Sounds like the sea surface temp studies, and Mann, and Jones and, of course, Algore. Climate science at its best -- throw out any old wild-ass guess and bring the regulatory hammer down.

Bollocks. The bears were hunted, so therefore the population decreased. UNLESS there is evidence that the hunting was somehow done in a sustainable way.
To suggest that because you can't find any evidence of bear numbers is less than impressive.

Oh wait!
It's socratic irony again!

I copy this post from the previous PB thread which is about to drop off.

Notice how the researchers didn't bother to quantify how many Kg of berries would be needed to offset 0.85kg of "fasting" weight loss that PBs are assumed to endure due to the shorter ice period?

Did anyone also notice how the analysis only focussed on fat content, not the broader issue of carbohydrates and sugars in nutrition? So are we seriously to believe that the abundance of carbohydrates and sugars in berries will not substitute for or prevent fat loss in shore based PBs?

One kilogram of Blackberry, for example, has 2180kj energy, 7.2g of protein, 3.9g fat and 127g of carbohydrates. http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com/lounge/benefits-of-blackberry-1973.html

Raspberry and Cranberry are similar but data seems sparse on Nagoonberry (Cloud Berry).

According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_fat animal fat has 37.656kj/gramm so the fasting PB daily fat loss 0.85kg (32,007kj) could be restored by eating only 14.7kg of berries each day.

Obviously, additional berries would be needed to cover energy use whilst foraging and variations in digestive efficiency but even a 50% addition to a total of 22kg is not a big ask for any bear over a 22 hour Arctic day. Throw in a few high calorific bugs, fungi and fauna of opportunity and the prospect of weight gain is very real.

In fact, the suggested intake of 22kg of fat/week from hunting seals, less 12kg for energy use, leaving 10kg of fat gain is not significantly better than a good feed of berries. That 10kg/week is only 1428 grams each day, or 53,770kj/day which, divided by 2180kj/kg amounts to only 24.66kg of berries. The energy used in foraging for those berries would be much less than that required for hunting.

So the discussion by the above mentioned "researchers" on the likely consequences of shorter hunting seasons is purely one-sided speculation that has deliberately ignored a significant contribution to the PB energy budget.

And they have done so in light of the fact that a shorter ice pack duration will mean a longer and more productive berry season that can off-set any adverse consequences of this change. Assuming, of course, that the shorter ice pack even continues.

Dear Nicole,
One must to have conclude that even Mr Thorsens estimates were wrong. I have checked old archives from Svalbard and the stats from the Norwegian Statistical Bureau.

They say that the old hunt numbers of living polar bears are wrong. They are underestimated.

FYI , during 1871 and 1973 , about 30 000 polar bears were killed in Svalbard , that means about 200 - 300 annually.

The Norwegian Polar Institute also stated that the PB in Svalbard was overhunted until it became protected in 1973.

This is the beginning of the end -- for these bears, for nature-- and for us if we are not more careful. Just becuase we don't yet have evidence -- does that mean we don't believe?

This is the future for us all! In the developing world climate change will cost lives; in the developed world -- just (!) money. . We have too little money to fix EVERYTHING that climate breaks. Triage is applied in an emergency to allow the most globally beneficial use of inadequate resources. There will be severe climate disruptions, which will be left untreated because they will be recognized as able to recover autonomously. Selected climatically-induced emergencies where tax-payers’ money can reduce suffering will be funded. Last, and most sadly, there may be even situations where unlimited funds cannot reverse impacts and the limited funds are deemed better deployed on other projects for more go to www.climatechangetriage.net

Here you go, someone already asked the experts...

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/

Johnnie,

You can relax now because we don't have to worry about A-CO2-Global Warming. This means that we can continue to burn fossil fuels using the best clean burn technologies which will allow us to focus on addressing real environmental challenges.

You need to be happy about this.

My apologies, it's Mr Thor Larson , and not as I stated Mr Thorsen , who is as well a well known Norwegian PB scientist , who has done PB population estimates.

For those who are interested here's a Norwegian link with old PB capturing images from the 1920's:

http://www.ssb.no/emner/historisk_statistikk/artikler/art-2000-09-06-01.html

"Just becuase we don't yet have evidence -- does that mean we don't believe?"

Says it all really........

NT, your "expert" is the same Derocher that Travis quoted in the previous PB thread, the same Derocher who left out all consideration of dietary supplement from berries in his 'other' 1993 paper.

And isn't it curious that Travis was unable to find any research material on the nutritional value of berries? I take him at his word that his googling failed to show any papers on this topic.

Indeed, the PB research community is to be roundly condemned for allowing the policy debate to continue for this long with such a large gap in the information.

As my post above makes clear, this is not a difficult gap to fill with at least some preliminary indicators. But the fact that detailed work on actual berry consumption volumes, preferences, and nutritional values has not been done merely emphasises the dearth of credibility these people possess.

The conclusion is inescapable. These people knew, or should have known, that a comparatively modest feed of berries was capable of negating much of their doomsday scenarios so they chose to avoid the issue altogether.

Why are we not surprised?

Ummm Ian, this was a discussion of Polar Bear numbers. If you want to talk berries, do so but it's not relevant to what this thread is about.

And hey if you don't like the research being done, go and do some yourself. Sitting on your couch complaining isn't going to change anything.

Is the above post your 'study' on the nutrition of Polar Bears?
"But the fact that detailed work on actual berry consumption volumes, preferences, and nutritional values has not been done merely emphasises the dearth of credibility these people possess. "
It's not a fact, Ian. The FACT is that you haven't bothered to research yourself.

This took me (literally) one minute to find
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v58t1935h800h468/

Google is your friend Ian...

Bollocks, NT. That is a generalised study, obviously dominated by populations that have longer exposure to ice pack. To apply that study to a specific population that has not had summer ice for a few decades at least is more of the usual spin and casuistry.

I mentioned the berry thread because you would have us believe that Derocher et al are some sort of expert arbiter of PB science when they have clearly been exposed for presenting partial and fragmentary information.

"Google is your friend" indeed, what a posturing ponce you are.

In 1989, Tasmania had 138 eagle territories (95 of which were active) and 75 pairs producing young (usually one each), a level arguably sufficient to prevent inbreeding but which could result in loss of genetic variation.
Now latest numbers for 2005, an estimated 458 territories were reported by the Commonwealth Government representing 86 per cent of the pre- European settlement number. Activity data indicates 255 territories were active, producing 230 offspring. Total population was estimated at between 1200-1500 individuals with approximately half being mature aged birds.

Despite the massive effort by the Forest Sector to ensure this species remains viable (clearly a population over 80% of the original number is viable); green groups are still condemning forestry practices as a threat to this bird.

In apparent ignorance of these facts and at the request of prominent environmentalists, well known Television presenter Sir David Attenborough CH, FRS claimed in a documentary against the State’s approved pulp mill, that in Tasmania:
“Here logging for wood pulp and chips threatens a wide variety of habitats and animals, including the magnificent wedge-tailed eagle”.

Dodgy numbers and the appeal to ‘save’ threatened species appear to be the norm for environmental political activists world wide. The species just become an advertising image, be them eagles or polar bears, and the fact that numbers are increasing is ignored by our normally questioning media.

Ian, so you bought access to that paper did you?
And your rebuttal was so well thought out too, I have to wonder, did you think it out for yourself?

Ha ha, I used the word 'expert' as that's what the site was called. It was tongue in cheek. However the quote in the original post is actually from that website. I posted it so people could actually read the whole of what he said.
The link in the original post and mine are the same... And then you try and discredit the same man that this thread is based on...
It's hilarious. The post is based on a quote from Derocher and you set yourself busily to discrediting him. CLASSIC.

Bull$hitenborough has made a very good, high emission, living by flogging eco-soma to the barbi-worlders. With this example we should ask, is he just getting sloppy? - or was he just flogging crap all along? On the balance of probability this is his standard MO.

But the PB numbers do hoist the greens on their own petard. On one hand they like to claim that PB populations were decimated by hunting but they just can't stomach the thought that any species might stage a recovery of the magnitude that PBs appear to have done.

So they are stuck in a deep pool of their own bull$hit. If the recovery has not been as spectacular as it appears then, clearly, the original hunting impact was less severe. And if it was less severe then levels like the 30,000 supposedly killed at Svalbard over a century were not as big a threat as claimed and annual hunts of, say, half that number may be sustainable.

The irony is how little animal fat is required to off-set the consequences of supposedly critical changes. At only 10kg/week of fat accumulation, and only 6kg/week for basic metabolism per animal, a six week shortening of hunting season, for a population of 1000 animals could be met by only 96 tonnes of abattoir by-products like fats and edible offal, or a couple of hectares worth of peanuts or soybean meal.

But in fact, just a single aerial application of fertiliser to the bramble patches would probably do the trick. But given the amount of misinformation surrounding this species, even that level of response is probably overkill.

No NT, the joke is on you and your obvious retention deficit. Derocher is one of a number of quotes in the opening post and his quote is followed by Nichole's very pertinent question, "But how can Dr Derocher be sure that polar bear populations were being negatively affected by harvesting if there is no hard data on population numbers for the same period?"

You're right out of your depth here, matey.

Here's another Ian...

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119947994/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Gee your claim that the study of Polar Bear diets is lacking seems a little... wrong.

"But how can Dr Derocher be sure that polar bear populations were being negatively affected by harvesting if there is no hard data on population numbers for the same period?"
This is a stupid statement. First, they had to stop hunting as they were running out of bears, this SURELY indicates that bear numbers were going down.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/ConvAgree/agreement.htm
See they even made a treaty.

