’s range supporting the contention that summer will be and determined when bears were most likely to a critical period for polar bears as sea ice loss use the region where offshore oil and gas continues. Our results indicate that bears are development in the United States is slated to either unable to shift selection patterns to occur. Polar bears exhibited significant intra- reflect new prey use patterns or that there has annual variation in selection patterns at both not been a shift towards polar basin waters scales but the strength and annual patterns of becoming more productive for prey. selection differed between scales for most Continued sea ice loss is likely to further reduce variables. Bears were most likely to use the habitat with population-level consequences for offshore oil and gas planning area during ice polar bears. retreat and growth with the highest predicted Wilson, R.R., Regehr, E.V., Rode, K.D., and St. use occurring in the southern portion of the Martin, M. 2016. Invariant polar bear planning area. The average proportion of habitat selection during a period of sea predicted high-value habitat in the planning ice loss. Proceedings of the Royal Society B area was .15% of the total high-value habitat for 283:20160380. the population during sea ice retreat and growth and reached a high of 50% during November Harvesting wildlife affected by climate change: a 2010. Our results provide a baseline on which modelling and management approach for polar bears ―

156

(a) The conservation of many wildlife Environmental variability, the sex species requires understanding the and age of removed animals and risk demographic effects of climate tolerance can also affect the harvest change, including interactions rate. between climate change and harvest, (e) Synthesis and applications. We present which can provide cultural, a coupled modelling and nutritional or economic value to management approach for wildlife humans. that accounts for climate change and (b) We present a demographic model can be used to balance trade-offs that is based on the polar bear life among multiple conservation goals. cycle and includes density- In our example application to polar dependent relationships linking vital bears experiencing sea-ice loss, the rates to environmental carrying goals are to maintain population capacity (K). Using this model, we viability while providing continued develop a state-dependent opportunities for subsistence management framework to calculate harvest. Our approach may be a harvest level that (i) maintains a relevant to other species for which population above its maximum net near-term management is focused productivity level (MNPL; the on human factors that directly population size that produces the influence population dynamics greatest net increment in within the broader context of abundance) relative to a changing K, climate-induced habitat degradation. and (ii) has a limited negative effect Regehr, E., Wilson, R., Rode, K., Runge, M., on population persistence. and Stern, H. 2017. Harvesting wildlife (c) Our density-dependent affected by climate change: a modeling relationships suggest that MNPL for and management approach for polar polar bears occurs at approximately bears. Journal of Applied Ecology. doi: 0.69 (95% CI = 0.63–0.74) of K. 10.1111/1365-2664.12864. Population growth rate at MNPL was approximately 0.82 (95% CI = Conservation status of polar bears in relation to projected 0.79–0.84) of the maximum intrinsic sea-ice declines ― Loss of Arctic sea ice owing to growth rate, suggesting relatively climate change is the primary threat to polar strong compensation for human- bears throughout their range. We evaluated the caused mortality. potential response of polar bears to sea-ice (d) Our findings indicate that it is declines by (i) calculating generation length possible to minimize the (GL) for the species, which determines the demographic risks of harvest under timeframe for conservation assessments; (ii) climate change, including the risk developing a standardized sea-ice metric that harvest will accelerate representing important habitat; and (iii) using population declines driven by loss of statistical models and computer simulation to the polar bear’s sea-ice habitat. This project changes in the global population under requires that (i) the harvest rate – three approaches relating polar bear abundance which could be 0 in some situations to sea ice. Mean GL was 11.5 years. Ice- – accounts for a population’s covered days declined in all subpopulation areas intrinsic growth rate, (ii) the harvest during 1979–2014 (median -1.26 days year-1). rate accounts for the quality of The estimated probabilities that reductions in population data (e.g. lower harvest the mean global population size of polar bears when uncertainty is large), and (iii) will be greater than 30%, 50% and 80% over the harvest level is obtained by three generations (35–41 years) were 0.71 multiplying the harvest rate by an (range 0.20–0.95), 0.07 (range 0–0.35) and less updated estimate of population size. than 0.01 (range 0–0.02), respectively.

157

According to IUCN Red List reduction and interspecific aggressive interactions. Our thresholds, which provide a common measure results indicate that grizzly bears are socially of extinction risk across taxa, these results are dominant during interspecific competition with consistent with listing the species as vulnerable. polar bears for marine mammal carcasses Our findings support the potential for large during autumn. declines in polar bear numbers owing to sea-ice Miller, S., Wilder, J., and Wilson, R.R. 2015. loss, and highlight near-term uncertainty in Polar bear-grizzly bear interactions statistical projections as well as the sensitivity of during the autumn open-water period in projections to different plausible assumptions. Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy 96:1317– Regehr, E., Laidre, K., Akçakaya, H.R., 1325. Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Lunn, N., Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, G., Polar Bear Harvest and Human- and Wiig, Ø. 2016. Conservation status Caused Removals of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology With the assistance of local taggers in Alaska’s Letters 12:20160556. communities, the USFWS’s Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program (MTRP) collects and Polar bear-grizzly bear interactions during the autumn analyzes data and samples on polar bears open-water period in Alaska ― Reduction of harvested by Alaska Natives during subsistence summer sea ice extent has led some polar bear activities. Receiving accurate and timely harvest populations to increase their use of land during data helps the USFWS to sustainably manage the summer/autumn open-water period. While Alaska’s polar bear populations, allows for terrestrial food resources are generally not documentation of traditional subsistence use, sufficient to compensate for lost hunting and provides information for monitoring the opportunities on the sea ice, marine mammal health and status of polar bears in Alaska. This carcasses, where available, could help reduce information is critical to enabling the USFWS the energetic cost of longer periods of land use. and partners to manage polar bears and human Subsistence-harvested bowhead whale (Balaena activities for continued subsistence mysticetus) remains are available annually near opportunities. local communities along the Alaskan portion of the Beaufort Sea coast to bears that come to Co-management of the Alaskan Harvest of the shore. Relatively large numbers of polar bears Alaska–Chukotka Polar Bear Subpopulation: How and some grizzly bears (U. arctos) use these to Implement a Harvest Quota ― The Alaska resources, creating a competitive environment Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska among species and social classes. We Nanuuq Commission, and the USFWS documented competitive interactions among conducted a review of the USFWS’s Alaska- polar bears and between polar and grizzly bears Chukotka (i.e., Chukchi Sea) polar bear for bowhead whale remains adjacent to a small subpopulation harvest database compiled by community in northeastern Alaska in the MTRP. The review identified needed polar September 2005–2007. We observed temporal bear harvest reporting improvements and partitioning of the resource by bears, with lone provided recommendations to enhance adult polar bears and grizzly bears primarily effective implementation of the US-Russia feeding at night, and higher use by polar bear Bilateral Agreement and co-management family groups and subadults during dawn and between the USFWS and Alaska Native co- dusk. Interspecific interactions were less management partners. frequently aggressive than intraspecific Schliebe, S.L., Benter, B., Regehr, E.V., interactions, but polar bears were more likely to Quakenbush, L., Omelak, J., Nelson, M., be displaced from the feeding site by grizzly and Nesvacil, K. 2016. Co-management bears than by conspecifics. Female polar bears of the Alaskan harvest of the Alaska- with cubs were more likely to display aggressive Chukotka polar bear subpopulation: how behavior than other social classes during intra- to implement a harvest quota. Wildlife

158

Technical Bulletin assumption is made that bears of unknown or ADF&G/DWC/WTB-2016-15. Alaska unreported sex are female, the revised female Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, harvest 166 bears (39%). Alaska, U.S.A., 65 pp. The statewide average annual harvest for subsistence purposes was 43 bears, and ranged Reported Polar Bear Mortality in from a low of 14 bears (in 2015) to a high of 84 Alaska, 2007–2016 bears (in 2012). Statewide subsistence harvest was also reported in all months of the year, but the majority of harvest occurred in spring Statewide Removal of Polar Bears (March, April, and May) (Figure 1).

For the period 2007–2016, 462 polar bear mortalities due to human causes were reported Removal of Polar Bears in Villages in Alaska (Table 1). Of the 462 bear mortalities Party to the I-I Agreement

reported, 277 bears (61%) were reported as 11 male, 98 (21%) as female, and the sex was In Alaska villages party to the I-I Agreement, unknown or was not reported for 8 bears 195 polar bear mortalities due to human causes (18%). If the assumption is made that bears of were reported for the period 2007 to 2016. Of unknown or unreported sex are female, the the 195 bears reported as removed, 115 (59%) revised female removal is 179 bears (39%). were reported as male, 37 (19%) were reported Removals were reported in all months of the as female, and the sex was unknown or was not year, but the majority of mortalities occurred in reported for 43 bears (22%). If the assumption spring (March, April, and May) (Figure 2). is made that bears of unknown or unreported Mortalities include those from subsistence sex are female bears, the revised female removal activities, defense of life, industry- and is 80 bears (41%). Removals were reported in research-related mortalities, and other causes all months of the year, with slightly higher (Table 2). monthly averages in May and September In addition to the 462 reported bear (Figure 1). mortalities from human causes, six bears were reported with unknown causes of death; three Harvest of Polar Bears by Alaska were reported in 2012, two in 2013, and one in Natives for Subsistence Purposes in 2014. Nine bears were reported as having died Villages Party to the I-I Agreement from natural causes from 2007 to 2016. Reported polar bear harvest for subsistence Statewide Harvest of Polar Bears by purposes by Alaska Natives in villages party to Alaska Natives for Subsistence the I-I Agreement totaled 174 bears for the Purposes period from 2007 to 2016 (Table 3). Of the 174 bears reported as harvested for subsistence Reported polar bear harvest for subsistence purposes in villages party to the I-I Agreement, purposes by Alaska Natives statewide totaled 101 bears (58%) were reported as male, 32 425 bears for the period from 2007 to 2016 (18%) as female, and the sex was unknown or (Table 3). Sex composition of the 425 bears was not reported for 41 bears (24%). If the reported as harvested for subsistence purposes assumption is made that bears of unknown or was similar to the total removals described unreported sex are female bears, the revised above: 259 bears (61%) were reported as male, female harvest totals 73 bears (42%). This sex 89 (21%) as female, and the sex was unknown composition was similar to that reported for or was not reported for 77 bears (18%). If the statewide harvest, though the sex was unknown

11 Alaska villages party to the I-I Agreement are: Atqasuk, Barrow, Kakatovik, Nuiqsut, and Wainwright.

159

or unreported for a higher percentage of bears observations are similar to other scientific in villages party to the I-I Agreement. findings that polar bears in the Beaufort Sea are The average annual harvest of polar bears arriving earlier on shore, increasing their length in villages party to the I-I Agreement was 17 of stay, and departing later back to sea ice bears, and ranged from a low of nine bears (in (Atwood et al. 2016). 2015) to a high of 31 bears (in 2013). Polar To reduce human-bear conflicts, the bears were harvested more consistently year- USFWS has been funding locally-hired Polar round in villages party to the I-I Agreement Bear Patrols since 2010 through a deterrence than when compared to statewide harvest program implemented locally by the NSB. (Figure 2). The lowest levels of harvest in Patrollers are trained to use non-lethal methods villages party to the I-I Agreement generally to keep bears out of town, which has been occurred in summer and fall months (i.e., the effective in providing community protection open water season), with the exception of for local residents, as well as reducing the September, the month in which fall subsistence number of bears killed in conflict situations in whaling activities generally occur. Kaktovik during the fall open water season. Another effort to reduce human-bear conflicts Management and Monitoring in town involves managing food attractants by Activities working with the non-profit organization Defenders of Wildlife to provide household food storage lockers that are designed to store Community-based Conservation subsistence foods in a manner that prevents Activities at Barter Island access by bears. As of 2016, four families have been provided with new, improved models that The USFWS has been conducting community- have been effective in preventing bears from based conservation activities at Kaktovik, receiving food rewards in town. The USFWS Alaska (on Barter Island), annually during the continues to work with Defenders of Wildlife fall open water period since 2002. The overall to seek additional funding for the construction goals are to monitor the number, age/sex class, of additional lockers, with the hopes that they body condition, and habitat use patterns of can be provided to all families in the bears that come to shore and aggregate near the community over the next few years. community, and to minimize human-bear conflicts. Monitoring results indicate that, on average, there were 30 polar bears per year from Tourism and Recreational Viewing

2002 to 2016 at Barter Island during the core The National Wildlife Refuge System monitoring period (September 7–26); no Improvement Act of 1997 identifies wildlife definitive upward or downward trend in observation as one of the six priority public abundance is apparent (Figure 2). However, an uses of Refuges. In Alaska, the majority of increasing trend in the number of bears present polar bear tourism and viewing occurs on at the onset of our core monitoring period Barter Island, in and near the village of seems to be occurring. For example, during the Kaktovik. The reliable annual presence of polar first five years of the study (2002–2006), no bears on land near Kaktovik has become more than 30 bears were counted during the increasingly known to the public, resulting in an first week of September. In 2012–2016, we increasing number of visitors who wish to view observed a minimum of 30 and up to 69 bears polar bears. during the first week of September in all years Growing tourism has resulted in an except 2015. Additionally, in 2016, 51 bears increasing need for the USFWS Arctic National were present as early as August 17, 2016, and 38 Wildlife Refuge to manage boat-based polar bears were still present during our final count bear viewing on Refuge waters surrounding on October 13, 2016. Local residents also Barter Island. Commercial uses of Arctic reported that about ten bears remained in the National Wildlife Refuge lands are monitored area until mid-November, most of which were to ensure activities are compatible with the family groups and sub-adult bears. These

160

purposes of the Refuge. This oversight, Polar bear viewing increased sharply formalized through Special Use Permits between 2011 and 2015; however, between (SUPs), seeks to meet the mission of the 2015 and 2016, visitor use numbers were fairly USFWS and the Refuge System, and comply static, indicating that the maximum number of with other applicable laws (e.g., ESA and visitors that can be accommodated may have MMPA), while allowing for responsible been met due to limits on available commercial commercial uses. To avoid potential negative flights, visitor housing, and number of impacts to polar bears from recreational authorized boat guides. viewing, and to address visitor concerns about USFWS. 2017. Guided recreational polar bear potential crowding while viewing polar bears, in viewing 2015-2016 summary report. 2016 Arctic Refuge implemented a voluntary 27 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. m (90 ft) distance buffer for boats viewing polar Available at: bears. Further, USFWS staff “meet and greet” https://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Re visitors, work with the Kaktovik Youth gion_7/NWRS/Zone_1/Arctic/PDF/2 Ambassadors to deliver polar bear safety and 015- awareness information, and provide input on 16%20PBV%20Summary%20Report.pd the Refuge’s efforts to develop a f. comprehensive polar bear viewing management strategy that will address the significant increase Non-lethal Deterrence of Polar Bears in polar bear viewing around Kaktovik. The USFWS works with partners to conduct Guided recreational polar bear viewing 2015–2016 polar bear training programs, such as polar bear summary report ― Visitor use data from Arctic awareness and safety, polar bear deterrence, and Refuge come from SUP reports submitted by train-the-trainer programs. In 2016, the commercial guides operating boats on the USFWS conducted eight training courses with waters surrounding Barter Island for the a total of 73 participants. Fifty-two students purposes of polar bear viewing.12 From 2011 to attended six polar bear deterrence training 2016, the viewing season (i.e., the period from courses and 21 students completed two the first to last date that commercial guides separate train-the-trainer courses. The USFWS operate during a year) averaged 87 days, from a published a polar bear deterrence train-the- minimum of 61 days (in 2016) to a maximum trainer manual in 2015 (USFWS 2015b). of 108 days (in 2015) due to variations in Since 2010, the USFWS has been environmental conditions (i.e., availability of providing funding, training assistance, and on- open water) and guide schedules. However, the the-ground support to the NSB Polar Bear number of viewing days (i.e., the number of Patrol program in Kaktovik. This program days commercial guides operated during the involves specially trained local residents who viewing season) averaged 56 days, from a provide a critical safety function for their minimum of 36 days (in 2011; a 94-day viewing community and contribute to polar bear season) to 80 days (in 2015; a 108-day viewing conservation by deterring bears from the village season). The number of views13 of polar bears using non-lethal methods. increased sharply from 260 views in 2011 to an estimated 2500 views in 2016; daily average Oil Spill Preparedness views increased from 7 in 2011 to 43 in 2016. Lastly, the average daily viewing hours for all The USFWS has identified minimizing risk of operators combined increased from 7 hours (in contamination from oil spills as a high priority 2011) to 30 hours (in 2016). conservation and recovery action in the Polar

12 Due to missing information from some client use 13 “Views” defined here as the count of all report, and inconsistent client use reporting, the data individuals, guides as well as clients, for each trip are considered to reflect minimum numbers, be they take, even if individuals take multiple trips per preliminary, and are subject to change. day.

