E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AP file
A polar bear in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge looks for food. The animals rely on strong sea ice to find sustenance.
Regularly flown-in loads of seal meat could feed hungry polar bears and prevent them from wandering into coastal villages in search of food when they are suddenly unable to find it elsewhere due to global warming, according to the world’s top polar bear scientists.
Currently, however, no such plan exists in any of the five nations with jurisdiction over the globally threatened species, the researchers warn in a new paper. And that’s a problem, given that just one exceptionally early breakup of sea ice could leave a large number of bears starving.
"The modeling work we’ve done indicates that we are going to see these critical events in the next decades," Andrew Derocher, a polar bear biologist at the University of Alberta, told NBC News.
Loss of sea ice
Polar bears rely on sea ice platforms to hunt their favored prey: ringed seals. When the ice breaks up due to warmer temperatures, polar bears retreat inland and fast until the ice refreezes in the fall.
The widespread loss of sea ice in the Arctic, along with changes in breakup and refreeze times, has already resulted in weakened polar bear populations, Derocher and colleagues note in the journal Conservation Letters. And these changes are expected to continue.
"Given the amount of inertia in the climate system, it is very clear that we are going to lose polar bear populations," Derocher said, citing research that indicates two-thirds of the bears will be gone by 2050, mostly at lower latitudes.
The question is how to manage this decline. If a so-called crisis year hits, should the starving bears be left to die or should money be spent (and if so, how much) trying to save them, hoping that the next year the sea ice will stay intact long enough for the bears to survive on their own?
Intervention feeding could keep some bear populations around for another 10 to 20 years, long enough to maintain vibrant polar bear tourism operations, as well as provide a source of subsistence food for Inuit populations, Derocher explained.
Management options outlined in the paper range from doing nothing "to calling out plane loads or helicopter loads of bear chow to try to keep the population alive," he said.
Ultimately, even flown-in food may be insufficient for some populations, assuming climate trends continue. That could mean moving low-latitude bears further north and putting more bears in zoos to preserve genetic diversity so that when the ice returns, a healthy polar bear population can be restored.
"The problem for polar bears is that we might be talking hundreds or thousands of years before sea ice actually comes back in the full context of what we have today," Derocher said.
Options on the table
He stressed that the paper doesn’t say what government wildlife managers should do, but rather lays out options for policymakers to consider. If an early breakup of sea ice were to hit in Canada this summer, for example, it would be illegal to feed any bears in a national park.
"In some cases, it is going to take changes in legislation," he said, an indication that drawing up plans will take time.
Kassie Siegal is the climate program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, a U.S.-based environmental group that pushed the government to list polar bears under the Endangered Species Act and take action to protect them.
She told NBC News that the new study outlines the issues that governments need to consider now to prepare for a crisis event. But, she said, that planning shouldn’t take the focus away from reducing the greenhouse gas emissions at the root of human-caused climate change.
"We still need to do everything we can to cut greenhouse gas pollution," she said. "And we need to look at what we can do to save bears in the wild because we only have so many wild bears and once they are gone, they are gone."
John Roach is a contributing writer for NBC News. To learn more about him, check out his website.
Leave a Comment:
I wonder how they are doing eating radioactive seals poisoned by Japan's nuclear fiasco? Their hair is falling out but it is defiantly "not" because of radiation poisoning, yah, right, what ever you say associated press. If it is on TV it must be true. lol
Oh? Radioactive seals in the arctic? Can you offer any proof of that surprising tale?
No one in Alaska doubts P.Bears are in trouble.They fire the scientists who try to report it. Big money rules.see:Scientist fired for reporting dead bears. There were two scientists fired over this.
Most of the regulatory agencies are dominated by the big three(logging, mining , oil) who police THEMSELVES.Small wonder that years after the Exon Valdez incident, Valdez residents are bitter and still facing clean ups, and the oil companies litigated for years, successully whittling down their fines....
Big hunting and gun groups also donate heavily to Alaskan elections and try to "buy" laws that attempt to protect the animals."takes" on fishing and game are regulated by agencies that again, are often subject to control by COMMERCIAL interests who hire scientists who file shoddy reports. The result? Alaska has many of the top SUPERFUND sites.Protecting the Polar bear is getting in the way of drill baby drill and pretty much everyone who lives there knows it. I lived there.