Sometimes there isn't a mystery. Or were Polar Bears somehow breeding at the same rate they were being hunted?

Ann,

Dr Thor Larson was the Norwegian expert representative at the Polar Bear Specialist Group during the 1970s. His reports included information on harvesting extent, BUT in a separate report he considers expert views and observational data gathered during expeditions into polar bear habitat. Larsen's conclusions on population data acknowledges that all the present estimates are inaccurate, with consideration of aerial surveys and survey's from ships.

see: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Polar_Bear_Specialist_Group_of_the_IUCN_Meetings

Its possible the archives you read were part of Larsen's research, if the information was available during the 1960-70s. Larsen was the key researcher of Norway's polar bears in the 1960s and 1970s.

Considering that the Norwegians believe their harvesting data underestimated the numbers, then they agree with Larsen that population numbers estimates were too low and it is entirely possible that there are many more polar bears than scientist thought.

Nicole, your logic escapes me. How can you conclude that hunting had no effect on population?

>NT, your "expert" is the same Derocher that Travis quoted in the previous PB thread, the same Derocher who left out all consideration of dietary supplement from berries in his 'other' 1993 paper.

Ian Mott I have just written this response to your post on the other thread:

>Did anyone also notice how the analysis only focussed on fat content, not the broader issue of carbohydrates and sugars in nutrition? So are we seriously to believe that the abundance of carbohydrates and sugars in berries will not substitute for or prevent fat loss in shore based PBs?

Believe what you want Mott. You are the self-imposed expert, along with Ivan and Nicole. (sorry Nichole I have been mispelling your name).Not sure why you are bothering to sit in your stained armchair and calculate berries. If it were that simple, don't you think researchers (particularly those with an agenda like Nicole's) would have done this already?

>So the discussion by the above mentioned "researchers" on the likely consequences of shorter hunting seasons is purely one-sided speculation that has deliberately ignored a significant contribution to the PB energy budget.

Researchers Mott. You can't even master googling basic facts or reading what is put in front of you.

>And they have done so in light of the fact that a shorter ice pack duration will mean a longer and more productive berry season.

If you'd have read the papers and what I reproduced, you would learn about the berry season and PB monthly 'consumption'.

>And isn't it curious that Travis was unable to find any research material on the nutritional value of berries? I take him at his word that his googling failed to show any papers on this topic.

Standard reply. It's not 'curious' at all Mott. I at least provide information to support claims I make. I am STILL waiting for information from you to support your claims about Antarctic food chains. You continually fail to provide ANY information to back up your ideas, other than your own calculations, anecdotes and meandering thoughts.

Readers may like to go back to the PB thread at http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003342.html#comments (Polar Bears Can Survive where there is no Summer Sea Ice: A Note from Nichole Hoskin, August 20, 2008) and see how well certain posters here have managed to read and comprehend PB research.

>I mentioned the berry thread because you would have us believe that Derocher et al are some sort of expert arbiter of PB science when they have clearly been exposed for presenting partial and fragmentary information.

Clearly you have not read anything on PB research, let alone what has been posted here on PB threads.

Jennifer/Nichole wrote:
>We strive for tolerance and respect. We don't always agree with what we publish, but we believe in giving people an opportunity to be heard.

Ian wrote:
>"Google is your friend" indeed, what a posturing ponce you are.

If I can manage some restraint when faced with your standard comments, I'm sure you can too.

If you can't manage to find some information rather than making it up as if you have some expertise here, I wonder what you have to contribute to this thread?

Ian wrote:
>Bull$hitenborough has made a very good, high emission, living by flogging eco-soma to the barbi-worlders. With this example we should ask, is he just getting sloppy? - or was he just flogging crap all along?

Ivan previously wrote:
>Somehow I can't see David Attenborough doing something like this. Equally, I can't see it being allowed for serious study of any other species on earth.

Yes NT, it's hilarious!

>If the recovery has not been as spectacular as it appears then, clearly, the original hunting impact was less severe.

Perhaps you would like to read Taylor et al (2008) 'Mark-recapture and Stochastic Population Models for Polar Bears of the High Arctic', Arctic Vol 61:2, 143-152. Yes, I'm sure you will.

It's a paper by Mitchell Taylor (amongst others), who seems to have more credibility to some with an agenda to push. It looks at PB populations in Lancaster Sound and Norwegian Bay, Canada. "Our harvest simulation suggest that current levels of kill are approaching and perhaps exceeding the sustainable yield in both populations.'

The word 'suggest' will not sit well with Ivan or Nichole who want definites in PB science. Modelling has already been dissed here by experts like Hissink. The rest of the paper is quite interesting.

>You're right out of your depth here, matey.

Perhaps we should all be producing bottom-of-the-harbour 'facts' like you are Mott. As a blog that seeks to have some level of maturity in its debates, your made up calculations are embarrassing. You are not doing anything to further your cause or help educate anyone.

>Just maybe there have always been about 20,000 polar bears in the Arctic?

I suggest you broaden your reading Nichole, and open your mind. And before you tell me to provide you with information - I did that before and got the same arguments back, with no reference to what was written except that there were many points you could respond to. You still did not manage to understand the literature on PBs and the basic biology of the species and their prey.

>Nicole, your logic escapes me. How can you conclude that hunting had no effect on population?

NT, going by the last PB thread, the logic is a set agenda. It has nothing to do with reading and interpreting science. Sad.

Travis, yes the logic seems to go "there's no definitive evidence so we'll just assume that nothing happened"

Pretty stupid...

NT,

Have a look at:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Polar_Bears#Do_Scientists_know_the_size_of_polar_bear_populations.3F

Garshelis,a polar bear expert, when discussing problems with current estimates of all bear population numbers, argues,
“Because most bear populations are of unknown size, a record of increasing known deaths is often taken as prima facie evidence of a population decline. Moreover, even poor records with no clear trend but occasional documentation of a surge of deaths may be cause to fear a population decline.”

It is impossible to know if increasing harvesting is causing declines in population numbers without knowing how many polar bears there are, since you cannot establish that the harvesting is sustainable or unsustainable.

--------------
David L. Garshelis, ‘Misconceptions, Ironies and Uncertainties Regarding Trends in Bear Populations’, Ursus 2002 13, p 322.

NT,

Most people would be surprised that, in 2007, 3.6 million kangaroos were shot for commercial uses in Australia. Some might even think that killing such a large number of roos is unsustainable.

HOWEVER, since, in 2007, the kangaroo population in commercial harvesting zones was 24 million, we have sufficient evidence to establish that the commercial shooting of kangaroos is sustainable, within the guidelines of the IUCN on sustainable harvesting of wildlife.

The data above comes from the Australian Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/index.html

With polar bears, if we don't know how many bears there are, we have no idea whether harvesting is sustainable. We can only guess.

Nicole, are we discussing current kill levels of Polar Bears or historic populations?

I thought we were talking about historic levels.

"With polar bears, if we don't know how many bears there are, we have no idea whether harvesting is sustainable. We can only guess."

Are you advocating raising the number killed?

No more mud wrestling for me ...it's enough that the local people/ hunters ( see Living in the North) that are mostly very keen on hunting/ whaling are strongly opposed to polar bear hunting, over 90% of the Svalbard people are against a hunt and want to " save the polar bear " since they still remember the over kill of polars.

Travis,

If you did more research it would become apparent to you that the Canadian Govt uses Taylor's estimates of polar bear population size as the basis of their quotas on Inuit traditional harvesting of polar bears.

The Canadian Govt seems to think Taylor knows what his talking about. How are you to question that?

Nicole,

You may want to remove the link to Goddard's "Arctic Ice Refeuses to Melt"

http://www.desmogblog.com/arctic-ice-melt-media-misinformation-retracted

And Nichole , the international polar bear scientist community is strongly against this!

If you look at his link now
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

You can see he corrects himself and points out that the NSIDC figures are correct.

NT,

I am talking about historic numbers of polar bears--I was using an analogy of another harvested wildlife species to explain why we need to have data on both population numbers and harvesting numbers to know whether harvesting is causing declines in the numbers of polar bears. You did not understand my logic so I am explaining it to you.

Thanks NT.

I have checked and your right.
I have taken that portion of the data on Arctic sea ice extent off the EnvironmentWiki.

see: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Polar_Bears#Data_on_the_Extent_of_Sea_Ice_in_the_Arctic_Region

Ann,

You seem to have come to the conclusion that I am in favour of harvesting of polar bears. I don't have an opinion on harvesting of polar bears.

My point on harvesting is that it is strange to have claims made about effects of harvesting on a population following an acknowledgment that the data available at the time was "nothing but guesses"

Polar bears are harvested by either indigenous groups for cultural reasons, or by trophy hunters under commercial licence, usually from the same indigenous groups. The solution seems obvious.

" Ann,

Dr Thor Larson was the Norwegian expert representative at the Polar Bear Specialist Group during the 1970s. His reports included information on harvesting extent, BUT in a separate report he considers expert views and observational data gathered during expeditions into polar bear habitat. Larsen's conclusions on population data acknowledges that all the present estimates are inaccurate, with consideration of aerial surveys and survey's from ships.

see: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Polar_Bear_Specialist_Group_of_the_IUCN_Meetings

Its possible the archives you read were part of Larsen's research, if the information was available during the 1960-70s. Larsen was the key researcher of Norway's polar bears in the 1960s and 1970s.