161

Bear Conservation Management Plan (USFWS the environment for a period of 50 days 2016). We have been working with various following the spill. Simulations in the Chukchi partners to increase response capabilities for Sea also allowed for an underwater ‘blowout’ polar bears if an oil spill were to occur. While with a discharge of 25,000 barrels/day for 30 the USFWS’s response strategy emphasizes days, with released oil being tracked in the preventative measures, significant steps have environment for a period of 75 days following been taken in the last five years to improve the spill. The model predicted the probability response capabilities for treating a small that different areas of the ocean and coastline number of oiled polar bears. For example, the were oiled for all scenarios and the location and USFWS has joined other response partners to density of oil during each day of the simulation. form a marine mammal working group to Data derived from this study are currently being improve communication and planning among used to determine how much polar bear habitat response partners for marine mammals and would likely be affected by an oil spill in each conduct field drills. region, and how many bears might be exposed The USFWS updated the Oil Spill Response to oil if a spill were to occur. This information Plan for Polar Bears in Alaska (USFWS 2015a). will be useful for planning purposes on how to The Plan classifies response activities for polar respond to an oil spill, how large of a response bear protection into primary, secondary and might be needed, and where resources might be tertiary strategies. Primary response involves best deployed. The simulation component of keeping spilled oil away from polar bears and the study was completed in June 2016 and the physical protection of areas most important to USFWS expects to complete an assessment of polar bears. Primary response strategies also the potential impact to polar bears in 2017. include guidance on the removal of oiled carcasses from the environment to prevent International Treaties and scavenging/ingestion by polar bears. Conventions Secondary response is designed to prevent polar bears from entering oiled areas. Tertiary response involves the capture, handling, U.S.-Russian Bilateral Agreement transport, and treatment of oiled bears, and either their return to the wild or placement in a The U.S.-Russia Bilateral Agreement was designated facility. signed in 2000 to address the need for Progress has been made toward coordinated management of the shared increasing capacity to treat a small number of Chukchi Sea (i.e., Alaska-Chukotka) polar bear oiled polar bears in Alaska, including the design subpopulation that inhabits the Chukchi and and construction of specialized equipment such northern Bering seas. This treaty identified as washing tables, transport cages, and a goals to improve polar bear conservation and collapsible polar bear holding pen (Miller 2016). safeguard the cultural and traditional use of In addition, two experiments were conducted in polar bears by Native peoples. For Native 2012 to determine how best remove oil from peoples of Chukotka, this treaty is intended to polar bear fur, with promising results (S. Jensen, re-establish their ability to hunt polar bears for unpublished data). subsistence purposes. The Treaty established a In 2016, USFWS initiated a study to joint U.S.-Russia Commission responsible for determine the potential effects of oil spills in making management decisions concerning the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas during autumn polar bears in this region. The Commission is by running spill simulations for four sites in the composed of a Native and federal Beaufort Sea where oil production occurs, and representative from each country. four sites in the Chukchi Sea where production At a meeting in June 2010, the may occur in the future. Simulations at Commission decided to place an upper limit on Beaufort Sea wells were for a discharge of 4,800 harvest from the Chukchi Sea subpopulation of barrels/day from an underwater pipeline for a 19 female and 39 male (for a total of 58) polar six day period, with released oil being tracked in bears per year based on the recommendation of the Scientific Working Group (SWG; the body

162

formed to advise the Commission) and Inuvialuit-Inupiat Agreement (I-I identified subsistence needs. This harvest limit Agreement) has been re-affirmed by the Commission each year through 2016, and is split evenly between The I-I Agreement, signed in 1988 and Native peoples of Alaska and Chukotka. reaffirmed in 2000 by the Inuvialuit Game Therefore, the Alaskan share of the harvest is Council, and the NSB Fish and Game 29 polar bears (20 males and 9 females). The Management Committee, is a voluntary user-to- scientific basis for this decision was 14 user agreement between Inuvialuit (in Canada) documented in a 2010 report of the SWG . A and Inupiat (in Alaska) hunters. The I-I notice of the sustainable harvest limit was most Agreement provides for annual quotas, hunting recently published in the Federal Register on seasons, protection of bears in or during January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3153). construction of dens, females accompanied by cubs-of-the-year and yearlings, collection of Scientific Working Group of the information and specimens to monitor harvest U.S.-Russia Bilateral Agreement composition, and annual meetings to exchange information on the harvest, research, and The U.S.-Russia Bilateral Agreement management (Brower et al. 2002). The I-I also established SWG, the body responsible for establishes a Joint Commission to implement providing expert advice to the Commission on the I-I Agreement, and a Technical Advisory the basis of science and Traditional Knowledge. Committee, consisting of biologists from The SWG helps the Commission meet the dual agencies in the U.S. and Canada involved in goals of conserving and protecting the Chukchi research and management, to collect and Sea polar bear subpopulation, and of providing evaluate scientific data and make opportunities for sustainable subsistence use by recommendations to the Joint Commission. Native people in a manner consistent with national laws, as specified by the U.S.-Russia 1973 Agreement on the Conservation Bilateral Agreement. The SWG consists of of Polar Bears and Their Habitat American and Russian co-chairs, plus up to seven members from each country. Members (The Range States Agreement)

are selected and confirmed by the Commission In 1973, Canada, Denmark (Greenland), on the basis of having scientific or traditional Norway, the Soviet Union, and the U.S. knowledge of polar bear biology, habitat, or (collectively referred to as “the Range States”) wildlife management; and of having a direct and met and signed the Agreement on the active role in research, management, or Conservation of Polar Bears (the 1973 conservation of the Chukchi Sea polar bear Agreement). The 1973 Agreement was created subpopulation. due to concern over polar bear harvest levels, Since its formation in 2009, the SWG has largely as a result of sport hunting, and calls for met annually to review new information on the cooperative international management and status of the Chukchi Sea subpopulation and to protection of polar bears. Each country agreed provide recommendations to the Commission. to take appropriate action to protect the The SWG has developed planning documents ecosystems of which polar bears are a part, and including joint study plans applicable to the to manage polar bear populations in accordance entire subpopulation, and specific to polar with sound conservation practices based on the bears on Wrangel Island. Documents related to best available scientific data. In addition, the the work of the SWG are available at 1973 Agreement allows for traditional harvest https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/ of polar bears by local people using traditional polarbear/swg.htm.

14 Report available online at https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/ swg.htm.

163

methods, but requests additional protections environmental change drives increased for polar bear family groups and denning bears. land use by an Arctic marine predator. The Range States adopted a 10-year PLoS One 11:e0155932. Circumpolar Action Plan (CAP) in 2015 (Polar Bromaghin, J.F., McDonald, T.L., Stirling, I., Bear Range States 2015). The CAP emphasizes Derocher, A.E., Richardson, E.S., international cooperation to conserve polar Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D.C., Durner, bears across their range. The vision of the CAP G.M., Atwood, T., and Amstrup, S.C. is to secure the long-term persistence of polar 2015. Polar bear population dynamics in bears in the wild that represent the genetic, the southern Beaufort Sea during a behavioral, and ecological diversity of the period of sea ice decline. Ecological species. This vision cannot be achieved without Applications 25:634–651. adequate mitigation of greenhouse gas Conn, P.B., Moreland, E.E., Regehr, E.V., emissions by the global community. The Richmond, E.L., Cameron, F., and objectives of the CAP are to: Boveng, P.L. 2016. Using simulation to (a) Minimize threats to polar bears and evaluate wildlife survey designs: polar their habitat; bears and seals in the Chukchi Sea. Royal (b) Communicate to the public, policy Society Open Science 3:150561. makers, and legislators around the Durner, G.M., Douglas D.C., Albeke, S.E., world the importance of mitigating Whiteman, J.P., Amstrup, S.C., greenhouse gas emissions to polar Richardson, E., Wilson, R.R., and Ben- bear conservation; David, M.. 2017. Increased Arctic sea (c) Ensure the preservation and ice drift alters adult female polar bear protection of essential habitat for movements and energetics. Global Change polar bears; Biology 2017:1–14. (d) Ensure responsible harvest https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13746. management systems today that will Hunter, C.M., Caswell, H., Runge, M.C., sustain polar bear subpopulation for Regehr, E.V., Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, future generation; I. 2010. Climate change threatens polar (e) Manage human-bear interactions to bear populations: a stochastic ensure human safety and to demographic analysis. Ecology 91:2883– minimize polar bear injury or 2897. mortality; and, Laidre, K.L., and Regehr, E.V. 2017. Arctic (f) Ensure that international legal trade marine mammals and sea ice. Pages 516– of polar bears is carried out 533 in D. Thomas (ed.), Sea Ice, 3rd according to conservation principles Edition. West Sussex, United Kingdom: and that poaching and illegal trade is John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ISBN: 978-1- curtailed. 118-77838-8. In 2015, the Trade Working Group of the Laidre, K. L., Stern, H., Kovacs, K. M., Lowry, Range States produced six recommendations to L., Moore, S. E., Regehr, E. V., counter the threat of poaching and illegal trade Ferguson, S. H., Wiig, Ø., Boveng, P., in polar bear parts, enhance cooperation among Angliss, R. P., Born, E. W., Litovka, D., law enforcement agencies, improve the clarity Quakenbush, L., Lydersen, C., of legal trade data, and improve identification Vongraven, D., and Ugarte, F. 2015. of legally traded specimens. Arctic marine mammal population status, sea ice habitat loss, and conservation Publications on Polar Bears with recommendations for the 21st century. USFWS Authorship, 2010-2016 Conservation Biology 29:724–737. Lunn, N.J., Servanty, S., Regehr, E.V., Atwood, T.C., Peacock, E., McKinney, M.A., Converse, S.J., Richardson, E., and Lillie, K., Wilson, R., Douglas, D.C., Stirling, I. 2016. Demography of an apex Miller, S., and Terletzky, P. 2016. Rapid predator at the edge of its range: impacts

164

of changing sea ice on polar bears in a demographic model to inform western Hudson Bay, Canada. Ecological conservation planning for polar bears. Applications 26:1302–1320. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report Miller, S., Wilder, J., and Wilson, R.R. 2015. 2015-1029, 56 pp. [available at: Polar bear-grizzly bear interactions https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1029/p during the autumn open-water period in df/ofr2015-1029.pdf]. Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy 96:1317– Regehr, E., Wilson, R., Rode, K., Runge, M., 1325. and Stern, H. 2017. Harvesting wildlife Olson, J.W., Rode, K.D., Eggett, D., Smith, affected by climate change: a modeling T.S., Wilson, R.R., Durner, G.M., and management approach for polar Fischbach, A., Atwood, T.C., and bears. Journal of Applied Ecology. doi: Douglas, D.C. 2017. Collar temperature 10.1111/1365-2664.12864. sensor data reveal long-term patterns in Rode, K.D., Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D.C., southern Beaufort Sea polar bear den Durner, G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, distribution on pack ice and land. Marine G.W., and Budge, S.M. 2014. Variation Ecology Progress Series 564:211–224. in the response of an Arctic top predator Patyk, K.A., Duncan, C., Nol, P., Sonne, C., experiencing habitat loss: feeding and Laidre, K., Obbard, M., Wiig, Ø., Aars, J., reproductive ecology of two polar bear Regehr, E., Gustafson, L.L., and populations. Global Change Biology 20:76– Atwood, T. 2015. Establishing a 88. definition of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) Rode, K.D., Wilson, R.R., Regehr, E.V., St. health: a guide to research and Martin, M., Douglas, D.C., and Olson, J. management activities. Science of the Total 2015. Increased land use by Chukchi sea Environment 514:371–378. polar bears in relation to changing sea ice Peacock, E., Sonsthagen, S.A., Obbard, M.E., conditions. PLoS ONE 10(11): Boltunov, A., Regehr, E.V., Ovsyanikov, e0142213. N., Aars, J., Atkinson, S.N., Sage, G.K., doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142213. Hope, A.G., Zeyl, E., Bachmann, L., Schliebe, S.L., Benter, B., Regehr, E.V., Ehrich, D., Scribner, K.T., Amstrup, Quakenbush, L., Omelak, J., Nelson, M., S.C., Belikov, S., Born, E.W., Derocher, and Nesvacil, K. 2016. Co-management A.E., Stirling, I., Taylor, M.K., Wiig, Ø., of the Alaskan harvest of the Alaska- Paetkau, D., and Talbot, S.L. 2015. Chukotka polar bear subpopulation: how Implications of the circumpolar genetic to implement a harvest quota. Wildlife structure of polar bears for their Technical Bulletin conservation in a rapidly warming Arctic. ADF&G/DWC/WTB-2016-15. Alaska Plos One 10: e112021. Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Regehr, E.V., Hunter, C.M., Caswell, H., Alaska, U.S.A., 65 pp. [available at: Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, I. 2010. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/hom Survival and breeding of polar bears in e/library/pdfs/wildlife/research_pdfs/ the southern Beaufort Sea in relation to wtb_2016_15_comanagement_alaska_c sea ice. Journal of Animal Ecology 79:117– hukotka_polar_bear_harvest_quota.pdf] 127. . Regehr, E., Laidre, K., Akçakaya, H.R., Stirling, I., McDonald, T.L., Richardson, E.S., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Lunn, N., Regehr, E.V., and Amstrup, S.C. 2011. Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, G., Polar bear population status in the and Wiig, Ø. 2016. Conservation status northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971– of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation 2006. Ecological Applications 21:859–876. to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Ware, J.V., Rode, K.D., Bromaghin, J.F., Letters 12:20160556. Douglas, D., Wilson, R.W., Regehr, E.V., Regehr, E.V., Wilson, R.R., Rode, K.D., and Amstrup, S.C., Durner, G., Pagano, A., Runge, M.C. 2015. Resilience and risk– Olson, J., Robbins, C.T., and Jansen,

165

H.T. 2017. The behavioral response of 2002. The polar bear management polar bears to habitat degradation in the agreement for the Southern Beaufort Sea: Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Oecologia. an evaluation of the first ten years of a doi: 10.1007/s00442-017-3839-y. unique conservation agreement. Arctic Wiig, Ø., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Laidre, K., 55:362–372. Lunn, N., Obbard, M., Regehr, E., and Miller, S. 2016. Increasing oil spill response Thiemann, G. 2015. Ursus maritimus. capabilities for polar bears in Alaska. The IUCN red list of threatened species Poster presented at the 24th 2015:e.T22823A14871490. International Conference on Bear Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., Laidre, K.L., Deitz, R., Research and Management, Anchorage, Jensen, M.V., Durner, G.M., Pagano, Alaska, U.S.A. A.M., Regehr, E.V., St. Martin, M., Polar Bear Range States. 2015. Circumpolar Atkinson, S., and Dyck, M. 2017. action plan: conservation strategy for the Performance and retention of lightweight polar bear. A product of the satellite radio tags applied to the ears of representatives of the parties to the 1973 polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Animal Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Biotelemetry 5:9. Bears (Polar Bear Range States), 80 pp. Wilson, R.R., Horne, J.S., Rode, K.D., Regehr, USFWS. 2015a. Oil spill response plan for E.V., and Durner, G.M. 2014. polar bears in Alaska. U.S. Fish and Identifying polar bear resource selection Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals patterns to inform offshore development Management, Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A. in a dynamic and changing Arctic. [available at Ecosphere 5:136. https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/c Wilson, R.R., Regehr, E.V., Rode, K.D., and St. ontaminants/pdf/Polar%20Bear%20W Martin, M. 2016. Invariant polar bear RP%20final%20v8_Public%20website.p habitat selection during a period of sea df]. ice loss. Proceedings of the Royal Society B USFWS. 2015b. Polar bear deterrent training 283:20160380. manual: instructor guidelines and student Whiteman, J.P., Harlow, H.J., Durner, G.M., handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Anderson-Sprecher, R., Albeke, S.E., Service, Marine Mammals Management, Regehr, E.V., Amstrup, S.C., and Ben- Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A. [available at David, M. 2015. Summer declines in https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/ activity and body temperature offer polar mmm/polarbear/det_training_manual.h bears limited energy savings. Science tm]. 349:295–298. USFWS. 2016. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) conservation management plan, final. References U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A. [available at Atwood, T.C., Peacock, E., McKinney, M.A., https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/ Lillie, K., Wilson, R., Douglas, D.C., mmm/polarbear/pdf/PBRT_Recovery Miller, S., and Terletzky, P. 2016. Rapid _%20Plan_Book_FINAL_signed.pdf]. environmental change drives increased USFWS. 2017. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) 5- land use by an Arctic marine predator. year review: summary and evaluation. PLoS One 11:e0155932. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7, Brower, C.D., Carpenter, A., Branigan, M.L., Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A. [available at Calvert, W., Evans, T., Fischbach, A.S., https://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/ Nagy, J.A., Schliebe, S., and Stirling, I. mmm/polarbear/pdf/PB-5-yr-Review- FINAL-signed-Feb-3-17.pdf].