Regarding the climate change deniers. What does socialism have to do with this? Nothing , absolutely nothing. Wake up and smell the coffee. Global warming does not mean everyone gets warmer. It means a cycle of rapidly escalating severe weather changes(which is exactly what we've got), some facing severe cold and severe storms, other facing over heating. Drought that killed crops in Africa has now spread to the U.S. in the west and in the midwest. Coastal nations are facing issues from rising water levels and the glaciers in many countries are melting. Socialism has nothing to do with it. How much is related to man-made environmental dedradation and how much is natural cycle remains debate-able.In the meantime, the fish are dying off rapidly, the polar bears are dying, and soon man will follow suit if we don't take steps to adjust to this fact.
Big Biz runs Alaska and was behind the lawsuit declaring Polar Bears are not endangered. Everyone else knew different but Oil interests control everything.
@ Michael, several stories last year.
Here's one
http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/newsreleases/2012/yakutatringseal030712.htm
Sure it is all coincidence that sea life is suffering "odd" effects. Just like how it WASN'T odd that after the EQ and the reactor failing we moved our naval effort more than 100 miles off the coast.
So why do you say they are radioactive, when the initial results show it is likely NOT radiation. And there are plenty of reasons why animals lose hair without ever having been exposed to radiation. Or are you saying it is all a conspiracy and that the government controls all information?
Many of the agencies do control information, and grants, and are heavily influenced by money. As for radiation in the artic, the Atomic Enegery Commission, back in the day, wanted to use the land and the people for experiences with radioactive materials.Alaska has radioactive areas naturally.Supposedly they were chased out but the POINT HOPE EXPERIMENTS on Natives and numerouse other incidents point to mishandling, dumping and burying at sea radioactive materials.So there is a good possibility in some areas animals have swam through or come in contact with radioactive mines, or old test sites, or dumps.In fact so much secretive radioactive testing and such has occured that the bones of the Northern people as well as some of the animals they eat show high concentrations of a Stronium compound, resulting in a cancer rate among Natives (Alaskan) five times greater than average Americans. Took me a while to find out this stuff and what I found out made me really upset. Some want to treat the environment as a dumping ground for whatever and are more concerned with profits than people or animals.And as far as the government always telling the public the truth.....well I gave up on that illusion around the time of the coincidental Kennedy assisantions.....and the sealing of the records for fifty years. They hide a lot from the public.If people knew, they'd insist that Big Biz follow the rules like everyone else and not poison the people and animals needlessly.
Dale, in addition to Brisaber's points, the link you provide is over 2000 miles / 3500 km (as the seal swims) from the nearest polar bear habitat.
Further, oceanic circulation does not support the hypothesis that any radiation from Fukushima has entered the high arctic / polar bear domain.
So, going back to comment #1 saying that polar bears are being killed off by radioactive seals - prove it. I find it unlikely in the extreme.
This is a BS story. Polar bears are a top predator; they feed on just about anything. Yes global warming is bad for many species in the arctic, but polar bears are NOT threatened.
Well, I guess we're about to find out.
What are you talking about? There is one thing they can eat in the arctic and that is seals. Walrus's are too big to kill and Caribou are too fast. Seals have been their diet for thousands of years and all their hunting techniques are designed around catching them. That is for good reason a seals have the calories that the bears need to make it through winter, save for the occasional beached whale. You take the seals away because of ice loss and polar bears go extinct, it is that simple.
Maybe you should tell them that they should start eating grass instead.
Numerous studies (Richard H. Russell, 1975 & Marrianne Iversen, 2011 for example) have looked into polar bear diets. Polar bears are apex predators. In the Russell study, 445 polar bear scats were analyzed during the summer and fall (time of least ice). The polar bears were found to eat a surprising amount of birds and vegetable matter. Iversen similarly wrote: "Despite being highly specialized in hunting ice-associated marine mammals, polar bears are opportunistic feeders." "...the bears in Svalbard also occasionally take Svalbard reindeer...." As I wrote, this is a BS story which has little to do with reality.
Polar bears have become the poster child for global warming, but they are not even close to the most at risk. They are just more photogenic than muskox for example.
A really good story on polar bears (written 2004) is The Fuzzy Face of Climate Change.
Here is a sample of the story: "Having gone to Churchill on the assumption that polar bears were one missed meal away from extinction, I was surprised to find that worldwide population numbers were confusing and controversial. In 1965, a consortium of polar-bear specialists reported that the global population had been hunted down to near extinction—as few as 5,000 animals worldwide according to some sources. And yet by 1990 an esteemed polar-bear researcher named Ian Stirling felt comfortable categorically stating that polar bears were not endangered. Zoom up to the present and there seems to be a consensus that between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears are spread across the five polar nations."