Considering that the Norwegians believe their harvesting data underestimated the numbers, then they agree with Larsen that population numbers estimates were too low and it is entirely possible that there are many more polar bears than scientist thought.

Posted by: Nichole Hoskin at August 26, 2008 06:00 PM"

If you make guest posts on polar bears and refer to Norwegian PB hunting then you should have known what I meant with the HUNT OF LIVING POLAR BEARS!!! 10% of the hunt was of living PBs to Zoos etc.

In the archives there are no mentions of Thor Larson btw.

It's only concluded that the stats are wrong. You have a very vivid imagination and you're nothing but an industry shill!

Nichole I would suggest the answer lies in what you said here:
"But how can Dr Derocher be sure that polar bear populations were being negatively affected by harvesting if there is no hard data on population numbers for the same period?"

Did you ask him?
Is there circumstantial data about population size?
Why did they introduce the treaty in 1973 if there was no negative effect?
I think you need to do more research, rather than taking his "nothing but guesses" at face value.

This statement "My point on harvesting is that it is strange to have claims made about effects of harvesting on a population following an acknowledgment that the data available at the time was "nothing but guesses""
seems more political than anything. His estimation of the effect on PB by hunting is probably based on something else.

>The Canadian Govt seems to think Taylor knows what his talking about. How are you to question that?

Pfffttt!! I am not questioning what Taylor wrote in his 2008 paper Nichole. How did you come to this conclusion? Is the Canadian Govt, now that hunting in some areas may be unsustainable? I'm sure Taylor knows what he is talking about. And Derocher, Stirling, Amstrup...But I note that you ignore and question what these people write, even to the point of citing Derocher and Stirlings 1993 berry paper but dismissing their 2007 berry comments!

>If you did more research it would become apparent..

I suggest you take your own advice.

>With polar bears, if we don't know how many bears there are, we have no idea whether harvesting is sustainable. We can only guess.

Hence mark-recapture studies. Hence aerial surveys. Hence new technology and methodology, particularly for an aquatic, far-ranging carnivore.

>I was using an analogy of another harvested wildlife species to explain why we need to have data on both population numbers and harvesting numbers to know whether harvesting is causing declines in the numbers of polar bears.

And so we go back to kangaroos when it comes to culling/harvesting. Sigh. These are terrestrial mammals. Are you seriously expecting the same knowledge/methods exists for marine mammals such as PBs and cetaceans?

Nichole, if you just had looked at my Norwegian link with the pics , you would see that it was about living captured animals. I'm a little bit annoyed because nobody seems to check the links.

NT,

Read the 1960s and 1970s reports of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, where all the experts agree that they don't have sufficient data to accurately predict numbers of polar bears.

I am yet to find an academic paper on polar bear population numbers, from the many I have read, that says that scientist were accurately able to estimate population numbers.

Ann,

Did it not occur to you that since my piece is about historical populations estimates of polar bears and not about harvesting, I researched population estimates and not the details of harvesting......

Derocher's comment on harvesting just illustrates that acknowledging the lack of data on population numbers does not stop experts from making assertions that are speculation. The claims are speculation since there is not sufficient populations data to establish the assertion as a fact.

Are you looking for something to disagree with?

Ann,

Your right, I haven't yet checked your links.
When I have the opportunity, I will check them out.

Travis,

The Polar Bear Specialist Group, and most of the country reports in the 1970 report, clearly state that aerial surveys of polar bears is not possible.

In fact, the US report states,
“We have attempted to census polar bears by making aerial counts in sampling areas from fixed-wing light aircraft. The method appears to be unsuitable for obtaining estimates of total numbers because it is difficult to see white bears against a white background and there is no way to determine how many bears are present in sampling areas and not seen (Lentfer, et. al. 1967). Infra-red photography or heat-sensing equipment will probably be used in the future as an aid in locating bears.”

Larsen also questions the accuracy of aerial surveys in his 1972 report, stating,
“Attempts have been made to estimate the number of polar bears present in the Svalbard area. Data collected on aerial surveys over the eastern Svalbard pack ice in 1966 and 1967 and from the expedition vessels in the same general region in 1967 and 1968, have been evaluated and compared. Air counting success was shown to vary with weather and ice conditions. Airplane speed and altitude were the most important limiting factors for absolute counts. Observation distance, weather conditions, observers experience and degree of colour sense affected the ship counts. Ship counts were considered more reliable than airplane counts, but both methods are inaccurate. An evaluation of the counts made from ships under optimal conditions only, suggested that the total number of polar bears in the Svalbard area was between 1500 and 2000 in the late sixties. Comparison between air and ship counts showed a great discrepancy between the two counting methods. Absolute air counts of polar bears must be considered very unreliable. Previous worldwide estimates of polar bears are also unreliable, because of the lack of evaluation of the methods used, and because a census by one method in one particular area, cannot be used in a worldwide estimate. Merely by summarising the various national counts, which still must be considered inaccurate, one reaches the conclusion that the worlds total polar bear population is probably closer to 20,000 animals, than to the lower figures often suggested.”

" one reaches the conclusion that the worlds total polar bear population is probably closer to 20,000 animals, than to the lower figures often suggested.”- Larson

And what's the point? This merely points out that the situation is still worse for the PBs. The current population has not increased despite conservation measures??

And I wonder why Nichole only posts protocols / citations 40 to 50 years old? Aren't there any new reseach? And we also know that wildlife protection bodies like the IWC didn't work properly during the 60's and 70's.

Ann,

I am going to quote historical sources when I am writing about historical population estimates. If I was writing about current population estimates, I would quote papers on current estimates and the improvements in methodology were enabled by the recent use of radio-satellite data, gained from radio-collars on polar bears that have been captured, tagged and tracked.

>The Polar Bear Specialist Group, and most of the country reports in the 1970 report, clearly state that aerial surveys of polar bears is not possible.

I had been reading a new paper on walrus aerial surveys when I wrote my last post. Agreed, this method is not terribly reliable for PBs. As I have written and demonstrated previously, new technology is now available which is giving wildlife researchers amazing insights into animal behaviour and life history. Aerial work is still useful for mark-recapture.

>And I wonder why Nichole only posts protocols / citations 40 to 50 years old?

Yep. Although they are selectively chosen!

>Aren't there any new reseach?

As you would say Ann 'cough, cough'. I have supplied a number of references from this year.

Ann,

I am going to quote historical sources when I am writing about historical population estimates.

If I was writing about current population estimates, I would quote papers on current estimates and the improvements in methodology enabled by the recent use of radio-satellite data. Radio-satellite data is gained from radio-collars on polar bears that have been captured, tagged and tracked via satellites.

I'm sure you would find fault, real or imagined, with anything I write, whether it is on historical or current population estimates.

Nichole,
You should ask the experts if one can estimate historical population estimates using DNA surveys.

Ann,

Ask the experts yourself. Why would I ask experts a question for you?

I have not come across any academic papers on DNA evidence to establish historical population estimates and none of the papers on population estimates refer to this method, including papers by Amstrup, Stirling etc.

To NT, who said this... "Nicole, your logic escapes me. How can you conclude that hunting had no effect on population?"

Simple NT.... Like usual city people, you assume that if you hunt, then it follows that populations decline... That is not the case, they are made up for by increased cub survival rates.

Specially populations that are already at maximum... the more animals you kill.... the more food is left for growing cubs.... the more cubs that survive to adulthood.... thus populations remain stable.... Any population of anything can only expand to the limit of the food resource. You need to have massive hunting pressure in order to bring numbers down below sustainable levels....

I'd suggest that, though a large amount of polar bears might have been killed.... It was not overly taxing to the populations.

Plus the Arctic is not an easy place to hunt... and hunting anything is not simple... Look at the trouble Australia has trying to eradicate feral pigs, goats, donkeys, horses, etc.

It would seem then, that 25000 Polar bears is about saturation for the Arctic...

Females reach maturity in 5 years. Males in 10 years. PB's live for 36 years in captivity. PB's have up to 3 cubs per season. If a population of 25 thousand PB's of which just 5000 females averaged two cubs... that would be 10000 cubs a season... Lot of potential there... So there must be a reason that there is only 25 thousand of them after 40 years.... limited food and massive cub mortality, Actually half starve to death in the first year.... Also, Male PB's kill Cubs.

Definitely looks like Polar bears are at maximum population to me.

I don't really care about polar bears. The critters would eat me alive if I was near them. If they're that unfriendly they don't deserve any friendship back.

I honestly don't know what the real fuss is about when it comes to these critters other than dark greens, declinists and economic deadenders using them to scare the folks.

There are plenty of friggen bears in north america. In fact there are infestations in certain parts of the US. If worse came to worse we could catch a few hundred brown or grizzlies spray paint them white and dump them in the tundra. No one would know the difference. We could re-coat them a nice white color whenever the fist layer wore off.

In fact we could paint some hot pink as teenage gals would love that and thereby affording them even more popularity then they deserve.

Anyone thought of shooting a few over to the south pole to protect the species. I bet the penguins would that. LOL.

Excerpt from Norwegian Polar Institute ( translation) from August 2008:

" Tagging of Polar bears have a long tradition and started in the middle of the 60's in Svalbard,

Scientists were most concerned about the excessive hunting .

Total protection of PBs were implemented in 1973 , and the Svalbard PB subpopulation was one of subpopulations that faced most problems.