166

Tables Table 1. Reported human-caused polar bear mortalities in Alaska, by sex and village, 2007–2016. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Village F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U Atqasuk* 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Barrow* 5 7 3 1 11 3 3 5 2 4 3 3 1 7 5 2 3 2 1 7 9 2 4 1 0 3 0 2 9 0 108 Brevig Mission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Cape Lisburne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Fort Yukon 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Gambell 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 3 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 36 Kaktovik* 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 Kivalina 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 Kotzebue 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Little Diomede 2 3 0 3 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 25 Noatak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Nome 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Noorvik 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Nuiqsut* 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 13 Point Hope 2 7 1 5 5 5 1 3 1 0 2 1 4 28 2 7 16 8 1 12 2 0 6 0 0 3 1 1 6 0 130 Point Lay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Prudhoe Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Savoonga 5 5 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Shishmaref 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 Wainwright* 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 11 2 1 8 1 2 3 0 0 7 0 1 6 1 53 Wales 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Total 23 36 9 11 21 9 12 14 5 7 14 7 12 44 7 16 53 17 8 37 18 4 18 4 0 14 2 5 26 3 456 * Villages party to the I-I Agreement.

167

Table 2. Reported types of human-caused polar bear mortalities in Alaska, 2007–2016. Mortality Type 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Subsistence 68 39 26 24 59 81 55 22 14 30 418 Defense of life 0 1 4 3 2 2 6 0 2 4 24 Research mortality 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Industry 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Struck and lost 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 0 7 Zoo collection 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Euthanized 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Defense of life (by a non-Native person) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Total 68 41 31 28 63 86 63 26 16 34 456

168

Table 3. Reported harvest of polar bears by Alaska Natives in Alaska, by sex and village, 2007–2016. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Village F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U F M U Atqasuk 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Barrow 5 7 3 1 10 3 3 5 2 4 3 2 1 6 5 1 3 2 1 7 9 2 4 1 0 3 0 2 7 0 102 Brevig Mission 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Gambell 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 10 3 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 36 Kaktovik 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 13 Kivalina 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 Kotzebue 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Little Diomede 2 3 0 3 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 25 Noatak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Nome 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Noorvik 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Nuiqsut 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 Point Hope 2 7 1 5 5 5 1 3 1 0 1 1 4 28 2 7 16 7 1 11 2 0 6 0 0 3 1 1 6 0 127 Point Lay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Savoonga 5 5 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Shishmaref 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 Wainwright 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 11 2 1 4 1 2 3 0 0 6 0 1 4 1 45 Wales 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Total 23 36 9 10 20 9 8 13 5 7 12 6 10 42 7 15 53 16 7 31 18 4 17 3 0 13 1 5 22 3 425

169

Figures Fig. 1. Average reported mortality and subsistence removals of polar bears in Alaska, and in Alaska villages party to the I-I Agreement, 2007–2016.

9 Mortality, statewide Subsistence removals, statewide 8 Mortality, I-I Agreement Subsistence removals, I-I Agreement 7

6

5

4

3 Numberof Polar Bears 2

1

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

170

Fig. 2. Polar bears observed at Barter Island, Alaska, September 7–26, 2002–2016.

Minimum 90 Maximum

80 Average

70

60

50

40

30 Numberof Polar Bears 20

10

0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Year

171

U.S. Geological Survey Research on Polar Bears, 2010–2016 T.C. Atwood, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA K.D. Rode, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA K.S. Simac, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA G.M. Durner, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA A.M. Pagano, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA E. Peacock, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA J.F. Bromaghin, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 4210 University Drive, Anchorage, Alaska 99508, USA D.C. Douglas, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 250 Egan Drive, Juneau, Alaska 99801, USA

Since the 15th Working Meeting of the Polar for studying polar bears. Research efforts are Bear Specialist Group in 2009, the U.S. largely focused on improving our capacity to Geological Survey (USGS) continued its studies model population responses to changing directed towards understanding the status of environmental conditions and reducing the the subpopulation of polar bears in the uncertainty of population forecasts. southern Beaufort Sea. Research objectives were targeted at quantifying polar bear Southern Beaufort Sea population dynamics, movements and distribution, foraging behavior, habitat use, Subpopulation health, and the impacts of climate change. USGS continues this research in order to USGS polar bear research is focused on address the information needs of management developing indices of population vital rates in agencies within the Department of the Interior the Southern Beaufort Sea (SB) subpopulation, (DOI), including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and improving our understanding of how polar Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land Management bears are responding to environmental change. (BLM), and Bureau of Ocean Energy The USGS is committed to describing and Management (BOEM). This research also explaining the environmental mechanisms that serves to inform the co-management agreement determine the status and trend of polar bear between the Inuvialuit Game Council in populations. The USGS continues to welcome Canada and the North Slope Borough in the international collaborations that help reduce United States. the uncertainty of forecasts for those polar bear Since 2007, the USGS has continued subpopulations in Alaska and elsewhere, research on the relationship between polar particularly regions with limited data. bears and their changing environment. Much The USGS has conducted annual mark- of our previous and continuing long-term recapture field work in the SB during late- research has employed standard mark- March through mid-May (spring). The primary recapture methods, though significant effort focus is to maintain a consistent data record for and resources are being devoted to adapting continued future assessments of age and sex and developing less- and non-invasive methods composition, survival, and recruitment. The spring capture work also provides valuable

172

body condition and physiological data Recent Research representative of the SB subpopulation. Additionally, a small subset of bears is radio- tagged to assess movements and habitat use, Population ecology studies and distribution and timing of maternal Forecasting the relative influence of environmental and denning. This long-term program has been the anthropogenic stressors on polar bears ― Effective foundation of the information provided to conservation planning requires understanding managers and stakeholders in Alaska and and ranking threats to wildlife populations. We neighboring areas for more than 30 years. developed a Bayesian network model to

evaluate the relative influence of environmental Characteristics of the SB spring and anthropogenic stressors, and their sampling mitigation, on the persistence of polar bears. Overall sea ice conditions, affected by rising During spring field work in 2010-2016, we global temperatures, were the most influential captured an average of 59 ± 17 (SD) polar bears determinant of population outcomes. per year. This is less than the 88 ± 14 SD Accordingly, unabated rise in atmospheric individuals captured each year during 2005- greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations was the 2009. We assessed body condition of captured dominant influence leading to worsened animals using a subjective fatness index in population outcomes, with polar bears in 3 of 4 which condition category 1 represents a bear in ecoregions reaching a dominant probability of very poor condition and condition category 5 decreased or greatly decreased by the latter part represents an obese bear. From 2010-2016, the of this century. Stabilization of atmospheric annual proportion of independent sub-adult GHG concentrations by mid-century delayed (<5 years old) and adult bears (without the greatly reduced state by ≈25 yr in two dependent young) in condition category 3 (i.e., ecoregions. Prompt and aggressive mitigation “average”) was 0.48, 0.83, 0.79, 0.85, 0.80, 0.65, of emissions reduced the probability of any and 0.89, respectively. Although there was regional population becoming greatly reduced considerable fluctuation of proportions within by up to 25%. Marine prey availability, linked each condition category, no category 1 and closely to sea ice trend, had slightly less category 5 bears were reported during the influence on outcome state than sea ice duration and no category 4 bears were observed availability itself. Reduced mortality from during spring 2015 (Fig. 1). hunting and defense of life and property The proportion of bears in the spring interactions resulted in modest declines in the sample by major age class for each year is probability of a decreased or greatly decreased presented in Figure 2. Since 2010, a large population outcome. Minimizing other proportion of the captures have been adult stressors such as trans-Arctic shipping, oil and bears. The proportion of cubs-of-the-year gas exploration, and contaminants had a (COY) has remained relatively unchanged, negligible effect on polar bear outcomes, while the proportions of yearlings and 2-yr-old although the model was not well-informed with animals have declined. No 2-yr old bears were respect to the potential influence of these observed in 2014 or 2015. stressors. Adverse consequences of loss of sea The annual proportion of recaptures by ice habitat became more pronounced as the total captures for adult (≥5 years) polar bears summer ice-free period lengthened beyond 4 encountered by standard search (i.e., months, which could occur in most of the opportunistic) in the SB during spring is shown Arctic basin after mid-century if GHG in Table 1. The proportion of recaptures has emissions are not promptly reduced. Long- averaged 58% since 2010. The percentage of term conservation of polar bears would be best recaptured bears in 2016 was 47%, the lowest supported by holding global mean temperature recorded during spring field work since 2011. to ≤ 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Until further sea ice loss is stopped, management of other stressors may serve to slow the transition

173

of populations to progressively worsened this ecoregion’s potential to serve as a long- outcomes, and improve the prospects for their term refugium. The most influential drivers of long-term persistence. adverse polar bear outcomes were declines to Atwood, T.C., Marcot, B., Douglas, D., overall sea ice conditions and to the marine prey Amstrup, S., Rode, K., Durner, G., and base. Improved sea ice conditions Bromaghin, J. 2016. Forecasting the substantively lowered the probability of a relative influence of environmental and decreased or greatly decreased outcome, while anthropogenic stressors on polar bears. an elevated marine prey base was slightly less Ecosphere 7(6):e01370.10.1002/ecs2.1370. influential in lowering the probability of a decreased or greatly decreased outcome. Evaluating and ranking threats to the long-term Stressors associated with in situ human activities persistence of polar bears ― The polar bear was exerted considerably less influence on listed as a globally threatened species under the population outcomes. Reduced mortality from U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2008, hunting and defense of life and property mostly due to the significant threat to their interactions resulted in modest declines in the future population viability from rapidly probability of a decreased or greatly decreased declining Arctic sea ice. A core mandate of the population outcome. Minimizing other ESA is the development of a recovery plan that stressors such as trans-Arctic shipping, oil and identifies steps to maintain viable populations gas exploration, and point-source pollution had of a listed species. A substantive evaluation of negligible effects on polar bear outcomes, but the relative influence of putative threats to that could be attributed to uncertainties in the population persistence is helpful to recovery ecological relevance of those specific stressors. planning. Because management actions must Our findings suggest adverse consequences of often be taken in the face of substantial loss of sea ice habitat become more information gaps, a formalized evaluation pronounced as the summer ice-free period hypothesizing potential stressors and their lengthens beyond 4 months, which could occur relationships with population persistence can in portions of the Arctic by the middle of this improve identification of relevant conservation century under the unabated pathway. The long- actions. To this end, we updated a Bayesian term persistence of polar bears may be achieved network model previously used to forecast the through ameliorating the loss of sea ice habitat, future status of polar bears worldwide. We which will likely require stabilizing CO2 used new information on actual and predicted emissions at or below the ceiling represented by sea ice loss and polar bear responses to evaluate RCP 4.5. Management of other stressors may the relative influence of plausible threats and serve to slow the transition of polar bear their mitigation through management actions populations to progressively worsened on the persistence of polar bears in four outcomes, and improve the prospects of ecoregions. We found that polar bear persistence, pending GHG mitigation. outcomes worsened over time through the end Atwood, T.C., Marcot, B., Douglas, D., of the century under both stabilized and Amstrup, S., Rode. K., Durner, G., and unabated greenhouse gas (GHG) emission Bromaghin, J. 2015. Evaluating and pathways. Under the unabated pathway (i.e., ranking threats to the long-term RCP 8.5), the time it took for polar bear persistence of polar bears. U.S. populations in two of four ecoregions to reach Geological Survey, Open-File Report, a dominant probability of greatly decreased was 2014–1254, 114 p., hastened by about 25 years. Under the http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141254 stabilized GHG emission pathway (i.e., RCP . 4.5), where GHG emissions peak around the year 2040, the polar bear population in the Summer declines in activity and body temperature offer Archipelago Ecoregion of High Arctic Canada polar bears limited energy savings ― Polar bears never reached a dominant probability of greatly summer on the sea ice or, where it melts, on decreased, reinforcing earlier suggestions of shore. Although the physiology of “ice” bears

174

in summer is unknown, “shore” bears from 2008 to 2010, with ~900 bears in 2010 purportedly minimize energy losses by entering (90% CI = 606–1212). However, survival of a hibernation-like state when deprived of food. subadult bears declined throughout the entire Such a strategy could partially compensate for period. Reduced spatial and temporal the loss of on-ice foraging opportunities caused availability of sea ice is expected to increasingly by climate change. However, here we report force population dynamics of polar bears as the gradual, moderate declines in activity and body climate continues to warm. However, in the temperature of both shore and ice bears in short term, our findings suggest that factors summer, resembling energy expenditures other than sea ice can influence survival. A typical of fasting, nonhibernating mammals. refined understanding of the ecological Also, we found that to avoid unsustainable heat mechanisms underlying polar bear population loss while swimming, bears employed unusual dynamics is necessary to improve projections of heterothermy of the body core. Thus, although their future status and facilitate development of well adapted to seasonal ice melt, polar bears management strategies. appear susceptible to deleterious declines in Bromaghin, J.F., McDonald, T.L., Stirling, I., body condition during the lengthening period Derocher, A.E., Richardson, E.S., of summer food deprivation. Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D.C., Durner, Whiteman, J.P., Harlow, H.J., Durner, G. M., G.M., Atwood, T., and Amstrup, S.C. Anderson-Sprecher, R., Albeke, S.E., 2015. Polar bear population dynamics in Regehr, E.V., Amstrup, S.C., and Ben- the southern Beaufort Sea during a David, M. 2015. Summer declines in period of sea ice decline. Ecological activity and body temperature offer polar Applications 25:634–651. bears limited energy savings. Science 349(6245):295–298. Demographic composition and behavior of polar bears doi:10.1126/science.aaa8623. summering on shore in Alaska ― Historically, polar bears of the southern Beaufort Sea (SB) have Polar bears in the Beaufort Sea: population decline and remained on the sea ice year-round (except stabilization in the 2000’s ― In the southern during denning), but recent changes in the Beaufort Sea of the United States and Canada, extent and phenology of sea ice habitat have prior investigations have linked declines in coincided with increased use of terrestrial summer sea ice to reduced physical condition, habitat. We characterized the demographic growth, and survival of polar bears. Combined composition, spatial behavior, and nutritional with projections of population decline due to condition of polar bears spending summer on continued climate warming and the ensuing loss shore along Alaska’s northern coast to better of sea ice habitat, those findings contributed to understand the nexus between rapid the 2008 decision to list the species as environmental change and increased use of threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species terrestrial habitat. We found that the Act. Here, we used mark–recapture models to proportion of the SB subpopulation coming investigate the population dynamics of polar ashore in summer and fall doubled from 2000 bears in the southern Beaufort Sea from 2001 to 2014, and the sex and age class composition to 2010, years during which the spatial and of polar bears on shore was similar to the temporal extent of summer sea ice generally composition of bears encountered in our study declined. Low survival from 2004 through area on the sea ice in spring. Moreover, we 2006 led to a 25–50% decline in abundance. detected trends of earlier arrival on shore, We hypothesize that low survival during this increased length of stay, and later departure period resulted from (1) unfavorable ice back to sea ice, all of which were related to conditions that limited access to prey during declines in the availability of sea ice habitat over multiple seasons; and possibly, (2) low prey the continental shelf and changes to sea ice abundance. For reasons that are not clear, phenology. Since the late 1990s, the duration survival of adults and cubs began to improve in of the open-water season in the SB increased by 2007 and abundance was comparatively stable 36 days, and the length of stay on shore

175

increased by 25 days. While on shore, the large body size, good body condition, and high distribution of polar bears was influenced by indices of recruitment compared to most other the availability of scavenge subsidies in the populations measured to date. Higher form of subsistence-harvested bowhead whale biological productivity and prey availability in (Balaena mysticetus) remains aggregated at sites the CS relative to the SB, and a shorter recent along the coast. Analyses of nutritional history of reduced sea ice habitat, may explain condition suggest bears may derive a benefit the maintenance of condition and recruitment from scavenging. The declining availability of of CS bears. These geographic differences in sea ice habitat, the lengthening melt season, and the response of polar bears to climate change increased availability of human-provisioned are relevant to range-wide forecasts for this and resources are likely to result in continued other ice-dependent species. growing use of land. Increased residency on Rode, K.D., Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D.C., land is cause for concern given that, while there, Durner, G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, bears may be exposed to a greater array of risk G.W., and Budge, S.M. 2014. Variation factors including those associated with in the response of an Arctic top predator increased human activities. experiencing habitat loss: feeding and Atwood, T.C., Peacock, E., McKinney, M.A., reproductive ecology of two polar bear Lillie, K., Wilson, R., and Miller, S. 2015. populations. Global Change Biology 20:76– Demographic composition and behavior 88. of polar bears summering on shore in Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey, Effects of capturing and collaring on bears: findings from Administrative Report, 27 p. long-term research on the southern Beaufort population ― The potential for research methods to affect Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator wildlife is an increasing concern among both experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive scientists and the public. This topic has a ecology of two polar bear populations ― In this study, particular urgency for polar bears because we compared the body size, condition, and additional research is needed to monitor and recruitment of polar bears captured in the understand population responses to rapid loss Chukchi-Bering Seas (CS) between two periods of sea ice habitat. This study used data (1986-1994 and 2008-2011) when declines in collected from polar bears sampled in the sea ice habitat occurred. Additionally, we Alaska portion of the southern Beaufort Sea to compared metrics for the CS population 2008- investigate the potential for capture to adversely 2011 with those of the adjacent Southern affect behavior and vital rates. We evaluated Beaufort Sea (SB) population where loss in sea the extent to which capture, collaring, and ice habitat has been associated with declines in handling may influence activity and movement body condition, size, recruitment, and survival. days to weeks post-capture, and body mass, We evaluated how variation in body condition body condition, reproduction, and survival over and recruitment were related to feeding 6 months or more. We compared post-capture ecology. Comparing habitat conditions activity and movement rates, and relationships between populations, there were twice as many between prior capture history and body mass, reduced-ice days over continental shelf waters body condition and reproductive success. We per year in 2008-2011 in the SB than the CS. CS also summarized data on capture-related polar bears were larger and in better condition, mortality. Individual-based estimates of activity and appeared to have higher reproduction than and movement rates reached near-normal levels SB bears. Although SB and CS bears had within 2-3 days and fully normal levels within 5 similar diets, twice as many bears were fasting days post-capture. Models of activity and in spring in the SB than the CS. Between 1986- movement rates among all bears had poor fit, 1994 and 2008-2011, body size, condition, and but suggested potential for prolonged, lower- recruitment indices in the CS were not reduced level rate reductions. Repeated captures were despite a 44-day increase in the number of not related to negative effects on body reduced-ice days. Bears in the CS exhibited condition, reproduction, or cub growth or

