REM 356_Polar Bear Management in Canada

Running head: Polar Bear Management: Conflict in Northern Ontario?
Polar Bear Management: Conflict in Northern Ontario?
By Mariah Mund (301227242) and Gurmeet Grewall (301252665)
Simon Fraser University
REM 356
Neil Ladell
December 5, 2016

1
Introduction:
All around the world, the environment is changing. In Canada, the north faces a unique
battle. These northern regions are dominantly plagued by climate change impacts that are a result
of human action in other areas of the world. As climate change progresses, sea ice will continue
melting in upper Canada leaving many animals in the North in a desolate position. One of these
animals is the polar bear (Ursus maritimus). In terms of species distribution, the polar bear is
very rare: they only exist in a few countries and two thirds of these bears live in the Canadian
Arctic (Peacock, Derocher, Thiemann, & Sterling, 2011). Because these animals are largely
located in Canada, there should be an obligation for Canadians to protect them extinction. The
responsibility to protect only grows when it is acknowledged that the main reason for polar bear
endangerment comes from humans.
This essay will examine the ways in which one Canadian province, Ontario, has
managed their polar bear population. It will examine the brief history of polar bear management,
discuss the actors and institutional arrangements in place, critique the current management
strategy, and conclude by providing some suggestions for management improvement.
History:
In the past, the Ontario government did not manage polar bears at all. The government
practiced inaction, so Aboriginals and non-natives could hunt and kill polar bears without the
burden of a harvest limit (Peacock, Derocher, Thiemann & Sterling, 2011, pp. 373).
As the environmental movement grew in the 1960’s and 1970’s, issues of polar bear
livelihood began to take shape. This changing perspective has ultimately led to conflict for polar

2
bear management in Ontario. Most of the conflict exists between Aboriginals and the
government. Many Indigenous groups believe that polar bear numbers are stable or growing,
while the government, with support from the public and scientists, fear the uncertainty of climate
change could push polar bear populations into steep decline (Clark, Lee, Freeman & Clark, 2008,
pp. 347). Regardless of conflict, most governments believe that polar bear protection is important
and have initiated policies and agreements to protect polar bears from extinction.
Prior to state legislation, the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada were voluntarily managing
polar bear harvests. After all, they had been hunting polar bears for subsistence for thousands of
years, so they recognized the value of protecting the animal from extinction (Lemelin et al.,
2010, pp. 806). The traditional knowledge Aboriginal chiefs hold indicate that the lives of the
polar bears have been gradually evolving over time, but Lemelin et al. note that Aboriginals
assert polar bear populations only decline when caribou populations are low — not because of
overharvesting by humans (pp.808).
Regardless of the voluntary polar bear management that Indigenous community’s
practices and the traditional ecological knowledge used to back their claims, there was a public
outcry for legal polar bear protection. As more scientists confirmed that climate change was real,
the public latched onto the image of polar bears trapped on icebergs in the middle of the ocean
— dying because their homes had melted away (Clark et al, 2008. pp.350). Environmentalists
and non-natives argued that polar bears should not be harvested at all because the risks of climate
change are too uncertain; this envisioned threat to polar bears has become ingrained in society, to
a point where the government had to step in and create a management strategy – or risk extreme
international backlash (Unger, 2012, para. 6).

3
Institutions, Actors, and Ideas:
One of the main reasons polar bear management has become an important issue in
Canada and Ontario is because of the ideas put forth by scientists around the world. Scientists
have been studying polar bear populations for many years and have observed that the crucial sea-
ice habitats of polar bears are slowly melting away (Molnár, Derocher, Thiemann & Lewis,
2010, pp. 2696). This sea ice is important for mating rituals and provides bears access to seals,
which are their main food source. Because of sea ice decline, Molnár et al. find that current polar
bears are smaller and weaker than their ancestors, causing increased infant mortality rates as
mothers cannot support their young (pp. 2697). Peacock et al. have also noted that polar bears
are at a greater risk of extinction because of their smaller population sizes — if they were to face
worse conditions, their slow reproductive capacities would not be able to cope with stress and
they would slowly die off (2011, pp. 371).
To address these new scientific ideas, Canada initiated two committees: the Federal-
Provincial Territorial Polar Bear Administrative Committee (PBAC) in 1969 and the Federal-
Provincial Territorial Polar Bear Technical Committee (PBTC) in 1970 (Environment and
Climate Change Canada, 2011). These groups were tasked with studying polar bears, providing
recommendations to federal and provincial governments regarding management strategies, and
ensuring that Canada was fulfilling its global obligation to protect polar bears (Clark et al, 2008,
pp. 349). To successfully fulfill their obligations, the Clark et al. article explains that the PBAC
and the PBTC are charged with bridging the gaps between the actors currently managing polar
bears, including the various levels of government and First Nations. It is recognized that proper
management can only exist when all the actors are capable of working together.