In the next 10 to 15 years large scale scientific research began...."

http://npweb.npolar.no/Artikler/2008/1217510939.91

Re Nichole's post , it's interested that both Thor Larson and Deroucher have been permanent members of the Norwegian IUCN delegation , both working for the Norwegian Polar Institute ( but not currently)

RA
"I don't really care about polar bears."

I like them, and I don't understand the kick of trophy hunting. I would like to see PBs thrive forever.

But, that being said, I don't see them as endangered. While I can't imagine killing for trophies, I wouldn't want to impose that value on others. I would expect the national wildlife services to place reasonable and sustainable restrictions on hunting.

The thing that may turn me against PBs is their use by the left and by eco freaks as a political football. When the left starts to push anything as a grand cause that they can use to further their political agenda it quickly becomes disgusting for me. When it comes to a battle between my freedom and imaginary polar bear endangerment, then I say screw the PBs.

>I'm sure you would find fault, real or imagined, with anything I write, whether it is on historical or current population estimates.

Gawd. The same could easiily be said of you rgarding what anyone here who challenges your agenda says. If you post a topic here (especially if you are not an expert in the field), wishing for people to be heard regardless of their views, then you must expect others to disagree. It is when you continue to dismiss the science, narrow your information gathering and misinterpret what is written in the literature that people lose their patience with you.

>Why would I ask experts a question for you?

You might ask them a question for you, not Ann, and email a few to run your 'ideas' by them. I have done this in the past with biologists and they usually don't mind.

Thanks for the insight J. Hansford. We'll add you to the Armchair PB Specialist Group.

So tell me Nichole, if researchers such as Taylor believe that 2 subpops of PB are not being sustainably hunted now, do you believe them?

Travis,

My agenda? Making assumptions about my motives just shows that you are quick to judge and don't need evidence to base your judgments on. Reality is that you have no idea why I am writing about polar bears or what my personal views are on these issues.

I am amazed at how quick you and Ann are to decide that I am right-wing because I consider the opinions that do not conform to the current popular perceptions....despite the lack of evidence supporting such claims.

I am going to respond to comments, to put up the contrary viewpoint and provide a balanced discussion and consider a diverse range of sources and evidence.

I guess thats the difference between me and others here, I am actually prepared to listen to competing points of view

"I am amazed at how quick you and Ann are to decide that I am right-wing because I consider the opinions that do not conform to the current popular perceptions....despite the lack of evidence supporting such claims."

the order of the above sentence confuses what I was trying to say...

My point was that Travis and Ann do not have any evidence to base their claims that I am right-wing on.....In fact, those claims are laughable to anyone who has met me and knows me.

It appears to me that Travis and Ann have decided I am right-wing etc because I am prepared to consider competing views and advocate ideas that are contrary to popular perceptions.

Since Travis and Ann have to resort to partisan political statements, their assumptions about my views only reveal their own prejudices have been projected onto me....to use the Freudian concept

What has become very clear to readers of this thread is that our resident greenpimp activists do not, and cannot grasp the distinction between speculation and fact. To them, any speculation about earlier PB populations that furthers their objectives is to be not only accepted as proven but also defended vigorously.

Like Tilo, I originally had a great deal of goodwill towards PBs until I saw the way they are being ruthlessly exploited as an issue by the climate pimps. But as one gets a more detailed look at the so-called science of PB management one can only conclude that they are being groomed as yet another in a long series of ecolgical cash-cows to be milked for as much funding as the researchers can get their grubby hands on.

For all the talk about threatened populations and shrinking ice, the fact remains that all bears are omnivorous and PBs have demonstrated this attribute whenever a supply of berries is present in greater abundance than baby seals.

And instead of standing about wringing their hands in anguish at an imaginary threat to a far more robust species than they like to believe, the gonzoscenti could completely balance any seasonal nutritional shortfalls with a bit of natural gardening.

30 to 40kg of berries a day is all it takes to match the weight gain from 1.5 baby seals each week. And at a very modest tonne of berries per hectare, that single hectare would sustain a bear for 3 to 4 weeks. And if a warming trend manages to actually reappear after the past decade of decline then we can take heart in the knowledge that warmer weather means more berries with higher nutritional value.

A scary story always makes great copy but "mother nature" has seen it all before and isn't fooled one bit.

Nichole.
Yes, box me as a typical "city person", whatever.
However, you haven't addressed the fact that the nations involved in hunting the PBs signed a treaty in 1973, why? Have you sought that information? You also haven't actually asked Dr Derocher why he thought bears were suffering from hunting.
My point is that you are saying there is no data, when you haven't really gone out of your way to find any.

Why are you looking at this anyway? We live in Australia, why not research Australian animals?

Personally I find the obsession with Polar Bears by AGW proponents and skeptics alike as confusing. There's no need for this obsession.

Ian Mott,

You raise an interesting point. From what I have read, scientists don't know enough to justify the jumping at shadows that is going on at present.

Maybe its a symptom of the disconnection between most urban/suburban people from the land and the wide-spread acceptance of the idea that people are destroyers of nature, which ignores the fact that people have always impacted on the environment around them. This is not a new idea, the first advocate of this idea was Karl Marx in the 19th century.

The irony is that these views have led to the desire to lock people out of 'wilderness', which only exacerbates the disconnection from the land.

NT,

I'm glad you re-directed my attention to your previous question.

International law depends on States (nations) accepting obligations under a treaty or customary law--which is complex and not relevant here.

States usually sign up to treaties because the treaty respond to an issue that Governments of the day perceive to be important. Government perceptions often involve a complex mix of factors such as domestical political factors (in democratic states), economic factors, international relations factors (ie, all your buddies are signing up so you don't want to be left out) and the desire to be seen as a good global citizen.

The evidence above that there was insufficient scientific data on polar bear population numbers just shows that States don't also make the decision to sign up to international treaties because of compelling evidence. This is States agreed to restrict or ban harvesting of polar bears because of the perception that harvesting was reducing numbers, without reliable estimates of population numbers that would prove that harvesting was causing population declines.

NT,

Derocher isn't the only scientist who claims that scientist believe that restrictions on harvesting stopped polar bear population declines.

On the EnvironmentWiki, there is a quote from polar bear expert Mitchell Taylor, stating,
"Scientists generally agree that improved conservation measures, primarily controls on harvests, have lead to an increase in polar bear numbers over the last 30 years."

I just cannot reconcil this claim with the fact that scientist freely admitted, in the 1960s and 1970s, that they had unreliable estimates of polar bear numbers. Without reliable estimates, claims about restrictions on harvesting and numbers cannot be proven or disproven. Thus, it is not a fact, its opinion, a guess, speculation etc

>because I consider the opinions that do not conform to the current popular perceptions....despite the lack of evidence supporting such claims.

That's the sort of comment I have trouble with Nichole. What is evidence to others is not to you.

>I guess thats the difference between me and others here, I am actually prepared to listen to competing points of view

Oh yeah? So when you cite work 15 years old by two authors on berry consumpton and try to make out PBs can now live in an ice-free environment (based on what they have been doing for centuries already in one location) but conveniently ignore more recent statements on berries by these same two authors you are prepared to 'listen'? You even ignored sections of the 1998 paper regarding male PBs and reasons for the spatial distribution of the animals during the ice-free period in this one location. When you have asked for information and been provided with it, your response has been 'there are many things I could pick up on', but raised one point. Make up your mind and take responsibility for what you are trying to convey here.

I have not said you are 'right-wing', so don't insinuate it.

>Since Travis and Ann have to resort to partisan political statements, their assumptions about my views only reveal their own prejudices have been projected onto me....to use the Freudian concept

My 'prejudice', which I have made clear to you before, is your inability in understanding the data and then producing deliberately misleading titles such as the ice-free one. How hard is that for you to understand?

Travis wrote:
>I am not a PB expert, however I understand the logistics of studying these animals and how hard it is to gather information,let alone then interpret it. Much more needs to be known about individual populations and how they interact with their environment in flux before we can claim (a) they did it millenia ago so they can do it again (b) they are adaptable and will survive (c) they are fine no matter what (d) they will go extinct. My 'disagreement' is with your agenda and methods, not necessarily the data.

More evidence that you don't read what is written and do indeed have set beliefs. I'm not projecting anything onto you Nichole, you are doing all the work yourself.

Back to my question:
So tell me Nichole, if researchers such as Taylor believe that 2 subpops of PB are not being sustainably hunted now, do you believe them?

>our resident greenpimp activists do not, and cannot grasp the distinction between speculation and fact

You have the audacity to write this when you consistently do not substantiate your claims here with any evidence, proof or fact whatsoever. Even Jennifer has asked you to provide information in the past to support your claims. But there is one set of rules here for the likes of you Mott, and another set of rules for those you don't agree with. We all know this.

>For all the talk about threatened populations and shrinking ice, the fact remains that all bears are omnivorous and PBs have demonstrated this attribute whenever a supply of berries is present in greater abundance than baby seals.

You have once again twisted the facts as presented by PB researchers to suit your own twisted understanding. You are doing yourself and the likes of Nichole no favours. Your berry 'calculations' are made up. They are speculation. They are not facts Mott. How hypocritical can you blatantly be?

I'll ask you again Mott - if your childish berry guesses are so worthy, why hasn't it been done by someone and published for PBs? There has been 15 years to do it in.

If you wish to get into a philosophical ramble about urban vs rural views on nature Nichole, perhaps you can start a new thread, but in the meantime, stick with the facts and what has been published in the literature by the experts. That is what people like myslef and Ann ask for and what you surely owe to your readers.