176

survival. Capture related mortality was continental shelf of Baffin Island. The variance substantially reduced after 1986, when around the survival estimates is comparatively immobilization drugs were changed, with only high because of the declining number of marks 3 mortalities in 2,517 captures from 1987-2013. available; therefore, results must be interpreted Polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea with caution. The variance of the estimates of exhibited the greatest reductions in activity and survival increased most substantially in the movement rates 3.5 days post-capture. These sixth-year post-marking. When survival shorter-term, post-capture effects do not estimates calculated with recovery-only and appear to have translated into any long-term recapture-recovery data sets from the period of effects on body condition, reproduction, or cub active marking were compared, survival rates survival. Additionally, collaring had no effect were indistinguishable. However, for the on polar bear recovery rates, body condition, period when fewer marks were available, reproduction, or cub survival. This study survival estimates were lower using the provides empirical evidence that current recovery-only data set, which indicates that part capture-based research methods do not have of the decline we detected for 2003–2009 may long term implications, and are not contributing be due to using only harvest recovery data. to observed changes in body condition, Nevertheless, the decline in the estimates of reproduction, or survival in the southern survival is consistent with population Beaufort Sea. Continued refinement of capture projections derived from harvest numbers and protocols, such as the use of low-impact dart earlier vital rates, as well as with an observed rifles and reversible drug combinations, might decline in the extent of sea ice habitat. improve polar bear response to capture and Peacock, E., Laake, J.L., Laidre, K.L., Born, abate short-term reductions in activity and E.W., and Atkinson, S.N. 2012. The movement post-capture. utility of harvest recoveries of marked Rode, K.D., Pagano, A., Bromaghin, J.F., individuals to assess polar bear (Ursus Atwood, T.C., Durner, G.M., Simac, maritimus) survival. Arctic 65(4):391–400. K.S., and Amstrup, S.C. 2014. Effects of capturing and collaring on bears: A tale of two polar bear populations: climate change, findings from long-term research on the harvest, and body condition ― At the time of this southern Beaufort population. Wildlife publication, negative effects of sea ice loss had Research 41:311–322. been documented for two of 19 recognized populations. Effects of sea ice loss on other The utility of harvest recoveries of marked individuals to polar bear populations that differ in harvest assess polar bear survival ― Management of polar rate, population density, and/or feeding bear populations requires the periodic ecology have been assumed, but empirical assessment of life history metrics such as support, especially quantitative data on survival rate. This information is frequently population size, demography, and/or body obtained during short-term capture and condition spanning two or more decades, have marking efforts (e.g., over the course of three been lacking. We examined trends in body years) that result in hundreds of marked bears condition metrics of captured bears and remaining in the population after active relationships with summertime ice marking is finished. Using 10 additional years concentration between 1977 and 2010 for the of harvest recovery subsequent to a period of Baffin Bay (BB) and Davis Strait (DS) polar active marking, we provide updated estimates bear populations. Polar bears in these regions of annual survival for polar bears in the Baffin occupy areas with annual sea ice that has Bay population of Greenland and Canada. Our decreased markedly starting in the 1990s. analysis suggests a decline in survival of polar Despite differences in harvest rate, population bears since the period of active marking that density, sea ice concentration, and prey base, ended in 1997; some of the decline in survival polar bears in both populations exhibited can likely be attributed to a decline in positive relationships between body condition springtime ice concentration over the and summertime sea ice cover during the recent

177

period of sea ice decline. Furthermore, females the traditional and legal Inuvialuit harvest has and cubs exhibited relationships with sea ice not exceeded sustainable levels. However, the that were not apparent during the earlier period amount of ice remaining in the study area at the (1977-1990s) when sea ice loss did not occur. end of summer, and the proportion that We suggested that declining body condition in continues to lie over the biologically productive BB may be a result of recent declines in sea ice continental shelf (<300 m water depth) has habitat. In DS, high population density and/or declined over the 35-year period of this study. sea ice loss may be responsible for the declines If the climate continues to warm as predicted, in body condition. we predict that the polar bear population in the Rode, K.D., Peacock, E., Taylor, M., Stirling, I., northern Beaufort Sea will eventually decline. Born, E.W., Laidre, K.L., and Wiig, Ø. Management and conservation practices for 2012. A tale of two polar bear polar bears in relation to both aboriginal populations: climate change, harvest, and harvesting and offshore industrial activity will body condition. Population Ecology 54:3– need to adapt. 18. Stirling, I., McDonald, T.L., Richardson, E.S., Regehr, E.V., and Amstrup, S.C. 2011. Polar bear population status in the Northern Beaufort Polar bear population status in the Sea, Canada, 1971-2006 ― Polar bears of the Northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971- northern Beaufort Sea (NB) population occur 2006. Ecological Applications 21(3):859– on the perimeter of the polar basin adjacent to 876. doi:10.1890/10-0849.1. the northwestern islands of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Sea ice converges on the islands Reduced body size and cub recruitment in polar bears through most of the year. We used open- associated with sea ice decline ― This study is the population capture–recapture models to published version of a previous USGS report. estimate population size and vital rates of polar We tested whether patterns in body size, bears between 1971 and 2006 to: (1) assess condition, and cub recruitment of polar bears relationships between survival, sex and age, and in the southern Beaufort Sea (SB) of Alaska time period; (2) evaluate the long-term were related to the availability of preferred sea importance of sea ice quality and availability in ice habitats and whether these measures and relation to climate warming; and (3) note future habitat availability exhibited trends over time, management and conservation concerns. The between 1982 and 2006. The mean skull size highest-ranking models suggested that survival and body length of all polar bears over 3 years of polar bears varied by age class and with of age declined over time corresponding with changes in the sea ice habitat. Model-averaged long term declines in the spatial and temporal estimates of survival (which includes harvest availability of sea ice habitat. Body size of mortality) for senescent adults ranged from young, growing bears declined over time and 0.37 to 0.62, from 0.22 to 0.68 for cubs of the was smaller after years when sea ice availability year (COY) and yearlings, and from 0.77 to 0.92 was reduced. Reduced litter mass and numbers for 2–4 year-olds and adults. Horvtiz- of yearlings per female following years with Thompson (HT) estimates of population size lower availability of optimal sea ice habitat, were not significantly different among the suggest reduced reproductive output and decades of our study. The population size juvenile survival. These results, based on estimated for the 2000s was 980 ± 155 (mean analysis of a long-term data set, suggest that and 95% CI). These estimates apply primarily declining sea ice is associated with nutritional to that segment of the NB population residing limitations that reduced body size and west and south of Banks Island. The NB polar reproduction in this population. bear population appears to have been stable or Rode, K.D., Amstrup, S.C., and Regehr, E.V. possibly increasing slightly during the period of 2010. Reduced body size and cub our study. This suggests that ice conditions recruitment in polar bears associated with have remained suitable and similar for feeding sea ice decline. Ecological Applications in summer and fall during most years and that 20:768–782.

178

polar bear as a threatened species under the Climate change threatens polar bear populations: A U.S. Endangered Species Act. stochastic demographic analysis ― The polar bear Hunter, C.M., Caswell, H., Runge, M.C., depends on sea ice for feeding, breeding, and Regehr, E.V., Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, movement. Significant reductions in Arctic sea I. 2010. Climate change threatens polar ice are forecast to continue because of climate bear populations: A stochastic warming. We evaluated the impacts of climate demographic analysis. Ecology 91:2883– change on polar bears in the southern Beaufort 2897. Sea by means of a demographic analysis, combining deterministic, stochastic, Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and environment-dependent matrix population increase polar bear persistence ― On the basis of models with forecasts of future sea ice projected losses of their essential sea-ice conditions from IPCC general circulation habitats, a United States Geological Survey models (GCMs). The matrix population research team concluded in 2007 that two- models classified individuals by age and thirds of the world’s polar bears could breeding status; mothers and dependent cubs disappear by mid-century if business-as-usual were treated as units. Parameter estimates were greenhouse gas emissions continue. That obtained from a capture–recapture study projection, however, did not consider the conducted from 2001 to 2006. Candidate possible benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. statistical models allowed vital rates to vary with A key question is whether temperature time and as functions of a sea ice covariate. increases lead to proportional losses of sea-ice Model averaging was used to produce the vital habitat, or whether sea-ice cover crosses a rate estimates, and a parametric bootstrap tipping point and irreversibly collapses when procedure was used to quantify model selection temperature reaches a critical threshold. Such a and parameter estimation uncertainty. tipping point would mean future greenhouse Deterministic models projected population gas mitigation would confer no conservation growth in years with more extensive ice benefits to polar bears. Here we show, using a coverage (2001–2003) and population decline general circulation model, that substantially in years with less ice coverage (2004–2005). more sea-ice habitat would be retained if LTRE (life table response experiment) analysis greenhouse gas rise is mitigated. We also show, showed that the reduction in λ in years with low with Bayesian network model outcomes, that sea ice was due primarily to reduced adult increased habitat retention under greenhouse female survival, and secondarily to reduced gas mitigation means that polar bears could breeding. A stochastic model with two persist throughout the century in greater environmental states, good and poor sea ice numbers and more areas than in the business- conditions, projected a declining stochastic as-usual case. Our general circulation model growth rate, log λs, as the frequency of poor ice outcomes did not reveal thresholds leading to years increased. The observed frequency of irreversible loss of ice; instead, a linear poor ice years since 1979 would imply log λs ≈ relationship between global mean surface air -0.01, which agrees with available (albeit crude) temperature and sea-ice habitat substantiated observations of population size. The stochastic the hypothesis that sea-ice thermodynamics can model was linked to a set of 10 GCMs compiled overcome albedo feedbacks proposed to cause by the IPCC; the models were chosen for their sea-ice tipping points. Our outcomes indicate ability to reproduce historical observations of that rapid summer ice losses in models and sea ice and were forced with “business as usual” observations represent increased volatility of a (A1B) greenhouse gas emissions. The resulting thinning sea-ice cover, rather than tipping-point stochastic population projections showed behaviour. Mitigation-driven Bayesian network drastic declines in the polar bear population by outcomes show that previously predicted the end of the 21st century. These projections declines in polar bear distribution and numbers were instrumental in the decision to list the are not unavoidable. Because polar bears are sentinels of the Arctic marine ecosystem and

179

trends in their sea-ice habitats foreshadow consumed less ringed seal and/or more future global changes, mitigating greenhouse bowhead whale than those in worse condition. gas emissions to improve polar bear status Therefore, climate variation over this recent would have conservation benefits throughout period appeared to influence the extent of and beyond the Arctic. onshore versus on-ice food use, which in turn, Amstrup, S.C., DeWeaver, E.T., Douglas, D.C., appeared to be linked to fluctuating condition Marcot, B.G., Durner, G.M., Bitz, C.M., of SB polar bears. and Bailey, D.A. 2010. Greenhouse gas McKinney, M., Atwood, T.C., Iverson, S.J., and mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and Peacock, L. 2017. Temporal complexity increase polar bear persistence. Nature of southern Beaufort Sea polar bear diets 468:955–958. doi:10.1038/nature09653. during a period of increasing land use. Ecosphere 8(1):e01633. Foraging ecology studies 10.1002/ecs2.1633.

Onshore food subsidies add complexity to the response of Isotopic turnover and effects of fasting and dietary lipids Alaska polar bears to climate change ― From 2000- on isotopic discrimination in a large, carnivorous 2013, use of land as a seasonal habitat by polar mammal ― Two primary chemical tracers are bears of the Southern Beaufort Sea (SB) used to estimate polar bear diets: fatty acids and subpopulation substantially increased. This stable isotopes. Fatty acids rely on having a onshore use has been linked to reduced spatial small fat tissue sample from the bear, whereas and temporal availability of sea ice, as well as to stable isotopes can be used to estimate diet the availability of subsistence-harvested from blood and hair. Both methods require bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) bone piles. understanding the role that metabolism plays in Here, we evaluated the role of climate altering the chemical composition of the prey conditions on consumption of traditional ice- relative to the tissue of the predator sampled. associated prey relative to onshore bowhead In this study, we examined the potential whale bone piles. We determined seasonal and implications of several factors when using interannual trends in the diets of SB polar bears stable isotopes to estimate the diets of bears, using fatty acid-based analysis during this which can consume lipid-rich diets and, period of increasing land use. Diet estimates of alternatively, fast for weeks to months. We 569 SB polar bears from 2004-2012 showed conducted feeding trials with captive brown high seasonal fluctuations in the proportions of bears and polar bears. As dietary lipid content prey consumed. Higher proportions of increased to ~90%, we observed increasing bowhead whale, as well as ringed seal (Pusa differences between blood plasma and diets 13 hispida) and beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), that had not been lipid extracted (∆ Ctissue-bulk diet) were estimated to occur in the winter-spring and slightly decreasing differences between diet, while higher proportions of bearded seal plasma δ13C and lipid-extracted diet. Plasma 15 (Erignathus barbatus) were estimated for Δ Ntissue-bulk diet increased with increasing protein summer-fall diets. Trends in the annual mean content for the four polar bears in this study proportions of individual prey items were not and data for other mammals from previous found in either period, except for declines in the studies that were fed purely carnivorous diets. proportion of beluga in spring-sampled bears. Four adult and four yearling brown bears that Nonetheless, in years following a high winter fasted 120 days had plasma δ15N values that Arctic oscillation index, proportions of ice- changed by < ±2‰. Fasting bears exhibited no associated ringed seal were lower in the winter- trend in plasma δ13C. Isotopic incorporation spring diets of adult females and juveniles. in red blood cells and whole blood was ≥ 6 Proportions of bowhead increased in the months in subadult and adult bears, which is winter-spring diets of adult males with the considerably longer than previously measured number of ice-free days over the continental in younger and smaller black bears (U. shelf. In one or both seasons, polar bears that americanus). Our results suggest that short-term were in better condition were estimated to have fasting in carnivores has minimal effects on

180

δ13C and δ15N discrimination between into estimator performance and model diagnostics predators and their prey but that dietary lipid is warranted. content is an important factor directly affecting Bromaghin, J.F., Rode, K.D., Budge, S.M., and δ13C discrimination and indirectly affecting Thiemann, G.W. 2015. Distance δ15N discrimination via the inverse relationship measures and optimization spaces in with dietary protein content. quantitative fatty acid signature analysis. Rode, K.D., Stricker, C., Erlenbach, J., Ecology and Evolution 5:1249–1262. Robbins, C.T., Jensen, S., Cutting, A., Newsome, S., and Cherry, S. 2016. Can polar bears use terrestrial foods to offset lost ice- Isotopic turnover and effects of fasting based hunting opportunities, assumptions versus reality? and dietary lipids on isotopic ― In this review article, we evaluated the discrimination in a large, carnivorous nutritional needs and physiological and mammal. Physiological and Biochemical environmental constraints shaping the polar Zoology. doi:10.1086/686490. bear’s use of terrestrial ecosystems. Only small numbers of polar bears have been documented Distance measures and optimization spaces in quantitative consuming terrestrial foods even in modest fatty acid signature analysis ― Quantitative fatty acid quantities. Over much of the polar bear’s signature analysis has become an important method range, limited terrestrial food availability of diet estimation in ecology, especially marine supports only low densities of much smaller, ecology. Controlled feeding trials to validate the resident brown bears which more efficiently use method and estimate the calibration coefficients low quality resources and may compete with necessary to account for differential metabolism of polar bears in terrestrial habitats. Where individual fatty acids have been conducted with several species from diverse taxa. However, consumption of terrestrial foods has been research into potential refinements of the documented, polar bear body condition and estimation method has been limited. We compared vital rates have declined even as land use has the performance of the original method of increased. Terrestrial food consumption estimating diet composition with that of five observed thus far is insufficient to offset lost variants based on different combinations of ice-based hunting opportunities but can have distance measures and calibration-coefficient ecological consequences for other species. transformations between prey and predator fatty Warming-induced loss of sea ice remains the acid signature spaces. Fatty acid signatures of most significant threat facing polar bears. pseudopredators were constructed using known Rode, K.D., Robbins, C.T., Amstrup, S.C., and diet mixtures of two prey data sets previously used Nelson, L. 2015. Can polar bears use to estimate the diets of polar bears and gray seals Halichoerus grypus, and their diets were then estimated terrestrial foods to offset lost ice-based using all six variants. In addition, previously hunting opportunities, assumptions published diets of Chukchi Sea polar bears were re- versus reality? Frontiers in Ecology and the estimated using all six methods. Our findings reveal Environment 13:138–145. that the selection of an estimation method can meaningfully influence estimates of diet Diet of female polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea composition. Among the pseudopredator results, of Alaska: evidence for an emerging alternative foraging which allowed evaluation of bias and precision, strategy in response to environmental change ― Polar differences in estimator performance were rarely bear diet may become more variable in some large, and no one estimator was universally Arctic regions due to climate warming and preferred, although estimators based on the altered sea ice habitat. We surveyed carbon and Aitchison distance measure tended to have modestly superior properties compared to nitrogen stable isotope profiles of five polar estimators based on the Kullback–Leibler distance bear tissues sampled from adult females in the measure. However, greater differences were Southern Beaufort Sea of Alaska in order to observed among estimated polar bear diets, most assess inter-tissue isotopic variability and to likely due to differential estimator sensitivity to determine whether any dietary shifts are assumption violations. Our results, particularly the occurring in this population. We did not detect polar bear example, suggest that additional research any significant shifts from historical means in