It is simple arithmetic, even if the gloom and doom people are right, there will still be twice as many polar bears as in 1965.
The bears are just a touchy feely excuse for the socialists to rearrange the world in their own image. If they really cared about the bears themselves they'd be talking about cancelling the annual bear hunting season that kills 400-500 bears a year.
They should start collecting DNA samples as fast as they can. Then beef up zoo populations. In the future, they may be able to be cloned and brought back from the brink, but not until after we go through the hell that we are creating here on Earth.
peanut
The scientists present evidence to support their theory about global climate change. Anti-science, anti-education, anti-intellectual conspiracy theorists refute that theory without evidence ..... just an unfounded political attack against "socialists." That is why we are cautioned since childhood against paying attention to comments "from the peanut gallery."
Dale, yes the bear will eat other stuff, however birds, vegetation, and small game do not provide the caloric intake it needs to produce all the fat reserves required to survive and to nurse young. It needs seals for that and that requires ice.
Mitchell
Polar bears will not starve if they cannot find ice patches big enough to go hunt seals, they will turn to eating Inuits. We should be predicting that Inuits are endangered and build some more oil rigs on their lands so they can move to Florida like snow-bird Jews and enjoy the good life
my philosophy is that we all live on earth which means it's our job to defend it even from ourselves and be prepared for every thing so how about we design a web that will run over and around the ice with a metal that can be cooled to low temps we the super cool the web lowering the temp on the surface cooler water sinks hot water rises same principle but the same which ever is most dense will sink
now we can sink cold water bombs that release cold air of dry ice so that the temps at the bottom cool to
now also have boats cooling the under body to achieve the same affect and drop dry ice in it will create a reaction to increase gas molecules -gas cools quicker the we just keep cooling the water = better climates less extremes because e the flow of water affects the weather pattern
now something i want to use on mars is the r.reagan star wars project we can use satellites to produce a light filter similar to the atmosphere to keep heat out over the poles -now you can use the same affect to heat mars and put artificial magnets to attract the necessary components for a habitable planet
1) less ice less reflection = hotter atmosphere droughts ect-we have those already but open the dams and we will be ok just let half or a third out
2)FOSSIL FUELS PUT DARK ASHES WHICH ABSORB HEAT BECAUSE IT IS A DARK EMISSION-
so lets use that blimp made of metal and magnetize it to the pollutions molecule so it only attracts those and have it pull them out of the atmosphere and float it out of the atmosphere and see where it goes even just drop iron filings and metal grinds in to space and see where they go by seeing the reflections
once we have gone through the ozone you could light it in space with a welcome to earth sign to let pothers know we are here
nasa had a plan to help fix the ozone which was brilliant we should do it-less heat the better and more shade will cool the planet and the weathers temper
the problem is that there are too many people that think global warming and polar ice melting is bs. these are the same people who only believe what they see in front of them and think everything else is made up. they probably don't think wars are ugly. but polar bears are doomed because nothing will be done, which is really o k, because we'll all be doomed when the polar ice caps melt. 1 good thing is the national debt won't matter.
The polar bear was around before the dollar and will be around a lot longer after its gone.
Global warming, climate change, whatever, is very real. What is also real is that polar bears have existed in their present form for over 50,000 years. They lived through the last interglacial period, which was a bit warmer than it is now. The change this time around is the 7+ billion people who occupy just about every habitat on this planet. It is habitat loss, not climate change which threatens most species. The other variable, which is quite real, is that humans could push the natural warming of this interglacial period to temperatures that the alarmists warn of. If so, that will still not be the end of the world, but it would definitely doom polar bears in the wild. During the Eocene thermal maximum, alligators lived where polar bears live today.
Just like the Tasmanian Tiger, and the Dodo bird. They aren't really exinct, because we simply cannot alter God's Earth. Not even the detectible traces of radioactive elements in the atmosphere are real. Just more BS from so-called "Educated" people. /sarcasm
Yup, the human population must be reduced to a mere several hundred million. All to save some bears that can easily adapt to their environment, if they weren't able to do that they wouldn't exist today.
Good trade off. (heavy sarcasm)
Deliberately feeding the bears by 'social contract' is preposterous, feed the bears but let people starve, ya right.
If we feed the bears, they become dependent, sound familiar? We have millions of 'bears' already on the dole, they keep demanding more...imagine that.