>Why are you looking at this anyway?

It's interesting isn't it, but we are expected to believe it is all innocent and there is no agenda to push.

Nichole, you are missing an important point

"I just cannot reconcil this claim with the fact that scientist freely admitted, in the 1960s and 1970s, that they had unreliable estimates of polar bear numbers. Without reliable estimates, claims about restrictions on harvesting and numbers cannot be proven or disproven. Thus, it is not a fact, its opinion, a guess, speculation etc "

So why do the scientists believe that they were under stress from hunting? You say there were no reliable estimates, so why did the scientists believe they were under stress. There must have been some other evidence for the scientists to come to that conclusion. This is why you need to ask Dr Derocher.

Also you challenge of the 1973 treaty is a little underwhelming.
"This is States agreed to restrict or ban harvesting of polar bears because of the perception that harvesting was reducing numbers, without reliable estimates of population numbers that would prove that harvesting was causing population declines. "
You are again dodging your responsibility to research this. Why did the perception exist?

The only conclusion I can draw is that you want there to be no evidence and you want to be able to say that scientists were drawing conclusions unreliably and for political means.

I had almost accepted that polar bear numbers had shown a resurgence with the quotas on hunting. This is the popular perception, along with the idea that populations may now plummet because of the decline in area of sea ice. But I asked Nichole to find some hard data, some reliable numbers, to at least support the idea that numbers have increased since the 1970s. Interestingly, she has spent days searching and reading and emailing experts, to conclude that there may have been as few as 5,000 bears 40 years ago, then again there may have been as many as 20,000. For those interested in information for its own sake this is very interesting.

Jennifer, is it really interesting? Or is it largely pointless?
To conclude "we don't know", isn't that interesting. I personally don't find the lack of information interesting.
I would suggest that the research hasn't been completed and that "days searching and reading and emailing experts" perhaps isn't long enough. I think to make this "interesting" would actually take longer and would actually require information.

Yet more Travisbarff.

I raised the very relevant point that there was more than just raw fat conversion to BP nutrition and asked if we were seriously to believe that energy counts, sugars and carbohydrates were unable to contribute to PB energy budgets. To which poor old Travis could only say, "Believe what you want Mott". That is, he avoided the issue, trying to imply that all these other attributes of animal nutrition were mere matters of belief, rather than matters of fact.

I did make it clear that the info on blackberries etc was indicative only and pointed out that there was no nutritional info on the more likely berry source, Cloud Berries a.k.a. Nagoonberries. But these are a branch of the Raspberry family and consequently the essentially similar data on Black Berries and Raspberries provide a very good indicator of nutritional value of these kind of sources.

More importantly, the gusto with which Travis has tried to cloud the issue, with questions as to Nichole's motives, the usual red herrings etc, serves to highlight the fact that yet another one-sided green spin has been exposed in all its squalor. At this point in proceedings Travis will usually give some pathetic line about how ill-informed we all are and how all the contradictions in the Greenpimp party line will resolve themselves if only we were to repeat their silly mantra an extra 37 times before each meal.

Game's up fellas. Nichole has rightly exposed critical flaws in the supposed logic being peddled by the PB industry and the goons don't like it. They don't like it because it undermines the green fantasy products being flogged to the Barbi-worlders.

In Barbi-world you can have your tacky McMansion as long as you don't object to the green gravy train. In Barbi-world, everywhere else is "the environment" where all the animals are cute and fluffy, and all of them are under threat from the actions of those dreadful people who haven't achieved Barbi-nice. And most of all, Barbi-worlders are frustrated by the fact that those silly tribal people and those poor farmers who don't know whats good for them just can't seem to grasp the simplest of Barbi-truths. They just keep raising complications and those annoying "facts and consequences" from some completely different environmental minni-series. "They just want to bog the conversation down in detail when we all just want to skip to the 'saving the planet' bit," said Vaccua Di Lettante.

"The word 'suggest' will not sit well with Ivan or Nichole who want definites in PB science."

This statement illustrates just how dangerous all you AGW nutters really are. The whole AGW fraud is propped up by garbage like this PB frolic. Since AGW itself can't be proved, it relies on initiatives like this to 'suggest' its existence.

That would be fine were it not for the fact that AGW is being used as the justification for ripping billions of dollars out of taxpayers' pockets and pissing it down the drain.

And you wonder why people demand 'definites' (aka 'proof'). The really sad part of all this is that so-called 'scientists' like yourself don't demand the same.

This is hilarious

"Game's up fellas. Nichole has rightly exposed critical flaws in the supposed logic being peddled by the PB industry and the goons don't like it. They don't like it because it undermines the green fantasy products being flogged to the Barbi-worlders. "

This si exactly the point I was making to Nichole about why she had to research more, because people will use her analysis to come to crazy conclusions. Nichole has only shown that SHE doesn't know why scientists came to the conclusion.

And Ian, you claimed that there was no research as to berry consumption by PB, I sent you two papers that contradicted that and you decided they didn't count. That research said that berries were a very minor part of PB diets.

Again the level of 'research' on this blog astounds me.

Ivan
"And you wonder why people demand 'definites' (aka 'proof'). The really sad part of all this is that so-called 'scientists' like yourself don't demand the same."

Ha ha, this is great. Proof is a mathematical concept, it doesn't exist in science.

Science works off hypotheses, which can only be falsified.

"This statement illustrates just how dangerous all you AGW nutters really are. The whole AGW fraud is propped up by garbage like this PB frolic. Since AGW itself can't be proved, it relies on initiatives like this to 'suggest' its existence."

This again is my point Nichole, you have taken a political position by questioning why people made claims without actually finding out why they made them, which others will use for their own ends. This is why Travis and I were curious as to your motivation as it was pretty obvious how it was going to be used.

"Proof is a mathematical concept, it doesn't exist in science."

Is that a fact? So, when someone says that force equals mass times acceleration, we should just nod wisely in full knowledge that there is no way of actually proving this? You moron!

"you have taken a political position"
Look at the heading at the top of the page, numb-nuts. AGW is ALL politics. The IPCC was set up by the UN - the top predator of political bodies. Carbon taxes will be forced on us by politicians. When this AGW fraud eventually blows up, politicians and political bodies will be damaged - hopefully irrevocably.

>Interestingly, she has spent days searching and reading and emailing experts

Interestingly Jennifer has had to step in to verify Nichole's homework for her. Which experts please? I'd like to check this.

>For those interested in information for its own sake this is very interesting.

There's a lot of 'interest' here! Well I think a number of us are interested in all of this, regardless of what side of the AGW etc fence we sit. I agree with NT's post at August 27, 2008 01:47 PM. Well put.

>To which poor old Travis could only say, "Believe what you want Mott". That is, he avoided the issue, trying to imply that all these other attributes of animal nutrition were mere matters of belief, rather than matters of fact.

Twist and weasel all you want Mott! Any 'avoidance' or 'implying' is your perception. Your calculations are suggestions and made up. Give us facts Grott. Like for the Antarctic food chains. What did you say for that?...

'So whaling first concentrated on the Northern Right Whales, followed by the Southern. The over harvesting of this population created a relative Krill surplus that allowed the numbers of Blue Whales, Humpbacks and others to increase and the subsequent over harvesting of Blue Whales further boosted Humpback numbers. The decline in Humpback stocks would certainly have produced a rise in the Minke population and most likely, the crab eater seal population. Species have responded to changes in niche size in this way for millions of years. And it follows that any attempt at complete restoration of the pre-harvest populations of all whale species would result in a serious imbalance in that food chain.

When asked to substantiate these claims you wrote 'No Travis, the population response of one species to the removal of most of the population of a competing species is so obvious and so commonly demonstrated at both micro and macro level, that the burden of proof rests on you, who would seek to imply that this was not the case for the whale population'. You then backpeddled even further with 'I made it very clear why there is unlikely to be much literature on such a self evident ecological process. So you are clearly trying to support an implied green position that has no basis in either logic or fact.' Ah the mirth!!!

>At this point in proceedings Travis will usually give some pathetic line about how ill-informed we all are..balh, blah, blah...

Well you wouldn't get the line if you weren't so ill-informed, lazy and ignorant! And in your case, bloody stupid!

>Game's up fellas. Nichole has rightly exposed critical flaws in the supposed logic...

Pfftt!! She's doing well with spokesmen like you and Ivan!!!

Sounds like you have some serious problems Mott. This reliance on terms such as Barbi-isms is somewhat unsettling. Perhaps you have been hanging around your blow up doll for too long? LOL!!!

>Since AGW itself can't be proved, it relies on initiatives like this to 'suggest' its existence.

Ivan weren't you yourself offering 'suggestive' data? Can't have it both ways, remember that line? You really must get over this bitterness Ivan. If you voted for Rudd knowing full well what he prposed to do, you take the responsibility. But please, spare us!

NT my advice is come here for a laugh. If you want to learn about PBs we have been told to watch YouTube vids and the good Sir Dave. Don't bother reading papers, or even thinking of getting your hands dirty and doing some real research yourself. Get a used envelope and sharp pencil and off you go. All from the comfort of your fav armchair. All totally plausible. LOL!!! And if folk don't like it, Mum will step in with a firm word or two.

So in the interests of current PB populations and sustainability, I go back to the paper by Taylor again and ask if what he and co-authors write is realistic or not.

"Ivan weren't you yourself offering 'suggestive' data? Can't have it both ways, remember that line?"