181

population-level tissue stable isotope values. A 228 bears used the bone pile during November number of sectioned hair samples, however, to February, which would represent were significantly depleted in 15N relative to the approximately 15% of the Southern Beaufort mean. We hypothesized that lower hair δ15N Sea polar bear subpopulation, if all bears were values were due to the consumption of from this subpopulation. We found that polar bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) tissue. bears of all age and sex classes simultaneously Telemetry data showed that polar bears with used the bone pile. More males than females 15N-depleted hair sections were located on used the bone pile, and males predominated in multiple dates near known subsistence- February, likely because 1/3 of adult females harvested bowhead whale bone piles and had would be denning during this period. On spent 90 % of the prior year within 50 km of average, bears spent 10 days at the bone pile the shore. Bears with hair section δ15N values (median = 5 days); the probability that an at or above the mean spent no time near individual bear remained at the bone pile from bowhead whale bone piles and less than half of week to week was 63% for females and 45% for the year nearshore. An isotopic mixing model males. Most bears in the sample were detected estimation of diet proportions determined that visiting the bone pile once or twice. We found bowhead whale comprised approximately 50– some evidence of matrilineal fidelity to the 70 % of fall diet for bears with lower hair δ15N bone pile, but the group of animals visiting the values. We conclude that these results offer bone pile did not differ genetically from the emergent evidence of an alternative foraging Southern Beaufort Sea subpopulation, nor did strategy within this population: ‘coastal’ bears, patterns of relatedness. We demonstrate that which remain near to shore for much of the bowhead whale bone piles may be an influential year and use bowhead whale bone piles when food subsidy for polar bears in the Barrow they are present. In contrast, ‘pelagic’ bears region in autumn and winter for all sex and age follow a more typical strategy and forage widely classes. on sea ice for seals. Herreman, J., and E. Peacock, E. 2013. Polar Rogers, M.C., Peacock, E., Simac, K.S., O'Dell, bear use of a persistent food subsidy: M.B., and Welker, J.M. 2015. Diet of Insights from non-invasive genetic female polar bears in the southern sampling in Alaska. Ursus 24(2):148–163. Beaufort Sea of Alaska: evidence for an doi:10.2192/URSUS-D-12-00030.1. emerging alternative foraging strategy in response to environmental change. Polar Methods development studies Biology. doi:10.1007/s00300-015-1665-4. Use of collar temperature sensor data to identify long- Polar bear use of a persistent food subsidy: Insights from term patterns in southern Beaufort Sea polar bear den non-invasive genetic sampling in Alaska ― Remains distribution on pack ice and land ― Polar bears in of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) harvested the southern Beaufort Sea have increasingly by Iñupiat whalers are deposited in bone piles been observed using land for maternal denning. along the coast of Alaska and have become To aid in detecting denning behavior, we persistent and reliable food sources for polar developed an objective method to identify polar bears. The importance of bone piles to bear denning events using temperature sensor individuals and the population, the patterns of data collected in polar bear collars deployed on use, and the number, sex, and age of bears using adult females 1985-2013. We then applied this these resources are poorly understood. We method to determine if southern Beaufort polar implemented barbed-wire hair snaring to obtain bears have continued to increase land denning genetic identities from bears using the Point with recent sea-ice loss and examined whether Barrow bone pile in winter 2010–11. Eighty- sea-ice conditions affect the distribution of three percent of genotyped samples produced dens between pack-ice and coastal substrates. individual and sex identification. We identified Because summering on land has also increased, 97 bears from 200 samples. Using genetic we examined potential associations between mark–recapture techniques, we estimated that summering substrate and denning substrate.

182

Statistical process control methods applied to ability to discriminate the most common wild temperature-sensor data identified denning polar bear behaviors using a combination of events with 94.5% accuracy in comparison to accelerometer and conductivity sensor data direct observations and 96.3% accuracy relative from captive or wild polar bears. In contrast, to subjective classifications based on models using data from captive brown bears temperature, location, and activity sensor data. failed to reliably distinguish most active We found an increase in land-based denning behaviors in wild polar bears. Our ability to during the study period. The frequency of land discriminate behavior was greatest when denning was directly related to the distance that species- and habitat-specific data from wild sea ice retreated from the coast. Among individuals were used to train models. Data females that denned, 100% of those that from captive individuals may be suitable for summered on land subsequently denned there calibrating accelerometers, but may provide whereas 29% of those summering on ice reduced ability to discriminate some behaviors. denned on land. These results suggest that The accelerometer calibrations developed here denning on land may continue to increase with provide a method to quantify polar bear further loss of sea ice. While the effects that behaviors to evaluate the impacts of declines in den substrate have on nutrition, energetics, and Arctic sea ice. reproduction are unclear, more polar bears Pagano, A.M., Rode, K.D., Cutting, A., Owen, denning onshore will likely increase human- M.A., Jensen, S., Ware, J.V., Robbins, bear interactions. C.T., Durner, G.M., Atwood, T.C., Olson, J.W., Rode, K.D., Eggett, D., Smith, Obbard, M.E., Middel, K.R., Thiemann, T.S., Wilson, R.R., Durner, G.M., G.W., and Williams, T.M. 2017. Using Fischbach, A., Atwood, T.C., and tri-axial accelerometers to identify wild Douglas, D.C. 2017. Collar temperature polar bear behaviors. Endangered Species sensor data reveal long-term patterns in Research 32: 19–33. southern Beaufort Sea polar bear den doi:10.3354/esr00779. distribution on pack ice and land. Marine Ecology Progress Series 564:211–224. Assessing the robustness of quantitative fatty acid doi:10.3354/meps12000. signature analysis to assumption violations ― Knowledge of animal diets can provide Using tri-axial accelerometers to identify wild polar bear important insights into life history and ecology, behaviors ― Tri-axial accelerometers have been relationships among species in a community used to remotely identify the behaviors of a and potential response to ecosystem change or wide range of taxa. Assigning behaviors to perturbation. Quantitative fatty acid signature accelerometer data often involves the use of analysis (QFASA) is a method of estimating captive animals or surrogate species, as diets from data on the composition, or accelerometer signatures are generally assumed signature, of fatty acids stored in adipose tissue. to be similar to those of their wild counterparts. Given data on signatures of potential prey, a However, this has rarely been tested. Validated predator diet is estimated by minimizing the accelerometer data are needed for polar bears distance between its signature and a mixture of to understand how habitat conditions may prey signatures. Calibration coefficients, influence behavior and energy demands. We constants derived from feeding trials, are used used accelerometer and water conductivity data to account for differential metabolism of to remotely distinguish 10 polar bear behaviors. individual fatty acids. QFASA has been widely We calibrated accelerometer and conductivity applied since its introduction and several data collected from collars with behaviors from variants of the original estimator have appeared video-recorded captive polar bears and brown in the literature. However, work to compare bears U. arctos, and with video from camera the statistical properties of QFASA estimators collars deployed on free-ranging polar bears on has been limited. One important characteristic the sea ice and on land. We used random forest of an estimator is its robustness to violations of models to predict behaviors and found strong model assumptions. The primary assumptions

183

of QFASA are that prey signature data contain separate tri-axial accelerometer that sampled representatives of all prey types consumed and continuously at a higher frequency and the calibration coefficients are known without provided raw acceleration values from 3 axes error. We investigated the robustness of two was also mounted on the collar to compare with QFASA estimators to a range of violations of the lower resolution sensors. Both these assumptions using computer simulation accelerometers more accurately identified and recorded the resulting bias in diet estimates. resting and active behaviors at time intervals We found that the Aitchison distance measure ranging from 1 minute to 1 hour (≥91.1% was most robust to errors in the calibration accuracy) compared with the mercury tip- coefficients. Conversely, the Kullback–Leibler switch (range = 75.5–86.3%). However, distance measure was most robust to the mercury tip-switch accuracy improved when consumption of prey without representation in sampled at longer intervals (30 vs. 60 min). the prey signature data. In most QFASA Data from the lower resolution accelerometer, applications, investigators will generally have but not the mercury tip-switch, accurately some knowledge of the prey available to predicted the percentage of time spent resting predators and be able to assess the during an hour. Although the number of bears completeness of prey signature data and sample available for this study was small, our results additional prey as necessary. Conversely, suggest that these activity sensors can remotely because calibration coefficients are derived identify resting versus active behaviors across from feeding trials with captive animals and most time intervals. We recommend that their values may be sensitive to consumer investigators consider both study objectives physiology and nutritional status, their and the variation in accuracy of classifying applicability to free-ranging animals is difficult resting and active behaviors reported here when to establish. We therefore recommend that determining sampling interval. investigators first make any improvements to Ware, J., Rode, K.D., Pagano, A.M., the prey signature data that seem warranted and Bromaghin, J., Robbins, C.T., Erlenbach, then base estimation on the Aitchison distance J., Jensen, S., Cutting, A., Nicassio- measure, as it appears to minimize risk from Hiskey, N., Hash, A., Owen, M., and violations of the assumption that is most Jansen, H.T. 2015. Validation of difficult to verify. mercury tip-switch and accelerometer- Bromaghin, J.F., Budge, S.M., Thiemann, G.W., based activity sensors for identifying and Rode, K.D. 2016. Assessing the resting versus active behavior in bears. robustness of quantitative fatty acid Ursus 26: 86–96. signature analysis to assumption violations. Methods in Ecology and Evolution Expanding applications for using high-resolution 7(1):51–59. doi:10.1111/2041- satellite imagery to monitor polar bear abundance and 210X.12456. distribution ― High-resolution satellite imagery is a promising tool for providing coarse Validation of mercury tip-switch and accelerometer- information about polar species abundance and based activity sensors for identifying resting versus active distribution, but current applications are behavior in bears ― In this study, we examined the limited. With polar bears, the technique has performance of a mercury tip-switch and a tri- only proven effective on landscapes with little axial accelerometer housed in collars to topographic relief that are devoid of snow and determine whether sensor data can be ice, and time-consuming manual review of accurately classified as resting and active imagery is required to identify bears. Here, we behaviors and whether data are comparable for evaluated mechanisms to further develop the 2 sensor types. Five captive bears (3 polar methods for satellite imagery by examining data and 2 brown were fitted with a collar specially from Rowley Island, Canada. We attempted to designed to internally house the sensors. The automate and expedite detection via a bears’ behaviors were recorded, classified, and supervised spectral classification and image then compared with sensor readings. A differencing to expedite image review. We also

184

assessed what proportion of a region should be models. This estimate was remarkably similar sampled to obtain reliable estimates of density to an abundance estimate derived from a line and abundance. Although the spectral transect aerial survey conducted a few days signature of polar bears differed from non- earlier. Our findings suggest that satellite target objects, these differences were imagery is a promising tool for monitoring insufficient to yield useful results via a polar bears on land, with implications for use supervised classification process. Conversely, with other Arctic wildlife. Large scale automated image differencing—or subtracting applications may require development of one image from another—correctly identified automated detection processes to expedite nearly 90% of polar bear locations. This review and analysis. Future research should technique, however, also yielded false positives, assess the utility of multi-spectral imagery and suggesting that manual review will still be examine sites with different environmental required to confirm polar bear locations. On characteristics. Rowley Island, bear distribution approximated Stapleton, S., LaRue, M., Lecomte, N., a Poisson distribution across a range of plot Atkinson, S., Garshelis, D., Porter, C., sizes, and resampling suggests that sampling and Atwood, T.C. 2014. Polar bears >50% of the site facilitates reliable estimation from space: assessing satellite imagery as of density (CV <15%). Satellite imagery may be a tool to monitor Arctic wildlife. PLoS an effective monitoring tool in certain areas, but One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0101513. large-scale applications remain limited because of the challenges in automation and the limited Validation of adipose lipid content from biopsies as a environments in which the method can be body condition index using polar bears ― Body effectively applied. Improvements in condition is a key indicator of individual and resolution may expand opportunities for its population health. Yet, there is little consensus future uses. as to the most appropriate condition index (CI), LaRue, M.A., Stapleton, S., Porter, C., and most of the currently used CIs have not Atkinson, S., Atwood, T., Dyck, M., and been thoroughly validated and are logistically Lecomte, N. 2015. Testing methods for challenging. Adipose samples from large using high-resolution satellite imagery to datasets of capture biopsied, remote biopsied, monitor polar bear abundance and and harvested polar bears were used to validate distribution. Wildlife Society Bulletin adipose lipid content as a CI via tests of 39:772–779. accuracy, precision, sensitivity, biopsy depth, and storage conditions and comparisons to Polar bears from space: assessing satellite imagery as a established CIs, to measures of health and to tool to monitor Arctic wildlife ― Development of demographic and ecological parameters. The efficient techniques for monitoring wildlife is a lipid content analyses of even very small biopsy priority in the Arctic, where the impacts of samples were highly accurate and precise, but climate change are acute and remoteness and results were influenced by tissue depth at which logistical constraints hinder access. We the sample was taken. Lipid content of capture evaluated high resolution satellite imagery as a biopsies and samples from harvested adult tool to track the distribution and abundance of females was correlated with established CIs polar bears. We examined satellite images of a and/or conformed to expected biological small island in Foxe Basin, Canada, occupied by variation and ecological changes. However, a high density of bears during the summer ice- lipid content of remote biopsies was lower than free season. Bears were distinguished from capture biopsies and harvested samples, other light-colored spots by comparing images possibly due to lipid loss during dart retrieval. collected on different dates. A sample of Lipid content CI is a biologically relevant, ground-truthed points demonstrated that we relatively inexpensive and rapidly assessed CI accurately classified bears. Independent and can be determined routinely for individuals observers reviewed images and a population and populations in order to infer large-scale estimate was obtained using mark–recapture spatial and long-term temporal trends. As it is

185

possible to collect samples during routine bear subpopulations have demonstrated harvesting or remotely using biopsy darts, variation in their near-term responses to sea ice monitoring and assessment of body condition decline. We sought to identify behavioral can be accomplished without capture and responses of two adjacent subpopulations to handling procedures or noninvasively, which changes in habitat availability during the annual are methods that are preferred by local sea ice minimum using activity data. Satellite communities. However, further work is needed collar location and activity sensor data collected to apply the method to remote biopsies. from 1989-2014 for 202 adult female polar McKinney, M.A., Atwood, T., Dietz, R., Sonne, bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea (SB) and C., Iverson, S.J., and Peacock, E. 2014. Chukchi Sea (CS) subpopulations were used to Validation of adipose lipid content from compare activity in three habitat types varying biopsies as a body condition index using in prey availability: 1) land; 2) ice over shallow, polar bears. Ecology and Evolution 4:516– biologically-productive waters; and 3) ice over 527. deeper, less productive Arctic basin waters. Bears varied activity across and within habitats. Remote biopsy darting and marking of polar bears ― They were most active in their preferred habitat Remote biopsy darting of polar bears is less of 50-75% sea ice concentration over shallow invasive and time intensive than physical water and less active on ice over deeper water capture and is therefore useful when capture is and on land. While on land, SB bears exhibited challenging or unsafe. We worked with two variable but relatively high activity associated manufacturers to develop a combination biopsy with use of subsistence-harvested bowhead and marking dart for use on polar bears. We whale carcasses, whereas CS bears exhibited had an 80% success rate of collecting a tissue low activity consistent with minimal feeding. sample with a single biopsy dart and collected Both subpopulations exhibited fewer tissue samples from 143 polar bears on land, in observations in their preferred sea ice habitats water, and on sea ice. Dye marks ensured that in recent years, corresponding with declines in 96% of the bears were not resampled during the availability of this substrate. The substantially same sampling period, and we recovered 96% higher use of marginal habitats by SB bears is of the darts fired. Biopsy heads with 5 mm an additional mechanism that may explain why diameters collected an average of 0.12 g of fur, this subpopulation has experienced negative tissue, and subcutaneous adipose tissue, while effects of sea ice loss while the CS biopsy heads with 7 mm diameters collected an subpopulation appears to have remained average of 0.32 g. Tissue samples were 99.3% productive. Variability in activity among and successful (142 of 143 samples) in providing a within habitats suggests bears alter their genetic and sex identification of individuals. behavior in response to habitat conditions We had a 64% success rate collecting adipose presumably in an attempt to balance prey tissue and we successfully examined fatty acid availability with energy costs. The potential signatures in all adipose samples. Adipose lipid nutritional implications of changes in behavior content values were lower compared to values in response to habitat use and distribution from immobilized or harvested polar bears, warrant further investigation. indicating that our method was not suitable for Ware, J.V., Rode, K.D., Bromaghin, J.F., quantifying adipose lipid content. Douglas, D.C., Wilson, R.R., Regehr, Pagano, A.M., Peacock, E., and McKinney, E.V., Amstrup, S.C., Durner, G., Pagano, M.A. 2013. Remote biopsy darting and A.M., Olson, J., Robbins, C.T., and marking of polar bears. Marine Mammal Jansen, H.T. 2017. Habitat degradation Science. doi:10.1111/mms.12029. affects the summer activity of polar bears. Oecologia. doi:10.1007/s00442- Habitat ecology studies 017-3839-y.