2q3RtzLow, The earth is of finite size and has a finite amount of resources. As such, there is a limit to the number of humans that the earth can support. If we take away resources (habitat) for other species and for quality of life, then the number is much smaller. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting a human world population as low as several hundred of million. However, the present world population of 7+ billion is not sustainable without a large number of people living on the edge of starvation.
The central issue in this story is polar bears. No one seriously disputes that arctic ice melts like those of the summers of 2007 and 2012 are not going to be repeated. By 2050, the summer melts will likely be even greater. However, it is also true that no one seriously predicts that there will not be extensive ice every winter. The issue for polar bears is that until the ice freezes, they must forage on land. The contention of Dr. Derocher is that, "When the ice breaks up due to warmer temperatures, polar bears retreat inland and fast until the ice refreezes in the fall." A number of studies find this not to be true in that the bears continue to forage and do not fast.
I will mention another issue for polar bears. They evolved from brown bears only about a million or a little less years ago. Genetically they are still compatible. Global warming could hypothetically allow brown bears to move northward and interbreed with land foraging polar bears. Such hypothetical interbreeding could dilute the unique polar bear adaptations to feeding on seals.
The basic problem is that given enough humans, there is no natural environment left.
also there is a flip side to spectrum so with coal is that in one form it produces symmetrical crystals that are magnetically opposite they never touch even ho close they are
these are amazing crystals for solar energy for homes and space ships thats why i don't understand the GOGs(WELSH) home of the red dragon also mrs romney = they are not opening those coal mines because it's a special type of crystal-
there may be life in wales yet my whole family comes from there and i went to school in Cardiff and n.wales -how we got our names in the morman caves i don't know
anyway they don't have to sell fossil fuels now we have solar energy crystals and natural gas from American soil
ditch oil look at the harm it does to the environment and the wars that have been fought over it-it;s more trouble than its worth
gas prices go down considerable by adopting the battery that the 400mph car has battery powered
i once heard chevron had a patent for really good batteries that could power a car-i can't imagine they bought it keep it off the market-so many patents so little produced
of course that may just be a nasty rumor
i love this stuff-my wife hates it hence the short ones -i am pretty much banned because she thinks i'm nuts -hence the huffington post accts had to be closed-MY FAVORITE TO BE HONEST-i miss talk nerdy to me
you should hook up with them the lay out is better more colorful bigger print-no offense but yours is a little drap with not to much lite stuff-you need to incorporate fun and casual to combat the great repression of we the people
its more visual with more pictures they tell a thousand words
Someone forgot to report the FACT that more polar bears are alive today than they were decades ago?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/08/15/good-news-for-polar-bears-is-bad-news-for-global-warming-alarmists/
Hysteria is NOT science
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/new-study-says-global-warming-is-good-for-polar-bears/
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/4/book-polar-bear-population-rise/
^ if Zac Unger can be convinced why can't you???
These global warming zealots are like TheWizard of Oz " pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"
OO, save us from the badd guys, Superpoliticalman!!
The Washington Times and Forbes are hardly reputable scientific publications.
It is very difficult to estimate polar bear populations. Some recent estimates have been larger than crude estimates we have from the past, and perhaps that means populations grew after hunting was reduced. However, there is still ice, so the future declines that are projected should not be apparent yet.
Perhaps the polar bears will not go extinct, but that really isn't the point.
If things are so bad how did the crew of "Top Gear" drive...DRIVE to the North Pole during summer and not see and open water.
If the polar bears go, we'll be overrun with seals. And when they run out of fish, who do you think they'll come after? Think about it.
Climate change isn't so warm and cuddly now, is it?
Nature loves change, embraces it. Only man is stuck in a rut. Get used to it.
Polar bears have been here for more than 100,000 years. Many surveys show the population has increased 5 times in the last 40 years. Currently the only polar bears threatened are those in a bay in Russia where record sea ice prevents the bears from getting to the sea for their winter food.
This article is just another revved up panic attack to feed the ignorant, anti-science liberals who never saw a number that they understood nor do they understand the proposed hypothesis of how CO2 is supposed to cause global warming. (No evidence to support that hypothesis has been found in 60 years worth of recorded data.)
Numbers: global temperature has gradually decreased by 1.5 C in the last 8,000 years while CO2 has increased from 255 ppm to 395 ppm. In the prior four interglacials CO2 never rose above 295 ppm while global temperature was 2 C warmer. Currently while CO2 has increased 8.3% in the last 16 years, global temperature has decreased at the rate of 0.12C per century. Manmade CO2 may decrease global temperature by 1 one thousandth of a degree in 100 years
.