I'm not sure how you can twist things around to arrive at that conclusion. I'm not trying to 'prove' anything, with 'suggestive' data or any other sort. My objective is to point out the sloppy 'science' that underpins the AGW fraud. The burden of proof is on the AGW 'scientists'.

"You really must get over this bitterness Ivan. If you voted for Rudd knowing full well what he prposed to do, you take the responsibility"
I don't know that anyone knew "full well" that he would simply take the Garnaut report and rush it into policy. Rudderless is supposed to be a "process man" -- where is the due process on an issue this big? The Garnaut Report was commissioned by Rudderless from opposition (actually by the state governments, if I recall correctly). You would think he would want to review this once he got into government. Certainly everything else seems to be subject to endless review. Where is the Royal Commission, for starters?
The issue isn't one of bitterness - it's one of disappointment at the unseemly haste. A disappointment which will be expressed at the next election.

My two yen...

"how can Dr Derocher be sure that polar bear populations were being negatively affected by harvesting if there is no hard data on population numbers for the same period?"

You don't necessarily need hard data of population numbers to be able to say this. There are other ways of recognising a negative trend in abundance, without relying on numbers alone.

Another two...

"The bears were hunted, so therefore the population decreased. UNLESS there is evidence that the hunting was somehow done in a sustainable way."

A population decrease after hunting commenced is certain, whether the population subsequently stabilised at a lower level or not is what would indicate whether it was sustainable or not.

NT,

Why not apply the burden of proof that exists in Australian civil legal system....that the party (person in this case) making the assertion has the burden of proving their claims. Without evidence that proves the claim on the balance of probabilities, claims are dismissed as baseless.

In this case, prove that I have not done enough research and that only I don't know historical population numbers. Put some time and energy into researching polar bear population estimates yourself before you jump to the conclusions.

Ivan,
F=ma is not a proof. It was constructed by Newton after observations. It was constructed by empirical evidence, like all good science. Proof is a mathematical concept, not a scientific one. You need to read about this if you don't understand the difference.
Einstein never proved Relativity theory, it's just never been disproved after innumerable tests.

Thank you David, you have summarized very nicely the argument we have been trying to make... Maybe Jennifer and Nichole will understand the shortened version.

Nichole
Why would you suddenly decide to use a legal style argument?
I don't have to prove anything. If you think you've done enough, fine.

There is still the fact that people were of the opinion that the numbers were declining, if you are unable to determine why that is then perhaps you aren't at skillful at research as you think.

I did already find Ian Mott two papers on Polar Bear diets, is that not enough?

Nichole, ok I'll have a look and see what I can find... Won't promise anything.

NT,

And you have extensive knowledge of public international law?

If you are seriously interested in understanding why the 1973 agreement was signed, the UN should have archives of the proceedings where the States negotiate the treaty, known as 'travaux preparatoires', including discussions of wording of terms etc.

However, from personal experience, it can be difficult to find where the UN has that document. I spent a year studying and researching Public International Law and the Refugee Convention, in my final year of law. My lecturer ended up having to give me the 'travaux preparatoires' for this Convention on CDRom since it was impossible to get it from the UNHCR website.

NT,

If you looked at the link above to the IPA people site, you would know that I have 2 degrees, including a law degree, with honours from UNSW.

Rather than having no parameters to what is evidence, why not use the legal parameters since they are designed to do justice to both parties in litigation--ie, there is no inherent bias

The legal standards are also the product of practical experience, since the common law means that the principle from one case is applicable in future cases where the facts of the case are the same.

OK Nichole here's what I suggest you do, and it won't be easy and it will take a long time.

http://pbsg.npolar.no/
That website gives a long list of what it says are good publications.

http://pbsg.npolar.no/Threats/harvest.htm
Here they claim that the sustainable threshold is 500-700 bears per year.
Was the old hunt at a greater or lower level?

This paper gives an example of what you will need to do.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3802104

You'll have to look at the hunting from region to region and do your own analysis.

In Google Scholar try searching on the following text:
"polar bear harvest"
"Ursus Maritimus harvest"
"polar bear population"
"Ursus Maritimus population"

This should give you papers of populations and harvest estimates for different regions and different times. It will take a lot of effort to synthesize all that, but hey you love polar bears correct??

Dear Nichole,

Here's the UN Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears,

http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/texts/polar.bears.1973.html

Oslo 15 November 1973

Regards
Ann Novek

Nichole,
I have no knowledge of law, nor would I try and lecture a lawyer on how to research law, nor what should be 'admissable' evidence.

"Rather than having no parameters to what is evidence, why not use the legal parameters since they are designed to do justice to both parties in litigation--ie, there is no inherent bias"

I don't think you will find many scientists advocating a legal style of debate or rules of evidence...

PS. Link aquired after about 10 seconds from the good old guys from the Norwegian Polar Institute!

Oh and by the way, well done on your degrees.
My sister in law is a lawyer and I certainly see it is hard work.

Thank you David. Appreciated.

Thank you NT. Appreciated too.

Nichole I have provided some literature and asked questions (such as your view on Taylor's 2008 assessment of unsustainable hunting at 2 subpops of PBs - realive to your argument about historical numbers). Much has been ignored altogether. There was no trickery on my part, simply trying to advance the debate. I'm not sure why philosophy and now law has entered it.

Which PB experts have you been in contact with? Again no trickery to this question.

NT,

I found the reference lists weeks ago and have already looked through it for useful references.

I can assure you that lawyers don't advocate for what is often called 'science'. Australian courts refuse to just accept whatever scientist claim is fact in expert evidence, unless they can establish their claims as a fact with supporting data/research etc.

Thank you. It is hard work, although the drive for most lawyers is being highly competitive and the adrenaline rush from the pressure to perform in stressful circumstances.

Nichole,
So what a court accepts as evidence is somehow superior?
Oh la dee daaaa

As regards experts, Nichole has been in correspondence with Derocher, Taylor and others. I don't think there is anything or anyone she has missed.

Cheers,

PS. I wonder what limits polar bear numbers? Over the last 100 years has it been predation or the carrying capacity of its environment?

"Polar Bear Range States Meeting Summary
26-28 June, 2007
Shepherdstown, West Virginia, U.S.A.
Purpose of the Meeting
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service convened a meeting of competent polar bear
authorities in the polar bear Range States to provide an international forum to exchange
information on polar bear research and management programs, and on the status of polar
bear populations, and to consider recommendations for additional national or collective
measures that the Range States may take to conserve the species.
Impetus for the Meeting
Recognizing the growing concern over polar bear conservation in light of a number of
factors including climate change, contaminants in the Arctic, and other issues, there
exists a desire among the Range States to use established venues such as the 1973
Agreement to pursue multilateral approaches for information exchange and collaboration
on polar bear conservation challenges"

"The Range
States agreed that impacts of climate change and the continued and increasing loss of sea
2
ice -- the key habitat for both polar bears and their main prey species -- constitutes the
most significant among several threats to polar bear conservation."

"The Range States recognize the important contributions that the PBSG has made with
respect to the implementation of the 1973 Agreement on behalf of the Contracting
Parties. This expert group has reviewed and identified research and monitoring needs
that are critical to worldwide polar bear conservation, and this has provided important
guidance for consideration by each of the Range States"

" The Range States agreed that western science and systematically-collected traditional
ecological knowledge on population ecology, demographics, and habitats are critical for
the informed management of sustainable polar bear populations. At present, and often
for practical reasons, monitoring of the various subpopulations, including for
conservation purposes, occurs at different frequencies and methodologies resulting in
data incompatibility and incomplete spatial and temporal polar bear metrics across the
vast Arctic ecosystem. The high cost of monitoring in Arctic ecosystems is most often
the major impediment to obtaining the information that is required. These limitations
need to be overcome collaboratively in the face of changing habitats in order to achieve
conservation goals for polar bears in the face of climate warming, industrial development
and other threats"

Excerpt from Polar Bear Status Meeting Summary June 2007 , USA

This is just hilarious Jen!!! Don't you read comments on your own blog??? It was pointed out by the Norwegian Polar Institute that the overharvesting was the main problem , and this was agreed by all contracting parties.

I'm sorry , but another commentator e-mailed me , and told me that the discussions level was very low.

Hi Jennifer and Nichole,

As you note that Nichole has been in correspondence with Dr Derocher, then perhaps this question can be answered:

"how can Dr Derocher be sure that polar bear populations were being negatively affected by harvesting"

Does Dr Derocher claim that the polar bear populations were being negatively affected by harvesting based on some measure of relative abundance, rather than the apparently "guessed" estimates of absolute abundance?

To be honest I had not much interest in this topic, but I thought the suggestion that harvesting a population of animals would deplete it to some extent would be quite uncontroversial :)

If Nichole has such impressive contacts , perhaps she can ask them to respond to Motty's and Birds comments????;)

To you down in Australia, polar bears are cute and very far away. Up here in Canada, we are well aware that they are the largest land carnivore. A 600 Kg male could squish a Tasmanian devil or a dingo under its paw.
Here are a few links to show you the polar bears no one wants you to see:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/polarbear/trouble.html PBS article about their documentary Polar Bear Invasion, about the yearly migration of PB through Churchill, Manitoba, and how the locals' opinion changed from a plague to a source of tourist cash.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=89eb97cb-ba6b-4a0e-a77b-da5ac81e74ae&k=80673
A recent Canada Post article showing that not all Churchill residents are sold on the idea.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=ECD35C36
The search page of Environment Canada, which includes the Canadian Wildlife Services. A search for "Polar Bear" or "Ursus maritimus" returned few article, none suggesting a dramatic situation. In Canada, polar bears are a species "of special concern" since at least 1991. This is the lowest on a scale of four status (Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern).

http://www.freedomwriter.com/issue35/ak34.htm Graphic images of a polar bear attack

If you ever met a polar bear
and he hadn't had his lunch
the last sound to be heard from you
would be a hearty "crunch".