Summer activity of polar bears in response to habitat Effects of a changing climate on polar bears ― Several degradation in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas ― Polar sources of uncertainty affect how precisely the

186

future status of polar bears can be forecasted. drift, ice fracturing and open water, and Foremost are unknowns about the future levels ultimately greater challenges to recruit young. of global greenhouse gas emissions, which Projections made from the output of global could range from an unabated increase to an climate models suggest that polar bears in aggressively mitigated reduction. Uncertainties peripheral Arctic and sub-Arctic seas will be also arise because different climate models reduced in numbers or become extirpated by project different amounts and rates of future the end of the 21st century if the rate of climate warming (and sea ice loss) – even for the same warming continues on its present trajectory. emissions scenario. There are also uncertainties The same projections also suggest that polar about how global warming could affect the bears may persist in the high latitude Arctic Arctic Ocean’s food web, so even if climate where heavy multi-year sea ice that has been models project the presence of sea ice in the typical in that region is being replaced by future, the availability of polar bear prey is not thinner annual ice. Underlying physical and guaranteed. Under a worst-case emissions biological oceanography provides clues as to scenario in which rates of greenhouse gas why polar bear in some regions are negatively emissions continue to rise unabated to century’s impacted while bears in other regions have end, the uncertainties about polar bear status shown no apparent changes. However, center on a potential for extinction. If the continued declines in sea ice will eventually species were to persist, it would likely be challenge the survival of polar bears and efforts restricted to a high-latitude refugium in to conserve them in all regions of the Arctic. northern Canada and Greenland—assuming a Durner, G.M., and Atwood, T.C. 2017. Polar food web also existed with enough accessible bears and habitat change. Pages 419–444 prey to fuel weight gains for surviving onshore in Marine Mammal Welfare, A. during the most extreme years of summer ice Butterworth (ed.). Springer, New York, melt. On the other hand, if emissions were to New York, USA. be aggressively mitigated at the levels proposed in the Paris Climate Change Agreement, healthy Implications of rapid environmental change for polar polar bear populations would probably bear behavior and social structure ― The behavior continue to occupy all but the most southern and sociality of polar bears have been shaped areas of their contemporary summer range. by evolved preferences for sea ice habitat and While polar bears have survived previous preying on marine mammals. However, human warming phases ― which indicate some behavior is causing changes to the Arctic resiliency to the loss of sea ice habitat ― what is marine ecosystem through the influence of certain is that the present pace of warming is greenhouse gas emissions that drive long-term unprecedented and will increasingly expose change in ecosystem processes, and via the polar bears to historically novel stressors. presence of in situ stressors associated with Douglas, D.C., and Atwood, T.C. 2017. increasing human activities. These changes are Effects of a changing climate on polar making it more difficult for polar bears to bears. Pages 463–474 in Marine Mammal reliably use their traditional habitats and Welfare, A. Butterworth (ed.). Springer, maintain fitness. Here, I provide an overview New York, New York, USA. of how human activities in the Arctic are likely to change behavioral traits that may influence Polar bears and habitat change ― The polar bear is polar bear sensitivity and resilience to an obligate apex predator of Arctic sea ice and environmental change. Developing a more as such can be affected by climate warming- thorough understanding of polar bear behavior induced changes in the extent and composition and their capacity for flexibility in response to of pack ice, and its impacts on their seal prey. anthropogenic disturbances and subsequent Sea ice declines have negatively impacted some mitigations may lead to successful near-term polar bear subpopulations through reduced management interventions. energy input because of loss of hunting Atwood, T.C. 2017. Implications of rapid habitats, higher energy costs due to greater ice environmental change for polar bear

187

behavior and social structure. Pages 445- about the appropriateness of harvesting polar 462 in Marine Mammal Welfare, A. bears, even for subsistence, from populations Butterworth (ed.). Springer, New York, that are declining due to climate change. New York, USA. Peacock, E. 2017. Historical hunting of polar bears. Pages 475-488 in Marine Mammal Historical hunting of polar bears ― Harvest of polar Welfare, A. Butterworth (ed.). Springer, bears by aboriginal peoples has occurred for New York, New York, USA. millennia across the circumpolar Arctic. While harvest for sport and the commercial fur trade Rapid environmental change drives increased land use by increased dramatically as southerners expanded an Arctic marine predator ― In the Arctic Ocean’s into the Arctic, the 1973 international southern Beaufort Sea (SB), the length of the Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears sea ice melt season (i.e., period between the curtailed harvest again largely to aboriginal onset of sea ice break-up in summer and freeze- peoples. This Agreement, spurned by global up in fall) has increased substantially since the concern for declining polar bear populations, is late 1990s. Historically, polar bears of the SB a hallmark for international cooperation in have mostly remained on the sea ice year-round conservation. In Russia, polar bear harvest has (except for those that came ashore to den), but in fact been illegal since 1957, although there recent changes in the extent and phenology of are concerns of poaching by local people for sea ice habitat have coincided with evidence food security and also for the black market fur that use of terrestrial habitat is increasing. We trade. Norway banned all harvest with their characterized the spatial behavior of polar bears ratification of the Agreement. The United spending summer and fall on land along States allows for polar bear harvest by the Alaska’s north coast to better understand the Inupiat of Alaska. Quotas for the two nexus between rapid environmental change and populations shared with the United States are increased use of terrestrial habitat. We found determined by an international user-to-user that the percentage of radiocollared adult agreement between aboriginal people of Alaska females from the SB subpopulation coming and Canada, and an international agreement ashore has tripled over 15 years. Moreover, we between USA and Russia, respectively. In detected trends of earlier arrival on shore, Greenland, polar bears are harvested by a quota increased length of stay, and later departure system, currently based on historic numbers by back to sea ice, all of which were related to only professional Inuit hunters. In most of declines in the availability of sea ice habitat over Canada, where two-thirds of the world’s polar the continental shelf and changes to sea ice bears are harvested, anyone can harvest a polar phenology. Since the late 1990s, the mean bear, but only within a quota system assigned to duration of the open-water season in the SB and managed by Inuit communities. In Canada, increased by 36 days, and the mean length of harvest is largely managed formalized quota stay on shore increased by 31 days. While on systems based on scientific information, but shore, the distribution of polar bears was also by historic levels by treaty and local influenced by the availability of scavenge traditional ecological knowledge. Globally, subsidies in the form of subsistence-harvested polar bear harvest averages 798 (44 SD) per bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) remains year. The vast majority is for subsistence, with aggregated at sites along the coast. The 6% for sport (Canada), and a lesser proportion declining spatiotemporal availability of sea ice for defense of life and property. The legal habitat and increased availability of human- international market for polar bear hides is fed provisioned resources are likely to result in only by exports from Canada. Climate change increased use of land. Increased residency on poses a greater threat to polar bears than do the land is cause for concern given that, while there, current levels of harvest. However, habitat bears may be exposed to a greater array of risk change and harvest interact because of factors including those associated with increasing use by land by polar bears. Further, increased human activities. there are scientific and conservation questions Atwood, T.C., Peacock, E., McKinney, M.,

188

Douglas, D., Lillie, K., Wilson, R., 66(2):197–206. Terletzky,P., and Miller, S. 2016. Rapid environmental change drives increased Long-distance swimming by polar bears of the southern land use by an Arctic marine predator. Beaufort Sea during years of extensive open water ― PLoS One 11(6). Polar bears depend on sea ice for catching doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155932. marine mammal prey. Recent sea-ice declines have been linked to reductions in body Mapping polar bear maternal denning habitat in the condition, survival, and population size. National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska with an IfSAR Reduced foraging opportunity is hypothesized digital terrain model ― The National Petroleum to be the primary cause of sea-ice-linked Reserve–Alaska (NPR-A) in northeastern declines, but the costs of travel through a Alaska provides winter maternal denning deteriorated sea-ice environment also may be a habitat for polar bears and also has high factor. We used movement data from 52 adult potential for recoverable hydrocarbons. female polar bears wearing Global Positioning Denning polar bears exposed to human System (GPS) collars, including some with activities may abandon their dens before their dependent young, to document long-distance young are able to survive the severity of Arctic swimming (>50 km) by polar bears in the winter weather. To ensure that wintertime southern Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Over a 6 petroleum activities do not threaten polar bears, year period (2004–2009), we identified 50 long- managers need to know the distribution of distance swims by 20 bears. Swim duration and landscape features in which maternal dens are distance ranged from 0.7 to 9.7 days (mean = likely to occur. Here, we present a map of 3.4 days) and 53.7 to 687.1 km (mean = potential denning habitat within the NPR-A. 154.2 km), respectively. Frequency of We used a fine-grain digital elevation model swimming appeared to increase over the course derived from Interferometric Synthetic of the study. We show that adult female polar Aperture Radar (IfSAR) to generate a map of bears and their cubs are capable of swimming putative denning habitat. We then tested the long distances during periods when extensive map’s ability to identify polar bear denning areas of open water are present. However, habitat on the landscape. Our final map long-distance swimming appears to have higher correctly identified 82% of denning habitat energetic demands than moving over sea ice. estimated to be within the NPR-A. Mapped Our observations suggest long-distance denning habitat comprised 19.7 km2 (0.1% of swimming is a behavioral response to declining the study area) and was widely dispersed. summer sea-ice conditions. Though mapping denning habitat with IfSAR Pagano, A.M., Durner, G.M., Amstrup, S.C., data was as effective as mapping with the Simac, K.S., and York, G.S. 2012. Long- photogrammetric methods used for other distance swimming by polar bears (Ursus regions of the Alaskan Arctic coastal plain, the maritimus) of the southern Beaufort Sea use of GIS to analyze IfSAR data allowed during years of extensive open water. greater objectivity and flexibility with less Canadian Journal of Zoology 90:663–676. manual labor. Analytical advantages and doi:10.1139/z2012-033. performance equivalent to that of manual cartographic methods suggest that the use of Consequences of long-distance swimming and travel over IfSAR data to identify polar bear maternal deep-water ice for a female polar bear during a year of denning habitat is a better management tool in extreme sea ice retreat ― Polar bears prefer to live the NPR-A and wherever such data may be on Arctic sea ice but may swim between ice available. floes or between sea ice and land. Although Durner, G.M., Simac, K.S., and Amstrup, S.C. anecdotal observations suggest that polar bears 2013. Mapping polar bear maternal are capable of swimming long distances, no denning habitat in the National data have been available to describe in detail Petroleum Reserve - Alaska with an long distance swimming events or the IfSAR digital terrain model. Arctic physiological and reproductive consequences

189

of such behavior. Between an initial capture in provided to inform the public and to provide late August and a recapture in late October information for natural resource agencies in 2008, a radio-collared adult female polar bear in planning activities to avoid or minimize the Beaufort Sea made a continuous swim of interference with polar bear maternity dens. 687 km over 9 days and then intermittently Durner, G.M., Fischbach, A.S., Amstrup, S.C., swam and walked on the sea ice surface an and Douglas, D.C. 2010. Catalogue of additional 1,800 km. Measures of movement polar bear (Ursus maritimus) maternal den rate, hourly activity, and subcutaneous and locations in the Beaufort Sea and external temperature revealed distinct profiles neighboring regions, Alaska, 1910-2010. of swimming and walking. Between captures, U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 568, this polar bear lost 22% of her body mass and 14p. https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/568/. her yearling cub. The extraordinary long- distance swimming ability of polar bears, which Arctic sea ice decline: Projected changes in timing and we confirm here, may help them cope with extent of sea ice in the Bering and Chukchi Seas ― The reduced Arctic sea ice. Our observation, Arctic region is warming faster than most however, indicates that long distance swimming regions of the world due in part to increasing in Arctic waters, and travel over deep water greenhouse gases and positive feedbacks pack ice, may result in high energetic costs and associated with the loss of snow and ice cover. compromise reproductive fitness. One consequence has been a rapid decline in Durner, G.M., Whiteman, J.P., Harlow, H.J., Arctic sea ice over the past 3 decades—a Amstrup, S.C., Regehr, E.V., and Ben- decline that is projected to continue by state-of- David, M. 2011. Consequences of long- the-art models. Many stakeholders are distance swimming and travel over deep- therefore interested in how global warming may water ice for a female polar bear during a change the timing and extent of sea ice Arctic- year of extreme sea ice retreat. Polar wide, and for specific regions. To inform the Biology 34:975–984. doi:10.1007/s00300- public and decision makers of anticipated 010-0953-2. environmental changes, scientists are striving to better understand how sea ice influences Catalogue of Polar Bear Maternal Den Locations in ecosystem structure, local weather, and global the Beaufort Sea and Neighboring Regions, Alaska, climate. Here, projected changes in the Bering 1910-2010 ― This report presents data on the and Chukchi Seas are examined because sea ice approximate locations and methods of influences the presence of, or accessibility to, a discovery of 392 polar bear maternal dens variety of local resources of commercial and found in the Beaufort Sea and neighboring cultural value. In this study, 21st century sea ice regions between 1910 and 2010 that are conditions in the Bering and Chukchi Seas are archived by the U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska based on projections by 18 general circulation Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska. A models (GCMs) prepared for the fourth description of data collection methods, biases reporting period by the Intergovernmental associated with collection method, primary Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007. Sea time periods, and spatial resolution are ice projections are analyzed for each of two provided. Polar bears in the Beaufort Sea and IPCC greenhouse gas forcing scenarios: the nearby regions den on both the sea ice and on A1B ‘business as usual’ scenario and the A2 land. Standardized VHF surveys and satellite scenario that is somewhat more aggressive in its radio telemetry data provide a general CO2 emissions during the second half of the understanding of where polar bears have century. A large spread of uncertainty among denned in this region over the past 3 decades. projections by all 18 models was constrained by Den observations made during other research creating model subsets that excluded GCMs activities and anecdotal reports from other that poorly simulated the 1979–2008 satellite government agencies, coastal residents, and record of ice extent and seasonality. At the end industry personnel also are reported. Data on of the 21st century (2090–2099), median sea ice past polar bear maternal den locations are projections among all combinations of model

190

ensemble and forcing scenario were Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering seas in 2012, qualitatively similar. June is projected to resulting in the declaration of an unusual experience the least amount of sea ice loss mortality event (UME) by the National Oceanic among all months. For the Chukchi Sea, and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). projections show extensive ice melt during July The primary and possible ancillary causative and ice-free conditions during August, stressors of these events are unknown, and September, and October by the end of the related physiological changes within individual century, with high agreement among models. animals have been undetectable using classical High agreement also accompanies projections diagnostic methods. Here we present an that the Chukchi Sea will be completely ice emerging technology as a potentially guiding covered during February, March, and April at investigative approach aimed at elucidating the the end of the century. Large uncertainties, circumstances responsible for the susceptibility however, are associated with the timing and of certain polar bears to observed conditions. amount of partial ice cover during the Using transcriptomic analysis, we identified intervening periods of melt and freeze. For the enhanced biological processes including Bering Sea, median March ice extent is immune response, viral defense, and response projected to be about 25 percent less than the to stress in polar bears with alopecia. Our 1979–1988 average by mid-century and 60 results support an alternative mechanism of percent less by the end of the century. The ice- investigation into the causative agents that, free season in the Bering Sea is projected to when used proactively, could serve as an early increase from its contemporary average of 5.5 indicator for populations and species at risk. months to a median of about 8.5 months by the We suggest that current or classical methods for end of the century. A 3-month longer ice- free investigation into events of unusual morbidity season in the Bering Sea is attained by a 1- and mortality can be costly, sometimes month advance in melt and a 2-month delay in unfocused, and often inconclusive. Advances freeze, meaning the ice edge typically will pass in technology allow for implementation of a through the Bering Strait in May and January at holistic system of surveillance and investigation the end of the century rather than June and that could provide early warning of health November as presently observed. concerns in wildlife species important to Douglas, D.C. 2010. Arctic sea ice decline: humans. Projected changes in timing and extent of Bowen, L., Miles, A.K., Stott, J., Waters, S., and sea ice in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Atwood, T.C. 2015. Enhanced U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report biological processes associated with 2010-1176, 32p. alopecia in polar bears (Ursus maritimus). https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1176/. Science of the Total Environment 529:114– 120. Health studies Development of a baseline for diagnostic gene transcription in polar bears ― Polar bears in the Enhanced biological processes associated with alopecia in Beaufort (SB) and Chukchi (CS) Seas polar bears ― Populations of wildlife species experience different environments due worldwide experience incidents of mass primarily to a longer history of sea ice loss in morbidity and mortality. Primary or secondary the Beaufort Sea. Ecological differences have drivers of these events may escape classical been identified as a possible reason for the detection methods for identifying microbial generally poorer body condition and insults, toxin exposure, or additional stressors. reproduction of Beaufort polar bears compared In 2012, 28% of polar bears sampled in a study to those from the Chukchi, but the influence of in the southern Beaufort Sea region of Alaska exposure to other stressors remains unknown. had varying degrees of alopecia that was We use molecular technology, quantitative concomitant with reduced body condition. PCR, to identify gene transcription differences Concurrently, elevated numbers of sick or dead among polar bears from the Beaufort and ringed seals were detected in the southern Chukchi Seas as well as captive healthy polar

