The IBA Conference for bear researchers and members will be held in Ottawa, Canada in July!

Alaska Oil and Gas Association has sued the U.S. Federal Government over their protection of lands occupied by polar bears where oil and gas exploration is sought. They say there is no evidence of any decline in polar bear numbers in their historic range. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, lists Alaska's subpopulation of polar bears as declining. USGS reports about dwindling sea ice account for fear that some subpopulations of ice bears may be extinct from their homing areas within a few decades. Member companies of AOGA include Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Apache Corporation, British Petroleum (BP), Chevron Corporation, Eni, ExxonMobil, Flint Hills Resources, Marathon Oil Company, Petro Star Inc., Pioneer Natural Resources Company, Shell Exploration and Production Company, Statoil, Tesaro Alaska, and XTO Energy, according to their website at http://www.aoga.org/.

12-22-10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Clarifies Basis for Listing Polar Bear as “Threatened” Under the Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today clarified for the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC the legal basis for its 2008 decision to protect the polar bear as a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and confirmed for the Court that the designation was consistent with the Service’s longstanding science-based practices in determining the appropriate listing status for a given species. The “threatened” designation of the polar bear under the ESA does not change as a result of today’s Court filing.

The ESA defines an endangered species as one that “is in danger of extinction,” while a threatened species is one which “is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future …” Following a hearing in a case challenging the Service’s 2008 decision, the Court requested further explanation of how the Service interpreted those definitions in determining that the polar bear was “threatened” versus “endangered.” The Department of Justice today filed with the Court a memorandum from the Service providing that further explanation.

“The Service arrived at the 2008 decision to list the polar bear as ‘threatened’ following careful analysis of the best scientific information, as required by the ESA,” said Acting Service Director Rowan Gould. “We were pleased to clarify for the Court the process by which the Service made the determination and are confident it was and is the appropriate status.”

In the memorandum filed with the Court, the Service explained how its biologists had concluded in 2008 that the polar bear was not facing sudden and catastrophic threats, was still a widespread species that had not been restricted to a critically small range or critically low numbers, and was not suffering ongoing major reductions in numbers, range, or both. Accordingly, they were not considered in danger of extinction at the time of the listing determination, i.e., not warranting listing as an “endangered” species at that time. However, the Service also found in 2008 that the polar bear was facing serious threats in the foreseeable future from the projected destruction, modification or curtailment of its sea ice habitat or range due to global climate change and the lack of sufficient regulatory mechanisms available to alleviate this threat. The Service concluded that the incremental loss of sea ice habitat over time would limit the ability of polar bears to satisfy essential life-history requirements and would result in the bears likely being in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. Accordingly, the Service determined that it was appropriate to list polar bears as a “threatened” species.

Threatened species receive most of the same regulatory protections under the ESA as endangered species, including the requirement that federal agencies ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. In addition to the ESA, the polar bear is protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which provides equal and in some cases more stringent protections, as well as international treaties such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The ESA provides a critical safety net for America’s native fish, wildlife and plants and to date has prevented the extinction of hundreds of imperiled species across the nation, as well as promoting the recovery of many others. The Service’s priority is to make implementation of the ESA less complex, less contentious and more effective. To learn more about the Service’s implementation of the ESA, go to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. We are both a leader and trusted partner in fish and wildlife conservation, known for our scientific excellence, stewardship of lands and natural resources, dedicated professionals and commitment to public service. For more information on our work and the people who make it happen, visit www.fws.gov.

Alaska's governor Parnell thinks that part of the reason for over-protecting polar bears possibly has to do with outsiders wanting to also regulate resource exploration in his state. He thinks the listing of polar bears has little to do with saving bears and a lot to do with clamping down on oil and gas exploration in Alaska. A U.S. Geological Survey report, among others, stated that the acceleration of melting sea ice in the Arctic could mean the demise of the polar bear by 2050. Many politicians in Alaska disagree with those reports. Listed as one of the Governor's office's accomplishments in 2008 is "...Prepared for litigation and obtained outside counsel to assist with a challenge to the listing of polar bear as threatened under the ESA."