>PS. I wonder what limits polar bear numbers? Over the last 100 years has it been predation or the carrying capacity of its environment?

Prey has something to do with it. This is mentioned in a paper I cited.

>As you note that Nichole has been in correspondence with Dr Derocher, then perhaps this question can be answered:

"how can Dr Derocher be sure that polar bear populations were being negatively affected by harvesting"

LOL! One would think that if Nichole had been 'in correspondence with Derocher, Taylor and others. I don't think there is anything or anyone she has missed' then this question would have been answered, especially by Derocher himself!!!

So are all these experts (and no one has been missed) agreeing that 'Just maybe there have always been about 20,000 polar bears in the Arctic?'

I think we deserve a little more insight into what these experts have said in relation to Nichole's correspondence with them and her queries. Why waste our time referring to literature when she has received responses from them driectly relevant to the questions being posed?

I presume Nichol wont answer this, going by past behaviour, but we will see. As it stands, it seems we are not being told the whole story.

"F=ma is not a proof."
Did I say that it was? Go back and re-read it.

"It was constructed by empirical evidence,"
And can subsequently be verified by empirical evidence - unlike AGW, which cannot be verified by empirical evidence, so remains a theory.

"like all good science."
..and unlike AGW 'science', which has no verifiable empirical evidence, and is therefore must 'bad science' or, at best, guesswork.

As usual, all of this is simply skirting the main issue. The AGW zealots want to rip billions of dollars out of the economy to 'fix' a non-existent problem. Where is your verifiable proof? Or would you sooner that your house and other assets be seized to reimburse those who suffer damages as a result of the policies implemented in the name of your 'science'?

What classic bollocks, NT. You provided a link to a broad survey of PBs that identified a small portion of plant sourced elements in their long term diet. The survey was obviously far too general to provide information on the vegetation useage by the West HB population that has significant ice free periods.

Your garden variety doofus would know that berries don't grow on ice so a survey of ice dwelling PBs is unlikely to yield much evidence of berry consumption.

In any event you were mounting another straw man. I was pointing out the absence of research on the nutrient levels in berries and the fact that Derocher appears to assume that this source could never make a meaningful contribution to PB energy balance. But all you did was google up PB dietary research as if it were evidence of berry research. So just for the record, NT, PBs are not berries, one is animal, the other is vegetable.

And Nichole has every right to ask where the numbers came from because this sort of exagerated or distorted population spin is standard MO for green shonkademics. They like nothing more than to use unsubstantiated estimates in policy development because unlike hard data, the estimates can always be revised if they subsequently prove to be politically inconvenient.

If the Canadian government and associated scientific millieu can get the population of highly visible Caribou wrong by a factor of 100% then the population estimates for well camouflaged PBs is likely to be highly suspect.

Ohhh Ivan... Come on mate, you were declaring me a moron for not understanding 'proof'.
Proof is not a scientific necessity. Did Einstein prove that the maximum possible velocity for every photon in a vacuum is the same? No, it's impossible.

Your understanding of what AGW is seems flawed.
"And can subsequently be verified by empirical evidence - unlike AGW, which cannot be verified by empirical evidence, so remains a theory. "

It is more a consequence of empirically measured things. So we know that CO2 acts like a greenhouse gas, we know the concentration of CO2 is rising, we know human activities have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere... All these things are empirically measured.
And are all verifiable.

"As usual, all of this is simply skirting the main issue. The AGW zealots want to rip billions of dollars out of the economy to 'fix' a non-existent problem. Where is your verifiable proof? Or would you sooner that your house and other assets be seized to reimburse those who suffer damages as a result of the policies implemented in the name of your 'science'?"

This doesn't actually have anything to do with the science of AGW. If you have cancer, you treat it. You don't decide cancer doesn't exist because it's too expensive.

Also your presumption that treating AGW will somehow destroy the economy is probably very wrong. There are already activities working toward finding energy sources that will enable us to move out of the coal economy. The hot dry rock geothermal energy in Australia looks promising.

"We can hardly guess why our ancestors descended into the Second Dark Ages before the last Ice Age.
They had safe nuclear technology but refused to use it in favor of low density energy sources like windmills of all things! And they cut down on the use of fossil fuels just when they might have prevented the Last Ice Age. We can only hope that such suicidal tendencies have been eliminated from the gene pool..."

Ann,

Thanks for the link.

While the treaty is the primary place to go, under international law, evidence of the meaning of terms in the Convention comes from the 'travaux preparatoires'. This source is fantastic for the arguments presented by the State parties as they negotiate the Convention. It also usually makes clear the 'intentions of the State parties'.

I recommend being very careful in reading a Convention and trying to understand its meaning and legal effect. There is a maze of rules, and customs that effect the interpretation that the International Court of Justice will give to a term. Law is a complex and high technical language.

"It is more a consequence of empirically measured things. So we know that CO2 acts like a greenhouse gas, we know the concentration of CO2 is rising, we know human activities have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere... All these things are empirically measured.
And are all verifiable."

...including the fact that the concentration of CO2 continues to rise, all the while temperatures have plateaued or have begun to trend downwards. That sounds like a compelling case for pissing billions more dollars down the drain.

"The hot dry rock geothermal energy in Australia looks promising."
Oh yeah! Let's bet our future on something that 'looks promising'. Brilliant.

NT,

I didn't say that courts have superior finding than scientists. All I pointed out was the fact that Australian courts will not blindly accept whatever opinion scientists express unless there is evidence that the expert opinion is based on evidence and not speculation.

Nichole, and your reason for saying that is.... Or is it just some interesting factoid?
The implication that will be made is that science does just accept speculation.
This is not true.

The best bit about science is that you don't go to jail or get fined for dissenting. If you disagree with a judge's ruling, isn't that contempt? Resulting in fines or jail?
No such thing applies in science so people can freely dissent. Now THAT is a system for getting to the truth of a matter.

There seems to be a side issue of law here, but I would like to know:

So are all these experts (and no one has been missed) agreeing that 'Just maybe there have always been about 20,000 polar bears in the Arctic?'

If there is nothing to hide, it's a straight forward affirmative.

From a Norwegian fisheries paper:

http://fiskeribladetfiskaren.no/default.asp?side=101&lesmer=8770

Warmer water will not only have an impact on the sea ice and marine mammals , but it will change dramatically the conditions for organisms on the sea bottom , that are in the bottom of the food chain.

Research has been carried out by the Polar Institute that show that waters in northwest of Svalbard have had a temperature increase of 5 degrees C. ( 2 degrees C is in natural variations).

Bottom dwelling organisms are an indicator that something is happening with the ocean's eco systems around the entire world, states a Professor at the Polar Institute.

Another news from yesterday :

Arctic sea ice now second-lowest on record

"Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. "

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

Hello Jennifer and Nichole,

I took it upon myself to contact Dr Andrew Derocher. I will not disclose the content of his correspondence with me. I have far too much respect for him to do that.

Dr Derocher wrote a lengthy reply to my query about polar bear populations, and I have to say I am extremely disappointed by what is written in the opening piece to this thread, especially considering you contacted Dr Derocher personally. It is devious and highly misleading, and I have to agree with NT and Travis in that there is obviously an agenda here and it does not include reading the facts presented before you or listening to the experts. I am surprised at the level of some of the discussion here and the silliness, but I will say that Dr Derocher was too, especilly concerning Ian's berries!

I'll pass on that there are a number of publications due out soon, such as on polar bear denning area loss, and there is a new paper available now on polar bears and climate change.

I have always been reserved in my assessment of polar bears and the AGW debate. I believe the literature coming out on ringed seal recruitment rates, polar bear populations and so forth, but perhaps it is because I work in the marne mammal field. Dr Derocher painted a very gloomy picture indeed for the wildlife of the Arctic, based on his findings and those of his colleagues who have worked in this environment for many years.

To those who will predictably boo me for not disclosing here what Dr Derocher said, too bad. In the polar bear debate, you are nobodies.

Travis,

I only briefly scan your comments to see if you are discussing something interesting/relevant to the blog piece. Since most of the time you are going off on tangents or attacking someone, I am bored with reading your long and often point-less comments.

On Derocher and my emails to him, I included the links to these two blog pieces in an email to him. It is now up to him to check them out and decide if he wants to contribute to the comments or not.

I would really like to hear from Derocher on what I have written. However, I am not going to start emailing him continuously because you tell me to.

As for demanding details of my correspondence, I am not going to publish any correspondence I receive, without first gaining the consent of the other person. Since I don't think this is important enough to bother Derocher with, I am not going to email him for his consent.

Who do you think you are? I don't have to prove myself to you.

Why are you pushing so hard with the demands for me to get in contact with Derocher/reveal what was said? Fishing for something to jump up and down about?