191

bears. We identified significant transcriptional cumulative effects of multiple stressors that differences among a priori groups (i.e., captive could impact polar bear population dynamics. bears, SB 2012, SB 2013, CS 2013) for ten of Fagre, A., Nol, P., Atwood, T.C., Patyk, K., the 14 genes of interest (i.e., CaM, HSP70, Hueffer, K., and Duncan, C. 2015. A CCR3, TGFb, COX2, THRa, T-bet, Gata3, review of infectious agents in polar bears CD69, and IL17); transcription levels of DRb, (Ursus maritimus) and their long-term IL1b, AHR, and Mx1 did not differ among ecological relevance. EcoHealth. groups. Multivariate analysis also demonstrated doi:10.1007/s10393-015-1023-6. separation among the groups of polar bears. Specifically, we detected transcript profiles Establishing a definition of polar bear health to guide consistent with immune function impairment research and management activities ― The meaning in polar bears from the Beaufort Sea, when of health for wildlife and perspectives on how compared with Chukchi and captive polar to assess and measure health, are not well bears. Although there is no strong indication characterized. For wildlife at risk, such as some of differential exposure to contaminants or polar bear subpopulations, establishing pathogens between CS and SB bears, there are comprehensive monitoring programs that clearly differences in important transcriptional include health status is an emerging need. responses between populations. Further Environmental changes, especially loss of sea investigation is warranted to refine ice habitat, have raised concern about polar interpretation of potential effects of described bear health. Effective and consistent stress-related conditions for the SB population. monitoring of polar bear health requires an Bowen, L., Miles, A.K., Waters, S., Meyerson, unambiguous definition of health. We used the R., and Atwood, T.C. 2015. Delphi method of soliciting and interpreting Development of a baseline for diagnostic expert knowledge to propose a working gene transcription in polar bears (Ursus definition of polar bear health and to identify maritimus). Polar Biology 38:1413–1427. current concerns regarding health, challenges in measuring health, and important metrics for A review of infectious agents in polar bears and their monitoring health. The expert opinion elicited long-term ecological Relevance ― Disease was a through the exercise agreed that polar bear listing criterion for the polar bear as threatened health is defined by characteristics and under the Endangered Species Act in 2008; it is knowledge at the individual, population, and therefore important to evaluate the current ecosystem level. The most important threats state of knowledge and identify any information identified were in decreasing order: climate gaps pertaining to diseases in polar bears. We change, increased nutritional stress, chronic conducted a systematic literature review physiological stress, harvest management, focused on infectious agents and associated increased exposure to contaminants, increased health impacts identified in polar bears. frequency of human interaction, diseases and Overall, the majority of reports in free-ranging parasites, and increased exposure to bears concerned serosurveys or fecal competitors. Fifteen metrics were identified to examinations with little to no information on monitor polar bear health. Of these, indicators associated health effects. In contrast, most of body condition, disease and parasite reports documenting illness or pathology exposure, contaminant exposure, and referenced captive animals and diseases caused reproductive success were ranked as most by etiologic agents not representative of important. We suggest that a cumulative effects exposure opportunities in wild bears. As such, approach to research and monitoring will most of the available infectious disease improve the ability to assess the biological, literature has limited utility as a basis for ecological, and social determinants of polar development of future health assessment and bear health and provide measurable objectives management plans. Given that ecological for conservation goals and priorities and to change is a considerable risk facing polar bear evaluate progress. populations, future work should focus on

192

Patyk, K., Duncan, C., Nol, P., Sonne, C., resulted in declining stature, productivity, and Laidre, K., Obbard, M, Wiig, Ø., Aars, J., survival of polar bears in some regions. With Regehr, E., Gustafson, L., and Atwood, continuing sea-ice declines, negative population T.C. 2015. Establishing a definition of effects are projected to expand throughout the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) health to polar bear’s range. Precise causes of diminished guide research and management polar bear life history performance are activities. Science for the Total Environment unknown; however, climate and sea-ice 514:371–378. condition change are expected to adversely impact polar bear health and population Prevalence and spatio-temporal variation of an alopecia dynamics. As apex predators in the Arctic, syndrome detected in polar bears in the southern polar bears integrate the status of lower trophic Beaufort Sea ― Alopecia (hair loss) has been levels and are therefore sentinels of ecosystem observed in several marine mammal species and health. Arctic residents feed at the apex of the has potential energetic consequences for ecosystem, thus polar bears can serve as sustaining a normal core body temperature, indicators of human health in the Arctic. especially for Arctic marine mammals routinely Despite their value as indicators of ecosystem exposed to harsh environmental conditions. welfare, population-level health data for U.S. Polar bears rely on a thick layer of adipose polar bears are lacking. We present tissue and a dense pelage to ameliorate hematological reference ranges for southern convective heat loss while moving between sea Beaufort Sea polar bears. Hematological ice and open water. From 1998 to 2012, we parameters in southern Beaufort Sea polar observed an alopecia syndrome in polar bears bears varied by age, geographic location, and from the southern Beaufort Sea of Alaska that reproductive status. Total leukocytes, presented as bilaterally asymmetrical loss of lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, and guard hairs and thinning of the undercoat serum immunoglobulin G were significantly around the head, neck, and shoulders, which, in greater in males than females. These measures severe cases, was accompanied by exudation were greater in non-lactating females ages ≥5, and crusted skin lesions. Alopecia was than lactating adult females ages ≥5, suggesting observed in 49 (3.45%) of the bears sampled that females encumbered by young may be less during 1,421 captures, and the apparent resilient to new immune system challenges that prevalence varied by years with peaks occurring may accompany ongoing climate change. in 1999 (16%) and 2012 (28%). The probability Hematological values established here provide that a bear had alopecia was greatest for a necessary baseline for anticipated changes in subadults and for bears captured in the health as arctic temperatures warm and sea-ice Prudhoe Bay region, and alopecic individuals declines accelerate. Data suggest that females had a lower body condition score than with dependent young may be most vulnerable unaffected individuals. The cause of the to these changes and should therefore be a syndrome remains unknown and future work targeted cohort for monitoring in this sentinel. should focus on identifying the causative agent Kirk, C.M., Amstrup, S., Swor, R., Holcomb, and potential effects on population vital rates. D., and O’Hara, T.M. 2010. Hematology Atwood, T.C., Peacock, E., Burek-Huntington, of Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears K., Shearn-Bochsler, V., Bodenstein, B., (2005‐2007): biomarker for an Arctic Durner, G., and Beckmann, K. 2015. ecosystem health sentinel. EcoHealth. Prevalence and spatio-temporal variation doi:10.1007/s10393‐010‐0322‐1. of an alopecia syndrome detected in polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea. Morbillivirus and Toxoplasma exposure and Journal of Wildlife Diseases 51:48–59. association with hematological parameters for southern Beaufort Sea polar bears: Potential response to infectious Hematology of Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears agents in a sentinel species ― Arctic temperatures (2005–2007): biomarker for an Arctic ecosystem are increasing in response to greenhouse gas health sentinel ― Declines in sea-ice habitats have forcing and polar bears have already responded

193

to changing conditions. Declines in body Other Research stature and vital rates have been linked to warming-induced loss of sea-ice. As food webs Monitoring polar bear populations ― Most programs change and human activities respond to a for monitoring the welfare of wildlife milder Arctic, exposure of polar bears and other populations support efforts aimed at reaching arctic marine organisms to infectious agents discrete management objectives, like mitigating may increase. Because of the polar bear’s status conflict with humans. While such programs as arctic ecosystem sentinel, polar bear health can be effective, their limited scope may could provide an index of changing pathogen preclude systemic evaluations needed for large- occurrence throughout the Arctic, however, scale conservation initiatives like the recovery exposure and monitoring protocols have yet to of at-risk species. We discuss select categories be established. We examine prevalence of of metrics that can be used to monitor how antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii, and four polar bears are responding to the primary threat morbilliviruses (canine distemper [CDV], to their long-term persistence - loss of sea ice phocine distemper [PDV], dolphin habitat due to the unabated rise in atmospheric morbillivirus [DMV], porpoise morbillivirus greenhouse gas (GHG; e.g., CO2) [PMV]) including risk factors for exposure. We concentrations - that can also provide also examine the relationships between information on ecosystem function and health. antibody levels and hematologic values Monitoring key aspects of polar bear established in the previous companion article. population dynamics, spatial behavior, and Antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii and health and resiliency can provide valuable morbilliviruses were found in both sample insight into ecosystem state and function, and years. We found a significant inverse could be a powerful tool for achieving Arctic relationship between CDV titer and total conservation objectives, particularly those that leukocytes, neutrophils, monocytes, and have trans-national policy implications. eosinophils, and a significant positive Atwood, T.C., Duncan, C., Patyk, K., Peacock, relationship between eosinophils and E., and Sonthsagen, S. 2017. Monitoring Toxoplasma gondii antibodies. Morbilliviral the welfare of polar bear populations in a prevalence varied significantly among age rapidly changing Arctic. Pages 503-527 cohorts, with 1–2 year olds least likely to be in Marine Mammal Welfare, A. seropositive and bears aged 5–7 most likely. Butterworth (ed.). Springer, New York, Data suggest that the presence of CDV and New York, USA. Toxoplasma gondii antibodies is associated with polar bear hematologic values. We conclude Effects of human activities on polar bears ― that exposure to CDV-like antigen is not Historically, the Arctic sea ice has functioned as randomly distributed among age classes and a structural barrier that has limited the nature suggest that differing behaviors among life and extent of interactions between humans and history stages may drive probability of specific polar bears. However, declining sea ice extent, antibody presence. brought about by global climate change, is Kirk, C.M., Amstrup, S., Swor, R., Holcomb, increasing the potential for human-polar bear D., and O’Hara, T.M. 2010. interactions. Loss of sea ice habitat is driving Morbillivirus and Toxoplasma exposure changes to both human and polar bear behavior and association with hematological – it is spurring increases in human activities parameters for southern Beaufort Sea (e.g., offshore oil and gas exploration and polar bears: Potential response to extraction, trans-Arctic shipping, recreation), infectious agents in a sentinel species. while also causing the displacement of bears Ecohealth. doi:10.1007/s10393‐010‐0323‐ from preferred foraging habitat (i.e., sea ice 0. over biologically productive shallow) to land. The end result of these changes is that polar bears are spending greater amounts of time in close proximity to people and industrial

194

infrastructure. Co-existence between humans distributed scent signals necessary for breeding and polar bears will require imposing behavior may prove less effective if current and mechanisms to manage further development, as future environmental conditions cause well as mitigation strategies that reduce the disruption of scent trails due to increased burden to local communities. fracturing of sea ice. Atwood, T.C., Breck, S.W., York, G., and Owen, M.A., Swaisgood, R.R., Slocomb, C., Simac, K. 2017. Human-polar bear Amstrup, S.C., Durner, G.M., Simac, interactions in a changing Arctic: existing K.S., and Pessier, A.P. 2015. An and emerging concerns. Pages 397-418 experimental investigation of chemical in Marine Mammal Welfare, A. communication in the polar bear. Journal Butterworth (ed.). Springer, New York, of Zoology 295(1):36–43. New York, USA. doi:10.1111/jzo.12181.

An experimental investigation of chemical Forecasting wildlife response to rapid warming in the communication in the polar bear ― The polar bear, Alaskan Arctic ― Arctic wildlife species face a with its wide-ranging movements, solitary dynamic and increasingly novel environment existence and seasonal reproduction, is because of climate warming and the associated expected to favor chemosignaling over other increase in human activity. Both marine and communication modalities. However, the terrestrial environments are undergoing rapid topography of its Arctic sea ice habitat is environmental shifts, including loss of sea ice, generally lacking in stationary vertical substrates permafrost degradation, and altered routinely used for targeted scent marking in biogeochemical fluxes. Forecasting wildlife other bears. These environmental constraints responses to climate change can facilitate may have shaped a marking strategy, unique to proactive decisions that balance stewardship polar bears, for widely dispersed continuous with resource development. In this article, we dissemination of scent via foot pads. To discuss the primary and secondary responses to investigate the role of chemical physical climate-related drivers in the Arctic, communication, pedal scents were collected associated wildlife responses, and additional from free-ranging polar bears of different sex sources of complexity in forecasting wildlife and reproductive classes captured on spring sea population outcomes. Although the effects of ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, and warming on wildlife populations are becoming presented in a controlled fashion to 26 bears in increasingly well documented in the scientific zoos. Results from behavioral bioassays literature, clear mechanistic links are often indicated that bears, especially females, were difficult to establish. An integrated science more likely to approach conspecific scent approach and robust modeling tools are during the spring than the fall. Male flehmen necessary to make predictions and determine behavior, indicative of chemosignal delivery to resiliency to change. We provide a conceptual the vomeronasal organ, differentiated scent framework and introduce examples relevant for donor by sex and reproductive condition. developing wildlife forecasts useful to Histologic examination of pedal skin collected management decisions. from two females indicated prominent and Van Hemert, C., Flint, P., Udevitz, M.S., Koch, profuse apocrine glands in association with J.C., Atwood, T.C., Oakley, K.L., and large compound hair follicles, suggesting that Pearce, J. 2015. Forecasting wildlife they may produce scents that function as response to rapid warming in the Alaskan chemosignals. These results suggest that pedal Arctic. Bioscience 65:718–728. scent, regardless of origin, conveys information to conspecifics that may facilitate social and Implications of the circumpolar genetic structure of polar reproductive behavior, and that chemical bears for their conservation in a rapidly warming Arctic communication in this species has been ― We provide an expansive analysis of polar adaptively shaped by environmental constraints bear circumpolar genetic variation during the of its habitat. However, continuously last two decades of decline in their sea-ice

195

habitat. We sought to evaluate whether their Derocher, A.E., Stirling, I, Taylor, M.K., genetic diversity and structure have changed Wiig, Ø., Paetkau, D., and Talbot, S.L. over this period of habitat decline, how their 2015. Implications of the circumpolar current genetic patterns compare with past genetic structure of polar bears for their patterns, and how genetic demography changed conservation in a rapidly warming Arctic. with ancient fluctuations in climate. PLoS One 10(1). Characterizing their circumpolar genetic doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112021. structure using microsatellite data, we defined four clusters that largely correspond to current Polar bears exhibit genome-wide signatures of ecological and oceanographic factors: Eastern bioenergetic adaptation to life in the Arctic environment Polar Basin, Western Polar Basin, Canadian ― Polar bears face extremely cold temperatures Archipelago and Southern Canada. We and periods of fasting, which might result in document evidence for recent (ca. last 1–3 more severe energetic challenges than those generations) directional gene flow from experienced by their sister species, the brown Southern Canada and the Eastern Polar Basin bear (U. arctos). We have examined the towards the Canadian Archipelago, an area mitochondrial and nuclear genomes of polar hypothesized to be a future refugium for polar and brown bears to investigate whether polar bears as climate-induced habitat decline bears demonstrate lineage-specific signals of continues. Our data provide empirical evidence molecular adaptation in genes associated with in support of this hypothesis. The direction of cellular respiration/energy production. We current gene flow differs from earlier patterns observed increased evolutionary rates in the of gene flow in the Holocene. From analyses mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I gene in of mitochondrial DNA, the Canadian polar but not brown bears. An amino acid Archipelago cluster and the Barents Sea substitution occurred near the interaction site subpopulation within the Eastern Polar Basin with a nuclear-encoded subunit of the cluster did not show signals of population cytochrome c oxidase complex and was expansion, suggesting these areas may have predicted to lead to a functional change, served also as past interglacial refugia. although the significance of this remains Mismatch analyses of mitochondrial DNA data unclear. The nuclear genomes of brown and from polar and the paraphyletic brown bear (U. polar bears demonstrate different adaptations arctos) uncovered offset signals in timing of related to cellular respiration. Analyses of the population expansion between the two species, genomes of brown bears exhibited that are attributed to differential demographic substitutions that may alter the function of responses to past climate cycling. Mitogenomic proteins that regulate glucose uptake, which structure of polar bears was shallow and could be beneficial when feeding on developed recently, in contrast to the multiple carbohydrate-dominated diets during clades of brown bears. We found no genetic hyperphagia, followed by fasting during signatures of recent hybridization between the hibernation. In polar bears, genes species in our large, circumpolar sample, demonstrating signatures of functional suggesting that recently observed hybrids divergence and those potentially under positive represent localized events. Documenting selection were enriched in functions related to changes in subpopulation connectivity will production of nitric oxide (NO), which can allow polar nations to proactively adjust regulate energy production in several different conservation actions to continuing decline in ways. This suggests that polar bears may be sea-ice habitat. able to fine-tune intracellular levels of NO as an Peacock, E., Sonsthagen, S.A., Obbard, M.E., adaptive response to control trade-offs between Boltunov, A., Regehr, E.V., Ovsyanikov, energy production in the form of adenosine N., Aars, J., Atkinson, S.N., Sage, G.K., triphosphate versus generation of heat Hope, A.G., Zeyl, E., Bachmann, L., (thermogenesis). Ehrich, D., Scribner, K.T., Amstrup, Welch, A.J., Bedoya-Reina, O.C., Carretro- S.C., Belikov, S.E., Born, E.W., Paulet, L., Miller, W., Rode, K.D., and