If you would like to see wild polar bears, go to Churchill, Canada for 6 weeks every fall! With only 900 residents in the town and over 1000 bears in the area, you are sure to see a wild bear. Please visit the official website for Churchill and see and read about this wonderful bear-viewing place at http://www.churchill.ca/ . What else? It is a great location: one of the best Northern Lights watching (January-March), a birdwatcher's paradise (May-July), best beluga whale watching (mid-July on), unbelievable polar bear watching (October-November).

The Ontario government has now decided to classify the polar bear as 'threatened,' up a notch from 'special concern.' With Ontario ice bears on the decline, this move will set aside lands for the big bears with habitat regulation. The strategic plan will be complete by 2011. The Ministry of Natural Resources cites melting ice and low survival rates as the reasons. Over 60% of the world's polar bears are in Canada.

An American graduate student researching glaciers in Svalbard, Norway, killed a charging polar bear in self-defense in late May. The bear broke in some glass windows trying to get into the man's hut. When Bob McNabb, age 23, saw the bear pushing on another piece of glass, he picked up his shot gun and very quietly and slowly turned the doorknob to go outside. His plan was to start up a snow mobile to make noise to scare the bear off. But the bear saw him and charged. He had no choice but to kill the bear. The investigation showed that the bear came to within 25 feet of the man after it was shot in a full charge, before it veered off. Analysis of the bear's stomach contents revealed no food at all in the bear's stomach. It was obvious the bear was starving, and looking for food at the research station. The student attends the University of Fairbanks in Alaska, and is quite upset over having had to kill the bear.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced today that he will retain a special rule issued in December for protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, but will closely monitor the implementation of the rule to determine if additional measures are necessary to conserve and recover the polar bear and its habitat. “To see the polar bear’s habitat melting and an iconic species threatened is an environmental tragedy of the modern age,” Salazar said. “This administration is fully committed to the protection and recovery of the polar bear. I have reviewed the current rule, received the recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and concluded that the best course of action for protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is to wisely implement the current rule, monitor its effectiveness, and evaluate our options for improving the recovery of the species.”

The polar bear is listed as a threatened species under the Act, meaning it is at risk of becoming an endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The law provides civil and criminal penalties for actions that kill or injure bears and bars federal agencies from taking actions that are likely to jeopardize the species or adversely modify its critical habitat. In addition, the polar bear is protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which provides equal and in some cases more stringent protections, and international treaties such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to tailor regulatory prohibitions for threatened species as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. Hence, the special rule is referred to as a 4(d) rule. “In our judgment, keeping the rule is the best course of action for the polar bear,” said Thomas L. Strickland, assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks. “We will continue to reach out and listen to the public and a wide range of stakeholders as we monitor the rule, and will not hesitate to take additional steps if necessary to protect this iconic species.” The rule also states that incidental take of polar bears resulting from activities outside the bear’s range, such as emission of greenhouse gases, will not be prohibited under the ESA.

“We must do all we can to help the polar bear recover, recognizing that the greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change,” Salazar said. “However, the Endangered Species Act is not the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions. Instead, we need a comprehensive energy and climate strategy that curbs climate change and its impacts – including the loss of sea ice. Both President Obama and I are committed to achieving that goal.”

Under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Congress granted Salazar authority until May 10 to revoke the 4(d) rule. If Salazar had decided to withdraw the 4(d) rule, a virtually identical “interim” 4(d) rule issued by the previous Administration when the polar bear was first listed as a threatened species would be put back in place. “Revoking the current 4(d) rule would return us to an interim rule that would offer no more protections for the polar bear and would result in uncertainty and confusion about the management of the species,” Salazar said.

President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget request includes a significant new commitment to helping conserve the polar bear. The budget request includes an increase of $7.4 million for polar bear conservation, of which $3.2 million will be invested through the Fish and Wildlife Service. This new commitment includes a $1.5 million increase for the Endangered Species program specifically to address new and reinitiated interagency consultations on oil and gas projects and to prepare for a range-wide Polar Bear Conservation Plan to guide U.S. and international work to conserve and improve the status of the species. An increase of $1.7 million will allow the FWS Marine Mammal program to intensify work with partners to prepare, review, and publish population assessments, conservation plans, and incidental take regulations.