Thanks Libby! And a thanks as well to Luke , Travis and David ( isn't it amazing that we all agree) !!!:)

Nichole,

Your response doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I have no idea how you can conclude I am going off on tangents when I have provided you with information when asked on this thread and the previous, both 'historial' and new. I have kept to topic, regardless of the talk here on law and philosophy, Ivan's constant trolling and some of the other comments. It seems that Mott can attack and still get responses and praise from you, so there are some obvious conclusions to be drawn there. Your opinion as to whether what I post is 'relevant/interesting' and that it is boring is simply that, and quite revealing. I took the time to reveal the contents of two papers you yourself cited, but perhaps you were not happy with what else the papers said regarding the point you were trying to make?

>I would really like to hear from Derocher on what I have written. However, I am not going to start emailing him continuously because you tell me to.

I'm sorry Nichole but I was under the impression from what was written here by Jennifer that you had already been in communication with Derocher and exchanges had been made. I was not continuously telling you to email him, I was continuously asking you to present your information. Please do not misrepresent me.

>Who do you think you are? I don't have to prove myself to you.

Please, give it a break. You are adult enough to post threads here making certain claims and being selective with your information. If you didn't want to be criticised for poor evidence, then perhaps you were expecting your readers to all be in total agreement with you, be quite silly or not give a toss? I'm not asking for you to prove yourself to me, simply your evidence and the point you are making. Please don't manipulate it around to suggest otherwise or make yourself look like a victim.

>Why are you pushing so hard with the demands for me to get in contact with Derocher/reveal what was said? Fishing for something to jump up and down about?

Here is what Jennifer wrote:
'But I asked Nichole to find some hard data, some reliable numbers, to at least support the idea that numbers have increased since the 1970s. Interestingly, she has spent days searching and reading and emailing experts, to conclude that there may have been as few as 5,000 bears 40 years ago, then again there may have been as many as 20,000.'

Along with:
'As regards experts, Nichole has been in correspondence with Derocher, Taylor and others. I don't think there is anything or anyone she has missed.'

Even David wrote:
>As you note that Nichole has been in correspondence with Dr Derocher, then perhaps this question can be answered:

"how can Dr Derocher be sure that polar bear populations were being negatively affected by harvesting"

Is David a bad boy for asking??

It now appears that you did not get a reply from Derocher, but it did not come across as that obvious in what was written.

The reason I was asking about your emails to Derocher was because I wanted to know how you came up with the question 'But how can Dr Derocher be sure that polar bear populations were being negatively affected by harvesting if there is no hard data on population numbers for the same period?' But that is now pretty obvious! Telling me I am looking for something to jump up and down about is childish. I am looking for answers and facts Nichole, and so far a number of us (not just me) have been unsatisfied with what you have been putting forward.

So please, dispense with the victim role and debate the science. Surely that is why we are all here?

Thankyou Libby for your comment regarding Derocher. I would not expect you or Nichole to reveal the contents of Derocher's email unless he had consented. I think you have said enough though for some conclusions to be drawn, and I think some of us knew them already.

Gee, this post is likely just too long, boring and irrelevant for kindie concentrations and cognition.

109 comments, and still no one has come up with solid historical or current polar bear numbers. I guess that's what we call 'uncertainty.'

I do however have some Arctic news: "400,000 square miles more Arctic ice today than a year ago."

" I do however have some Arctic news: " 400 000 square miles more Arctic ice today than a year ago " - Paul

From my above link : " The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues"

400 000 square miles more Arctic ice today than a year ago, which is positive compared to last year.

" The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues"

Which means or proves what exactly?

From Reuters:

" As more Arctic ice melts, bears are forced to swim longer distances to find adequate platforms for hunting. Rescuing bears in distress in open water is problematic, Williams said: tranquilizing the bears sends them into the water to drown.

The US government in May listed polar bears as a threatened species because their icy habitat was disappearing, but offered no plans to address climate change or drilling in the Arctic for fossil fuels that spur the climate-warming greenhouse effect.

Summer ice melt in the Arctic is seen as a strong indicator of climate change, and feeds on itself in what scientists call a positive feedback loop where warming exposes dark sea water, which absorbs more solar radiation than the white ice.

Arctic sea ice is sometimes dubbed Earth's air conditioner for its ability to moderate world climate. In the last decade, this ice has declined by roughly 10 percent. "

Anne and Paul, please stop it now. You are making me chuckle

You'r completely right Gavin, thanks!

For readers info I have also today e-mailed Norwegian Polar Institute's Polar bear expert, Dr Aars ( one of the name you see in the scientific paper together with Sterling, Derocher, Wiig , Taylor et al) posing some questions that readers here on the blog have asked.

If I get a reply I might post them on my blog.

I feel as well that my time has come to an end here ( again;)! but I will thank the readers.

Locals could be more amused when they find the article headed “Global warming puts heat on Arctic ice cap” on page 13 in today’s Canberra Times with its accompanying picture (Reuters) of a floundering polar bear in cool grey waters.

That’s a well illustrated item hey

See the original Jean-Louis Santini article “Arctic ice cap 'melting more than ever”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24254860-12377,00.html

or here

http://www.france24.com/20080828-north-pole-ice-cap-melting-faster-ever

and in many other places on the www today.

Howzat for pouring oil on a brewing storm?

Note how Libby had every opportunity to correct any misconceptions about the actual nutritional value of berries but chose, instead, to give us a bit of hearsay. If Derocher had actually mentioned some relevant facts on this issue then Libby would always have been free to repeat those facts. And from this we can conclude that either, Derocher did not provide any facts, or that the facts did not reconcile with Derocher's or Libby's opinion.

So once more, does anyone have detailed and specific research that would indicate that it takes a whole lot more than about 30 to 40kg of berries per day to deliver the same energy budget as eating 1.5 baby seals each week?

I will be quite happy to be corrected by credible evidence.

You just don't get it do you Mott? BTW, you are off-topic, but I'm sure Nichole wont mind.

Ian, I sent you two papers on how important berries were to PB diet... You seem to be unable to read?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ArcticCanada.JPG

Looks as though Polar Bears survived warming 7000 and 1000 years ago.

Paul, the ability of the bears to survive during that period says nothing about how the bears will survive during a period of warming now. The animals are now specialised to live off the ice. The western Hudson Bay population has ice-free periods where they occasionally eat berries but live off their fat reserves. If warming happens at a rate where the bears AND their prey cannot adapt, they won't.

I don't know why people go back to the argument of what happened to PBs during this warming period. I don't think any PB scientists were there at the time to note what really went on and it is pretty irrelevant to what is happening today. The PBs we see today are adpated to the habitat they live in. A basic understanding of ecology would allow you to put this argument in context and focus on the real issues.

Travis,

Yes I have made positive comments to Ian Mott. Did it occur to you that I was doing it because I know that you and others will attack him and I appreciate his contributions because he provides a different view to the majority of commentors.

As Voltaire once said, I might not agree with you opinion but I will die for your right to say it--its called encourage diverse participation and freedom of speech

Travis,

Your 'revealing of the contents' didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, although your interpretation was novel in some parts. It bored me.

Plus, if you really wanted to make the relevant contrary argument to my piece on western Hudson Bay, you would have read the justification section of the IUCN Red List for Polar Bears. One of the links in the present piece will take you to it. There Derocher et al argue that the reason that polar bears will not be able to adapt is because climate change will happen too rapidly. Since my first piece on polar bears raised the point that polar bears might be able to adapt....shouldn't the counter argument focus on why scientist think they won't be able to adapt?

For me, Derocher et al.'s argument is inherently speculation since it is a prediction about the future. Unless Derocher et al are psychics or time-travellers, I don't know how they have observational data that proves there claims.

Travis,

I don't expect people to agree with me! In fact, I enjoy exchanging ideas, passionate arguments and the opportunity to consider a variety of views.

However, I find it frustrating when you make assumptions that you have no evidence to prove, excessively quote (probably a breach of copyright) from articles I have read and resort to personal attacks when you are unable to come up with a valid contrary argument. Its childish. It puts others off from contributing because they know that if you disagree, you will resort to school bully behaviour.

I am not saying don't disagree, I am saying do it in an manner that is respectful of others and supports diverse contributions

On the fact that others joined in on your campaign for me to post the emails, its amazing that those who tend to agree with each other tend to support each other. Kinda like what I was trying to do with Ian Mott, although since I don't have any evidence of David's motivations, I am not going to speculate on them.

Travis,

I got two replies from Derocher because I asked two questions.

Since your fascinated with who I email, I also got a reply from Dr Nick Lunn, at the Canadian Wildlife Service.

However, I would like a detailed response from Derocher on his views on what I have written. But that is something that he can choose to do if he wishes, after he has read the links I sent him.

Travis,

You better go back and read Derocher's paper on Terrestrial Feeding observed in Polar Bears. He clearly states that we do not know how significant vegetation is for polar bears since we don't know how whether polar bears get comparable energy from eating berries etc as they do from eating ringed seals.

Until that question is resolved, it is impossible to say that polar bears live off fat reserves exclusively!

Travis,

You better go back and read Derocher's paper on Terrestrial Feeding. He clearly states that we do not know how significant vegetation is for polar bears since we don't know whether polar bears get comparable energy from eating berries, other animals etc as they do from eating ringed seals.

Until that question is resolved, it is impossible to say that polar bears live off fat reserves exclusively!

Exactly, Nichole. Travis et al would have us believe that PBs MUST live off their fat reserves when feeding on berries but the initial evidence on berry nutrition indicates that there need be no reduction in fat reserves whenever berries are available.

Indeed, there would have to be a major departure between Blackberry/Raspberry nutritional levels and Cloud Berry and other local berry species for the conventional assumption to apply.