196

Lindqvist, C. 2014. Polar bears exhibit framework will inform management and policy genome-wide signatures of bioenergetic responses to changing worldwide polar bear adaptation to life in the Arctic status and trends. environment. Genome Biology and Evolution Vongraven, D., Aars, J., Amstrup, S., Atkinson, 6(2):433–450. S.N., Belikov, S., Born, E.W., DeBruyn, T.D., Deroche, A.E., Durner, G., Gill, A circumpolar monitoring framework for polar bears ― M., Lunn, N., Obbard, M.E., Omelak, J., Polar bears occupy remote regions that are Ovsyanikov, N., Peacock, E., characterized by harsh weather and limited Richardson, E., Sahanatien, V., Stirling, access. Polar bear populations can only persist I., and Wiig, Ø. 2012. A circumpolar where temporal and spatial availability of sea ice monitoring framework for polar bears. provides adequate access to their marine Ursus 23(sp2):1–66. mammal prey. Observed declines in sea ice doi:10.2192/URSUS-D-11-00026.1. availability will continue as long as greenhouse gas concentrations rise. At the same time, Polar and brown bear genomes reveal ancient admixture human intrusion and pollution levels in the and demographic footprints of past climate change ― Arctic are expected to increase. A circumpolar Polar bears (PBs) are superbly adapted to the understanding of the cumulative impacts of extreme Arctic environment and have become current and future stressors is lacking, long- emblematic of the threat to biodiversity from term trends are known from only a few global climate change. Their divergence from subpopulations, and there is no globally the lower-latitude brown bear provides a coordinated effort to monitor effects of textbook example of rapid evolution of distinct stressors. Here, we describe a framework for phenotypes. However, limited mitochondrial an integrated circumpolar monitoring plan to and nuclear DNA evidence conflicts in the detect ongoing patterns, predict future trends, timing of PB origin as well as placement of the and identify the most vulnerable polar bear species within versus sister to the brown bear subpopulations. We recommend strategies for lineage. We gathered extensive genomic monitoring subpopulation abundance and sequence data from contemporary polar, trends, reproduction, survival, ecosystem brown, and American black bear samples, in change, human-caused mortality, human–bear addition to a 130,000- to 110,000-y old PB, to conflict, prey availability, health, stature, examine this problem from a genome-wide distribution, behavioral change, and the effects perspective. Nuclear DNA markers reflect a that monitoring itself may have on polar bears. species tree consistent with expectation, We assign monitoring intensity for each showing polar and brown bears to be sister subpopulation through adaptive assessment of species. However, for the enigmatic brown the quality of existing baseline data and research bears native to Alaska's Alexander Archipelago, accessibility. A global perspective is achieved we estimate that not only their mitochondrial by recommending high intensity monitoring for genome, but also 5–10% of their nuclear at least one subpopulation in each of four major genome, is most closely related to PBs, polar bear ecoregions. Collection of data on indicating ancient admixture between the two harvest, where it occurs, and remote sensing of species. Explicit admixture analyses are habitat, should occur with the same intensity consistent with ancient splits among PBs, for all subpopulations. We outline how local brown bears and black bears that were later traditional knowledge may most effectively be followed by occasional admixture. We also combined with the best scientific methods to provide paleodemographic estimates that provide comparable and complementary lines suggest bear evolution has tracked key climate of evidence. We also outline how previously events, and that PB in particular experienced a collected intensive monitoring data may be sub- prolonged and dramatic decline in its effective sampled to guide future sampling frequencies population size during the last ca. 500,000 and develop indirect estimates or indices of years. We demonstrate that brown bears and subpopulation status. Adoption of this PBs have had sufficiently independent

197

evolutionary histories over the last 4–5 million Vongraven, D., and Peacock, E. 2011. years to leave imprints in the PB nuclear Development of a pan-Arctic monitoring genome that likely are associated with plan for polar bears: Background paper. ecological adaptation to the Arctic Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring environment. Programme, CAFF Monitoring Series Miller, W., Schuster, S.C., Welch, A.J., Ratan, Report No.1, January 2011, CAFF A., Bedoya-Reina, O.C., Zhao, F., Kim, International Secretariat, Akureyri, H.L., Burhans, R.C., Drautz, D.I., Iceland. ISBN 978-9935-431-01-1. Wittenkindt, N.E., Tomsho, L.P., Ibarra- Laclette, E., Herrera-Estrella, L., Collaborator Affiliations Peacock, E., Farley, S.D., Sage, G.K., Rode, K.D., Obbard, M.E., Montiel, R., Steve Amstrup and Geoff York, Polar bears Bachmann, L., Ingólfsson, Ó., Aars, J., International, Bozeman, Montana Mailund, T., Wiig, Ø., Talbot, S.L., and 59717 USA Lindqvist, C. 2012. Polar and brown Merav Ben-David, Shannon Albeke, and bear genomes reveal ancient admixture John Whiteman, Department of and demographic footprints of past Zoology and Physiology, University of climate change. Proceedings of the National Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071 Academy of Sciences of the United States of USA America 109:14295-14296. Lizabeth Bowen, USGS- Western Ecological doi:10.1073/pnas.1210506109. Research Center, University of California-Davis, California 95616, Development of a pan-Arctic monitoring plan for polar USA bears: Background paper ― We provide Andrew E. Derocher, Department of background science to support the Biological Sciences, University of development of: a circumpolar polar bear Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9 monitoring plan, to be adopted across the Canada Arctic that: (i) identifies the monitoring Eric DeWeaver, Department of Atmospheric techniques and optimal sampling regimes that and Oceanic Sciences. Center for are likely to succeed in the 19 different Climate Research. University of subpopulations, given specific characteristics Wisconsin – Madison, Wisconsin 53706 and logistics of the subpopulations themselves; USA (ii) identifies suites of metrics that can provide Colleen Duncan, Colorado State University parallel lines of evidence of the status of polar Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Fort bear populations, where intensive research is Collins, Colorado 80523 USA not possible; (iii) identifies standardized Marika M. Holland and David A. Bailey, parameters for intensively researched National Center for Atmospheric subpopulations, with a specific focus on Research, Boulder, Colorado 80305 identifying factors responsible for determining USA mechanistic relationships and trends in Christine M. Hunter, Institute of Arctic population; (iv) identifies new methods, Biology, University of Alaska including less-invasive approaches, for Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 conducting directed research and monitoring, USA recognizing the need for more effective Kristin Laidre, University of Washington, monitoring; and, (v) develops population Polar Science Center, Applied Physics projection models that incorporate response to Laboratory, Seattle, Washington 98105 environmental change. Additionally, we USA provide a set of circumpolar indices and Bruce G. Marcot, USDA Forest Service, indicators to provide regular, consistent and Pacific Northwest Research Station, credible reports on the status and trends of Portland, Oregon 97205 USA individual polar bear subpopulations.

198

Trent L. McDonald, Western EcoSystems Charlie Robbins, School of the Environment Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming and School of Biological Sciences, 82001 USA Washington State University, Pullman, Melissa McKinney, Department of Natural Washington, 99164 USA Resources and the Environment and Michael C. Runge, USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Center for Environmental Sciences and Research Center, Laurel, Maryland Engineering, University of 20708 USA Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269 Tom Smith, Department of Plant and Wildlife USA Sciences, Brigham Young University, Todd O’Hara, Institute of Arctic Biology, Provo, Utah 84602 USA University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ian Stirling, Nicholas J. Lunn, and Evan Fairbanks, Alaska 99775 USA Richardson, Wildlife Research Charlotte Lindqvist, Department of Division, Science and Technology Biological Sciences, University at Branch, Environment Canada, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 3S5 Megan Owen, San Diego Zoo Institute for Dag Vongraven, Jon Aars and Øystein Wiig, Conservation Research, San Diego, Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, California 92101 Norway NO-9296 Kelly Patyk, USDA/APHIS/VS: Center for Terrie Williams, Ecology and Evolutionary Epidemiology and Animal Health, Fort Biology Department, University of Collins, Colorado 80521 USA California- Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, Eric V. Regehr, Susi Miller and Ryan California 95060 USA Wilson, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Charlie Robbins, School of the Environment Marine Mammals Management, and School of Biological Sciences, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 USA Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, 99164 USA

199

Tables Table 1. Annual proportion of recaptures of adult (≥ 5 years old) polar bears captured in the spring of 2010–2016 by standard search in the southern Beaufort Sea by the USGS.

Year Total Captures Recaptures Proportion recaptured

2010 38 30 0.79

2011 26 12 0.46

2012 43 25 0.58

2013 36 21 0.58

2014 24 15 0.62

2015 20 11 0.55

2016 15 7 0.47

200

Figures Fig. 1. Annual composition of adult and sub-adult polar bears by subjective body condition index in the USGS spring (March–May) Southern Beaufort Sea capture, 2010–2016. Data do not include adult females with dependent young.

100

90

80

70 2010 (33) 60 2011 (30) 50 2012 (47)

40 2013 (34)

Percent of Percent of capture 2014 (30) 30 2015 (32) 20 2016 (19) 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 Body condition index

201

Fig. 2. Annual composition of polar bears by major age category in the USGS spring (March– May) southern Beaufort Sea capture, 2010–2016. We did not capture any 2-yr olds in 2014 or 2015. No COYS were captured in 2016. Data include all captures.

100

90

80 2010 (76) 2011 (67) 70 2012 (82) 2013 (62) 60 2014 (58) 50 2015 (55) 2016 (24) 40 Percent of Percent of capture

30

20

10

0 COY Yearling 2-yr old Subadult Adult

202

Acknowledgements The editors and authors of these proceedings thank Mark Stanley Price and Jon Paul Rodriquez, whose review and suggestions improved the information quality of this report.

203

Appendix 1 Agreement on the Conservation of of the management of other Polar Bears living resources, subject to Oslo, 15 November 1973 forfeiture to that Party of the skins and other items of value The Governments of Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Union of Soviet Socialist resulting from such taking; or Republics and the United States of America, by local people using traditional Recognizing the special responsibilities and methods in the exercise of their special interests of the States of the Arctic traditional rights and in Region in relation to the protection of the fauna accordance with the laws of that and flora of the Arctic Region; Party; or Recognizing that the polar bear is a significant b. wherever polar bears have or resource of the Arctic Region which requires might have been subject to additional protection; taking by traditional means by its nationals. Having decided that such protection should be achieved through co-ordinated national 2. The skins and other items of value measures taken by the States of the Arctic resulting from taking under sub- Region; paragraph (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be available for Desiring to take immediate action to bring further conservation and management commercial purposes. measures into effect; Article IV Having agreed as follows: The use of aircraft and large motorized vessels Article I for the purpose of taking polar bears shall be 1. The taking of polar bears shall be prohibited, except where the application of prohibited except as provided in Article such prohibition would be inconsistent with III. domestic laws. 2. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Article V term "taking" includes hunting, killing A Contracting Party shall prohibit the and capturing. exportation from, the importation and delivery Article II into, and traffic within, its territory of polar Each Contracting Party shall take appropriate bears or any part or product thereof taken in action to protect the ecosystems of which polar violation of this Agreement. bears are a part, with special attention to habitat Article VI components such as denning and feeding sites 1. Each Contracting Party shall enact and and migration patterns, and shall manage polar enforce such legislation and other bear populations in accordance with sound measures as may be necessary for the conservation practices based on the best purpose of giving effect to this available scientific data. Agreement. Article III 2. Nothing in this Agreement shall 1. Subject to the provisions of Articles II prevent a Contracting Party from and IV any Contracting Party may allow maintaining or amending existing the taking of polar bears when such legislation or other measures or taking is carried out: establishing new measures on the taking a. for bona fide scientific of polar bears so as to provide more purposes; or stringent controls than those required by that Party for conservation under the provisions of this Agreement. purposes; or Article VII to prevent serious disturbance The Contracting Parties shall conduct national research programmes on polar bears,

204

particularly research relating to the Agreement at the end of that period. it conservation and management of the species. shall continue in force thereafter. They shall as appropriate co-ordinate such 6. On the request addressed to the research with research carried out by other Depositary Government by any of the Parties, consult with other Parties on the Governments referred to in paragraph management of migrating polar bear I of this Article. consultations shall be populations, and exchange information on conducted with a view to convening a research and management programmes, meeting of representatives of the five research results and data on bears taken. Governments to consider the revision Article VIII or amendment of this Agreement. Each Contracting Party shall take action as 7. Any Party may denounce this appropriate to promote compliance with the Agreement by written notification to provisions of this Agreement by nationals of the Depositary Government at any time States not party to this Agreement. after five years from the date of entry Article IX into force of this Agreement. The The Contracting Parties shall continue to denunciation shall take effect twelve consult with one another with the object of months after the Depositary giving further protection to polar bears. Government has received the notification. Article X 8. The Depositary Government shall 1. This Agreement shall be open for notify the Governments referred to in signature at Oslo by the Governments paragraph 1 of this Article of the of Canada, Denmark, Norway, the deposit of instruments of ratification, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and approval or accession, of the entry into the United States of America until 31st force of this Agreement and of the March 1974. receipt of notifications of denunciation 2. This Agreement shall be subject to and any other communications from a ratification or approval by the signatory Contracting Part specifically provided Governments. Instruments of for in this Agreement. ratification or approval shall be 9. The original of this Agreement shall be deposited with the Government of deposited with the Government of Norway as soon as possible. Norway which shall deliver certified 3. This Agreement shall be open for copies thereof to each of the accession by the Governments referred Governments referred to in paragraph to in paragraph I of this Article. I of this Article. Instruments of accession shall be 10. The Depositary Government shall deposited with the Depositary transmit certified copies of this Government. Agreement to the Secretary-General of 4. This Agreement shall enter into force the United Nations for registration and ninety days after the deposit of the third publication in accordance with Article instrument of ratification, approval or 102 of the Charter of the United accession. Thereafter, it shall enter into Nations. force for a signatory or acceding In Witness Whereof the undersigned, being Government on the date of deposit of duly authorized by their Governments, have its instrument of ratification. approval signed this Agreement. or accession. Done at Oslo, in the English and Russian 5. This Agreement shall remain in force languages, each text being equally authentic, initially for a period of five years from this fifteenth day of November, 1973. its date of entry into force, and unless [The Agreement came into effect in May 1976, any Contracting Party during that three months after the third nation required to period requests the termination of the ratify did so in February 1976. All five nations

205

ratified by 1978. After the initial period of five years, all five Contracting Parties met in Oslo, Norway, in January 1981, and unanimously reaffirmed the continuation of the agreement.]

206

Appendix 2 Numbers allocated to each country for eartags and tattoos used in polar bear management and research Number series Letter1 Country Year assigned 1–249 A USA 1968 250–499 N Norway 1968 500–749 X Canada 1968 750–999 C USSR 1968 1000–1999 A USA 1969 2000–5999 X Canada 1971–1976 6000–6999 A USA 1976 7000–7499 D Denmark 1976 7500–7999 N Norway 1976 8000–8499 C USSR 1976 8500–9999 X Canada 1980 10000–19999 X Canada 1984 20000–22999 A USA 1984 23000–23999 N Norway 1984 24000–24999 D Denmark 1984 25000–25999 C USSR/Russia 1984 26000–29999 N Norway 1997 30000–39999 X Canada 1997 1A unique letter has been assigned to each country for use on eartags and in tattoos in combination with the above series.

207

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

WORLD HEADQUARTERS Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland [email protected] Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org