3-26-09 POLAR BEAR COUNTRIES MEET

The five countries that contain polar bear habitat are meeting this week for the first time since 2007 and discussed the effects of climate change on polar bears. The Arctic countries that have polar bear habitats are Canada, Denmark for Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the United States. In 1973 these countries signed the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, signed in Oslo. Today, since polar bears depend on sea ice to hunt, breed, and in some cases, to den with cubs, climate change is an important topic of concern. When a polar bear comes out of her den in spring, showing the world to her cub, her ice floe may have shrunk and drifted during the winter. The bears may be too far away from land to be able to swim the distance to more food, or the ice may be far away now from seals which the bears need for sustenance. Some polar bears have been found drowned in Arctic waters over the past three years, and the reason is linked to the long distances they had to swim to find food, in extreme cases, over 200 miles. The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group listed the polar bear as endangered in 2005 on their Red List. The United States listed the polar bear as threatened in 2008. Scientific studies show declines and threats to polar bears in some areas are directly due to shrinking sea ice, probably caused by climate change. Sea ice routinely reshapes itself and does shrink and grow in normal climates; however, since warming has occurred, sea ice is shrinking faster than normal. There will be another meeting in December 2009 in Norway, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. One topic in that meeting will be a revamping of the Kyoto Agreement.

Although the polar bear was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in May 2008, the U.S. Department of the Interior failed to designate critical habitat of this bear as also protected. The area concerning habitat is offshore from the state of Alaska, in the Chukchi Sea. This Monday, on October 6, 2008, the U.S. Federal Government and concerned environmental groups partially settled a court case that provides some protection for the bears' habitat. However the deadline on this polar bear habitat protection is June 30, 2010. Alaska's Governor Palin has now filed a lawsuit, along with 4 others, to overturn the decision to list the polar bear as threatened. She maintains the polar bear should not be listed as threatened, due to the following reasons: (1) it could adversely impact tourism and oil exploration / drilling; (2) data that says polar bear population has doubled over the last twenty-five years; and (3) the decision was not based on good scientific data. That suit will reach court in 2009. The polar bear was listed as threatened due to global warming and the loss of sea ice. Recently, local people in Alaska have noticed six dead polar bears at sea, who drowned at sea trying to swim to shore this autumn due to the ice floes they were on having shrunk an extra hundred miles away. A polar bear can swim a hundred miles if they must, they say, but not two hundred miles.

More than half of the world's polar bears are in Canadian territory. Canada says that their populations of polar bears are not threatened, but they would be willing to list them as a "species of special concern," a category that the U.S. does not have. Impact to Canada's economy relating to the U.S. decision to list the polar bear as threatened is that U.S. hunters would stop going there to hunt because they can no longer bring the heads and pelts back into the U.S. as trophies, although hunting of the polar bear continues. Polar bear hunts are often led by Inuit (Native People) guides, who have permission to hunt polar bears for sustenance.

The polar bear was officially listed as "threatened" on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Endangered Species List, as requested by that agency in 2007. The reason given was loss of natural habitat through the melting of polar ice, as caused by global warming. Secretary Kempthorne stated that under these conditions, the polar bear could become endangered within 45 years.

U.S. District Court Judge has found the Interior Department guilty of violating the Endangered Species Act by missing the decision deadline by four months concerning protecting the polar bear. The court order filed this week demands that a final decision to be published in the Federal Register by May 15, 2008. Action should have been made in January, according to the Court. A final decision whether or not to list the polar bear as endangered due to global warming should come within 2 weeks.

