![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6){kind=small}
Dear all. Broad public discussion on polar bear conservaion issues is going on as well as speculations about "sustainable" harvest vs. poaching. Please find bellow comments that I have found in Internet: Morten's comment discribes the situation quite correctly and the wording is clear.
____________________
I am very happy to be in communication about these issues about polar bears etc. There are so many myths, and I have previously myself been one of those who repeated many of these. I wish now to contribute to the dissemination of correct information regarding polar bears. An uphill battle, but so it goes. Re Russia and WWF and poaching and Polar Bears - I would like to comment on a couple of aspects, and please feel free to pass my comments on (to Sandy and others) - distribute them freely. The more, the better!
____________________
I am very happy to be in communication about these issues about polar bears etc. There are so many myths, and I have previously myself been one of those who repeated many of these. I wish now to contribute to the dissemination of correct information regarding polar bears. An uphill battle, but so it goes. Re Russia and WWF and poaching and Polar Bears - I would like to comment on a couple of aspects, and please feel free to pass my comments on (to Sandy and others) - distribute them freely. The more, the better!
1) I would be VERY interested in any link to any documentation to the claim that poaching in Russia decreased in 2009. I am not so sure anyone can prove that!
2) I would be VERY interested in any link to any documentation that can link WWF Russia with a decrease in polar bear poaching. Again - I doubt there is any proof of this!
3) WWF was to my knowledge completely passive in the recent campaign for/against legalising polar bear hunting in Russia. Not only that, in my attempt to get WWF in Scandinavia involved, they directly said that they would not oppose the campaign for a quota/hunt in Russia, and their ridiculous reasons were these 3:
a) Legal controlled hunt is better than poaching (but no argument why they think it would be one OR the other in Russia)
b) Relations to indigenous peoples in Chukotka made the issue very sensitive for WWF (in my opinion, WWF were with that argument disregarding all fact that there is no indigenous tradition for polar bear hunting in Chukotka, and also that their mandate/interest ought to be the protection vulnerable wildlife instead on making politics).
c) Climate change is a greater threat than hunting (so ridiculous an argument that comments are not necessary).
4) The fact that Russia now has a legal quota is not necessarily disturbing in itself - as long as the decision is NOT TO IMPLEMENT THE QUOTA. The background in brief is this: The shared Chukotkan/Alaskan polar bear population was previously protected in Russia, but hunted freely in Alaska. As part of a joint Russian/American management agreement, a new quota on legal take of polar bears from this population is now shared equally between the 2 countries. This decision drastically reduces the number of polar bears that can now legally be taken in Alaska. At the same time, by deciding not to utilize their half of the quota, the Russians have reduced the number of bears that will be hunted even further.
The battle must now be to ensure that the quota is never given free, but that legislators maintain the ZERO hunting policy - while we also need to be working towards better monitoring of the Chukotkan reality to reduce poaching. As well as working to protect polar bears from other threats, such as habitat destruction, degradation and invasion; excessive invasive research; disturbance in designated refuges; unfair and incorrect reputation as unpredictable killing machines (myths again), and many more.
5) Polar bears are not threatened by climate change. Not directly. Another myth! Climate change, and global warming, even the seasonal disappearance of sea ice, will not necessarily and by itsels be a threat to the polar bear as a species. Historical evidence proves this - the species has survived several severe warming periods in its existance. The problem with today's global warming and sea-ice disappearance is that it is coupled with two historically unprecendented situations:
a) increased human presence along the shores of the Arctic and sub-Arctic. Humans today occupy the same areas that polar bears ned to survive in druing ice-free times. This leads to conflict, deadly encounters (almost always deadly for the bears only), disturbance, competition for ressources, etc.
b) decreased availability of food ressources in that coastal environment due to over-exploitation of the seas.
c) reproduction may be severely reduced due to toxins, stress and lack of food ressources.
The factors mentioned here in a) b) and c) are - in combination also with the threats mentioned in 4) above - the reasons why polar bears may face extinction in the wild during this century - not so much global warming itself.
Morten Jørgensen, Broagergade 1, 3.th., 1672 København V, DK - Denmark, Tel: (+45) 22902811