The deadline for the decision on listing the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act passed in January 2008. The request by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list the polar bear was submitted on time, but listing has not happened. Adding the polar bear to the endangered species list would impact the lands on which polar bears live and hunt. Some say that listing the polar bear on the basis of the possible future effects of global warming would end oil exploration or drilling in their habitat. Some say polar bear populations are large, that there is no such thing as global warming, and that drilling would not impact them or their habitat. IN the U.S. Senate this week, the Senate Environment Committee, which had asked for an explanation as to why the decision had been delayed so long, became outraged when Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne failed to appear to discuss the matter. He said in a letter that he could not appear to discuss since he is involved in the law suit that was filed by environmental groups demanding that a decision be made by the White House to list or not list the bear, since the decision is now 4 months overdue. The lawsuit was filed by Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace. Read more about how climate change is affecting polar bears at National Wildlife Federation http://www.nwf.org/polarbear/, World Wildlife Fund http://worldwildlife.org/polarbears/, IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group at http://pbsg.npolar.no/, U.S. Geological Survey http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/polar_bears/pbear_sea_ice.html.

Three polar bears, a mother and her two cubs were killed in a Northwest Territory town, when they became very aggressive toward people there. The bears were found digging in garbage cans in the snow. The small hamlet of 700 people, Deline, has never been a place where polar bears go. It is about 311 miles south of their home. It was reported that all three bears had very little body fat on them, and that they were starving. The conclusion was that they had no food where they were from further north, which could have been caused by recent warming which may have impacted the sea ice on which they hunt. No one had ever seen a polar bear in Deline.

A man shot and killed a bear he was stalking in self defense when the bear charged from the brush, thinking it was a grizzly. It was not, it was a polar bear. What made this so unusual was that the bear was killed 250 miles from the icy place it should have been, where polar bears, at this time of year, are still foraging for food in the form of prey on the ice. This bear crossed the Brooks Range into the interior of Alaska. It was a female bear, with plenty of fat on her, she was not migrating for food.

The decision of listing of polar bears as threatened, offered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, has been postponed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, for a minimum of 30 days. During that time, they will continue to read emails and letters from the general public and from scientists concerning the request. They have announced that the request for purchasing polar bear habitat for the purpose of oil and gas exploration will stay on the calendar as planned, and should have a decision by early February.

The World Wildlife Fund, the National Audubon Society, and several newspapers, including the Washington Post have written this week, that polar bear habitat may be opened to oil and gas exploration by February 2008. The place in question is in the Arctic Ocean where polar bears live, on the outer continental shelf lands in the Chukchi Sea. If this goes through, it will be the first U.S. sale of leases by the federal government in this area since 1991. The federal Minerals Management Service has approved this sale, and is seeking the final go-ahead from the top management in the federal government, and it is thought that they will find no resistance.

Some people feel that this may adversely impact the habitat of the polar bear, some people do not. Whether or not people believe this impacts wildlife, there is also the real risk to the Arctic marine ecosystem in the form of oil spills. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has stated that oil spills are extremely difficult to clean up and definitely adversely impact sensitive areas such as the Arctic region, especially in the areas of marine wildlife. Other experts and agencies agree with this assessment, including the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In other polar bear news, The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has requested to list the polar bear as an endangered species, citing global warming as a possible cause of the great bear's recent and future decline in numbers, and that decision should be reached before February.

There are two areas that are being looked at for oil exploration in the near future, and both areas contain nearly one-fifth of the world's polar bear population. These two areas are the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea. Minerals Management Service (MMS) is a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI); the name of their notice of intent is "Chukchi Lease Sale 193." Below is the press release written and distributed by the Minerals Management Service about this lease sale:

Several groups and organizations filed suit against MMS in April 2007, when they wanted to lease tracts to Shell Offshore, Inc. in the Beaufort Sea. Final arguments for that suit were heard in December 2007, but a final decision has not been made.

The Beaufort Sea (33 million acres) and Chukchi Sea (40 million acres) are also called "The Polar Bear Seas."

In a 2007 document released by the Minerals Management Service (see below) it is agreed that potential oil spills may cause a hazard to marine wildlife in the area. However, of particular interest is the highlighted paragraph which indicates an opinion of the US. Fish & Wildlife Service, that oil exploration, in and of itself, does not pose a threat to wildlife. Hence, we see that drilling poses no threat; it is the potential of future oil spills in the area that would cause the threat to animals in and near the ocean.

Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Surveying Activities in the Chukchi Sea

-[Federal Register: June 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 32860-32862]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jn07-66]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service

Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic
Surveying Activities in the Chukchi Sea

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The proposed federal action addressed in this FEIS (OCS EIS/EA
MMS 2007-026) is to offer for lease

[[Page 32861]]

areas in the Chukchi Sea Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that might
contain recoverable oil and gas resources. This lease sale would
provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on certain blocks in
the Chukchi Sea OCS to gain conditional rights to explore, develop, and
produce oil and natural gas. This FEIS is the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis to enable the MMS to make informed decisions
on the configuration of the lease sale and the applicable mitigation
measures. In the FEIS, the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental impacts of the sale, including estimated exploration and
development and production activities related to the sale, on the
physical, biological, and human environments in the Chukchi Sea area
are analyzed. The FEIS also provides NEPA evaluation for exploration
activities in the Chukchi Sea, including seismic survey geophysical
permitting (30 CFR part 251), ancillary activities (30 CFR 250.207),
and exploration plans (30 CFR 250.214). In addition, the FEIS provides
information that the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
may possibly use for issuance of Incidental Harassment Authorizations
to the seismic-survey industry to take marine mammals by harassment,
incidental to conducting prelease and ancillary on-lease oil and gas
seismic surveys in the Chukchi Sea. To address its NEPA
responsibilities, the NMFS is a cooperating agency (as that term is
defined in 40 CFR 1501.6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Minerals Management Service, Alaska
OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, #500, Anchorage, Alaska
99503-5823, Ms. Deborah Cranswick, telephone (907) 334-5267.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this FEIS, the MMS has examined the
potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and its
alternatives. The Proposed Action (Alternative I) is to conduct Chukchi
Sea OCS Lease Sale 193 in 2008. The resource estimates and scenario
information included in this FEIS analysis are presented as a range of
activities that could be associated with the sale, including
exploration seismic surveying, on-lease ancillary activities,
exploration and delineation drilling, development and production of OCS
oil and gas resources, and lease abandonment. The Proposed Action would
offer for lease approximately 6,156 whole and partial blocks (about 34
million acres) identified as the program area in the 2002-2007 5-Year
Program. Although Sale 193 was scheduled under the 2002-2007 5-Year
Program, it is being held under the 2007-2012 5-Year Program to
accommodate the time required to complete the EIS analyses and process.
The proposed Sale 193 area excludes up to a 50-mile-wide corridor along
the coast, the polynya or spring lead system. Water depths in the sale
area vary from about 95 feet (ft) to approximately 262 ft. A small portion 
of the northeast corner of the area deepens to approximately 9,800 ft.
    Alternative II (No Lease Sale) is equivalent to cancellation of the
Proposed Action as scheduled in the approved 5-Year Program. The
opportunity for development of the estimated oil and gas resources that
could have resulted from the Proposed Action would be precluded or
postponed, and any potential environmental impacts resulting from the
Proposed Action would not occur or would be postponed.
    Alternative III (Corridor I Deferral) is the Proposed Action
excluding an area comprising approximately 1,765 whole or partial
blocks along the coastward edge of the sale area. This alternative
would attempt to reduce potential impacts to subsistence hunting as
well as various wildlife species and associated habitats.
    Alternative IV (Corridor II Deferral) is the Proposed Action
excluding an area comprising approximately 795 whole or partial blocks
along the coastward edge of the sale area. This alternative was
developed as a result of the 1987 Biological Opinion for the Chukchi
Sea as recommended by the NMFS.
    The MMS also examines potential environmental effects of prelease
seismic survey geophysical permitting. The FEIS includes an analysis of
two alternatives for exploration seismic surveys: Alternative A and
Alternative B. All permitted seismic surveys would be subject to the
standard stipulations for geological and geophysical (G&G) permit
activities, additional measures to mitigate seismic-surveying effects,
and the mitigation and monitoring requirements of the selected
alternative (Alternative 6) from the Final Programmatic Environmental
Assessment (PEA) Arctic Ocean Outer Continental Shelf Seismic Surveys--
2006, dated June 2006 (USDOI, MMS, 2006a). Alternative A would allow
pre-Sale 193 seismic surveying in the entire proposed Sale 193 area
(the area under Alternative I). Alternative B would prohibit pre-Sale
193 exploration seismic surveys in the 795 whole or partial blocks in
Corridor II Deferral area (Alternative IV) along the coastward edge of
the proposed Sale 193 area. The Corridor II Deferral area was developed
from the recommended conservation measures in the 1987 Biological
Opinion from NMFS. The southern end of the corridor was expanded to
encompass a portion of the Ledyard Bay Critical Habitat Area that lies
within the proposed Sale 193 area.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded in its March 28, 2007,
Biological Opinion for Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale
193 and Associated Seismic Surveys and Exploratory Drilling that, based
on the information available at this time, the action would not
jeopardize the continued existence of the spectacled or Steller's
eider, or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The
NMFS concluded in its Arctic Region Biological Opinion, dated June
2006, that leasing and exploration activities are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the threatened, endangered, or
candidate species under its jurisdiction; however, the potential
additive effects of oil and gas activities associated with exploration,
production, and transportation throughout the Chukchi Sea and
neighboring Beaufort Sea is of concern. The NMFS concluded further that
activities associated with seismic surveys in the Chukchi Sea may
adversely affect but not jeopardize the continued existence of any
species listed under the ESA that are under the jurisdiction of the NMFS.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued this bulletin in 2007, regarding listing the polar bear

as a threatened species:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working diligently to reach a final decision on the proposal to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We expect to provide a final recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior and finalize the decision within the next month.

When the polar bear was proposed for listing in January 2007, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne directed the Service to work with the U.S. Geological Survey, the public and the scientific community to broaden our understanding of what is happening with the polar bear and to gather additional information to inform the final decision on whether the species warrants Federal protection under the ESA.

In September 2007, USGS scientists supplied new research findings to the Service updating population information on the Southern Bering Sea polar bear and providing additional data on sea ice trends and effects on polar bear populations throughout the species' range.

As a result of the new USGS research findings, the Service reopened and later extended a second comment period to allow the public time to review the information and respond. We received numerous comments on the USGS reports and have been working to analyze and respond to the information provided during the comment period. At the time we made the decision to reopen and to extend the comment period, the Director of the Service alerted the Department that the Service might need extra time to adequately evaluate and incorporate results from the comments received.

You may visit the Marine Mammals Management site for comprehensive polar bear information at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm.

Canadian Wildlife Service has found that polar bear numbers have been decreasing in western Hudson Bay area. The native people there disagree. The Nanuvut Wildlife Management Board thinks that their polar bear hunting should not have been reduced this season and that polar bears in the region are on the increase. Their hunting quota was cut from 56 bears to 38 this season. They may still hunt polar bears for sustenance; that is, for food and fur as has been their culture and tradition. They also are allowed to act as guides for hunters who want to kill a polar bear; in essence they give their bullet to someone else to pull the trigger. They then get the money from the hunt, as well as the meat, while the hunter sometimes gets the trophy mount.

The U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology Sub-Committee is questioning the motives of Exxon, who has funded an article by an astrophysicist about whether or not the polar bear should be listed as an endangered species. The article presents no new information and is termed a "viewpoint essay." It disputes recent findings of the U.S.G.S. that suggest polar bears may be in trouble in coming years as a result of their habitat becoming too warm. The article was also funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

Governor Sarah Palin has spoken out against listing the polar bear as endangered and says the recent U.S.G.S. reports are incorrect. "The listing of a currently healthy species based entirely on highly speculative and uncertain climate and ice modeling and equally uncertain and speculative modeling of possible impacts on a species would be unprecedented," Governor Palin stated in a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne.

The U.S. Geological Survey has issued a report that projects a possible 42% loss of polar bear Arctic habitat by the year 2050, due to global warming. They estimate that only two areas will keep polar bears on ice until the end of the century: northern Canada and northwestern Greenland. The research committee composed of bear experts could not estimate population numbers for the future. Click here to read the report http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar%5Fbears/.

Russia and the United States have reached an agreement allowing subsistence hunting of polar bears for indigenous people. There are four groups of polar bears in northern Russia, and two in the U.S. Polar bear hunting has been limited to Innuit hunters only, in Alaska in past years, and has been totally banned in Russian territories for 51 years.

The Service has proposed to protect the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA.) A proposed rule (pdf) that would add the polar bear to the federal list of threatened and endangered species was submitted to the Federal Register on December 27, 2006, we anticipate this notice being published on January 11, 2007, opening a 90-day comment period on this proposed listing.

The primary threat to polar bears is the decrease of sea ice coverage. Although some females use snow dens on land for birthing cubs, polar bears are almost completely dependent upon sea ice for their sustenance. Any significant changes in the abundance, distribution, or existence of sea ice will have effects on the number and behavior of these animals and their prey.

This proposed listing responds to a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, dated February 16, 2005, to list the polar bear as threatened and to designate critical habitat. The Service’s comprehensive review of the status of the polar bear determined that the best available scientific and commercial data indicates that protecting the species as threatened throughout its range is appropriate. The Service now seeks public review of our proposed rule.

A species can be listed under the Endangered Species Act under one of two categories, endangered or threatened. An endangered species is likely to go extinct within all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. The polar bear was petitioned to be listed as a threatened species, defined as a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.

The proposed rule to list the polar bear as threatened does not include a proposal for designating critical habitat. As part of the request for comments on the proposal to list the species, the Service is also seeking information regarding measures to consider and reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat for the polar bear if the listing becomes final.

Potential Effects of Contaminants and/or Climate Change on Polar Bears
Ecological changes in the Arctic related to both anthropogenic and natural patterns are poorly understood but are of significant conservation concern. A circumpolar study is currently underway to determine contaminant levels in polar bears and compare results with findings from a similar study completed 10 years ago. A bio-monitoring program is ongoing in Alaska.

Changes in sea ice as a result of global warming are known to affect polar bear productivity in other parts of the Arctic. An effort is currently underway in Alaska to assess sea ice habitat selection by polar bears using polar bear satellite radio locations and National Ice Center charts.

Potential Over-harvest of Polar Bears
Two populations of polar bears occur in Alaska: the southern Beaufort Sea population (shared with Canada); and the Bering/Chukchi seas population (shared with Russia). Best available information indicates that approximately 1,800 polar bears comprised the southern Beaufort Sea population during the early 1990's; the population is thought to have grown since then. The size of the Bering/Chukchi seas population is unknown; best available information suggests the population consists of a minimum of 2,000 animals.

The FWS has been monitoring polar bear harvest by Alaska Natives since 1980. The program consists of recording the number, age, and sex of polar bears taken for subsistence purposes, as well as the location they were taken. Harvest levels in the southern Beaufort Sea are managed at a sustainable level under terms of an Inupiat-Inuvialuit (Alaska-Canada) hunters agreement. Harvests in the Chukchi Sea (in Alaska) are managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA); take for subsistence must be non-wasteful and the population’s status must be considered healthy (not depleted).

Human Development in Polar Bear Habitat
Habitat used by polar bears for denning, feeding, and seasonal movements are important for the continued health of polar bear populations. Our knowledge of polar bear use of the near shore environment is limited. In the Beaufort Sea region, bear use of coastal areas appears to have increased over the last decade, thereby also increasing potential effects of human activities on polar bears, e.g. increased exposure to contaminants, hunting, or other bear-human interactions during which either bears or humans are potentially injured. Current efforts are underway to:
1) characterize distribution and abundance of polar bears along the Beaufort Sea coastline;
2) describe the number, age, sex, behavior and habitat use of polar bears concentrated around hunter-harvested bowhead whale carcasses; and
3) re-institute incidental take regulations designed to minimize impacts of oil and gas activities on polar bears and their habitat.

In the Bering/Chukchi seas, the majority of denning occurs on Wrangel and Herald islands and the Chukotka Peninsula (Russia). Wrangel Island Nature Reserve provides protection status for denning bears; monitoring denning in these areas may be used to monitor population status and trends. Increased harvest of polar bears in Chukotka is a concern.

3-26-09 POLAR BEAR COUNTRIES MEET

Minister Prentice Highlights Progress Made at Polar Bear Roundtable

Chukchi Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 and Seismic Surveying Activities in the Chukchi Sea