4
Soon after the working groups were established, Canada met with other polar bear
residing nations to sign the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and their
Habitat in 1973. This agreement requires that the federal and provincial governments of Canada
protect polar bears and their habitat while also working with Indigenous Canadians to ensure
management continues to allow for subsistence hunting (Clark et al., 2008, pp. 348). When this
institution was developed, their main goal was to protect future polar bear populations from
overharvesting by humans, and it has adapted over time as climate change threats become a
larger concern for polar bear management (Peacock et al., 2011, pp. 373).
To meet the requirements set forth by the International Agreement, the provincial
government of Ontario and the federal government decided to take legislative action. In Ontario,
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) the government listed polar bears as a threatened
species in 2009 (Kakekaspan et al., 2011, pp. 230). Under the ESA, the government is legally
obligated to protect the lives of polar bears and their crucial habitats; non-natives are also banned
from causing any pain to the animal or destruction to its habitat (Government of Canada, 2016).
Two years later, under the Species at Risk Act, the federal government listed polar bears
as a species of special concern — which is the lowest level of concern for at risk species. A
designation of special concern means that the species is currently stable, but its status may
change to “threatened” or “endangered” because of its heightened sensitivity to human activities
(Species at Risk, 2015). For polar bears, this sensitivity comes from human actions that cause
climate change. Based on this knowledge, the governments within Canada deemed that proper
management could occur with state sanctioned regulations. These regulations prohibit the use of
polar bear habitats through creation of national parks and prohibit the hunting and selling of

5
polar bears (Peacock et al., 2011). Both federal and provincial governments made their
regulatory decisions based off the information provided to them by the Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada also known as COSEWIC (Environment and Climate Change
Canada, 2011).
COSEWIC is a science based committee that provides recommendations to the
governments of Canada regarding potential endangered species. COSEWIC’s most recent review
of polar bears occurred in 2008 when they recommended that polar bears be considered as
special concern because of the uncertain future of their populations (Hutchings & Festa-
Bianchet, 2009, pp. 47). COSEWIC members reason that uncertainty should lead to a
precautionary management approach, but their recommendations often ignore or disregard the
Aboriginals who live in proximity to these mammals and have rights to use the land and hunt the
bears.
While COSEWIC relies on science to provide insight into polar bear populations, the
Aboriginal people of Ontario employ their traditional ecological knowledge to understand
changes in polar bears. Their specialized knowledge helps them understand the diets, migration
patterns, and the behavioral changes in the lives of the bears (Lemelin et. al., 2010, pp.807).
Lemelin et al. stress that the knowledge held by Aboriginal people can be extremely helpful
when making policies for polar bear management.
It is important to note that the Aboriginal people often rely on polar bears for subsistence
or profit, and there are quite a few institutions in place to ensure that their rights to these
practices are maintained (Clark et al., 2008, pp.350). In Northern Ontario, most of the Aboriginal
groups that are involved in polar bear management are of Cree descent. These include “the

6
Weenusk First Nation […] and the Washaho members of the Fort Severn nation,” (Lemelin et
al., 2010, pp. 804). An important institution that influences the ways Aboriginals interact with
polar bears is Treaty 9 (Peacock et al., 2011, pp. 374). Since the signing of Treaty 9 in the James
Bay area of Ontario, the Cree people have been legally allowed to hunt a certain amount of polar
bears for subsistence and economic gain (Kakekaspan et al., 2013, pp. 230). Because of this
right, Aboriginals in Ontario have used polar bears to gain profit in the form of tourism and
selling of polar bear hides, teeth, etc. (Lemelin et. al, 2010, pp. 804). Peacock’s article
emphasizes the importance of formal institutions for Aboriginals in Ontario when it comes to
polar bear management: these institutions can ensure the ideal socioeconomic conditions for
Aboriginal livelihood continue to exist while allowing these groups to assist in decision making
and provide their traditional knowledge to the government.
The existence of Treaty 9, and other related agreements across Canada, has led to conflict
between the provincial government and the Aboriginals. First Nations feel that the listing of
polar bears under the ESA and SARA is unconstitutional. They do not feel they were properly
consulted and argue that these institutions, which prohibit non-natives from buying polar bear
remains, breach their rights which were established through previous institutions (Kakekaspan et
al., 2008, pp. 230). Regardless of the conflict, the provincial government had to create a
management plan to fulfill their obligations to ESA, SARA, and the international agreement on
polar bear conservation.
Policy and Recovery in Ontario:
The government of Ontario employed Melissa Tonge and Tanya Pulfer to create a
recovery management strategy for the polar bears in Ontario. They envisioned a plan that would

7
utilize the recommendations put forth by COSEWIC to ensure that the commitments to SARA
and the ESA were being fulfilled (Government of Canada, 2016). In recognition of the rights that
First Nations in Ontario have and their unique knowledge of polar bears in Northern Ontario, it
was decided that Aboriginals should help create the recovery strategy to fit their needs (Tonge &
Pulfer, 2011).
In 2011, the polar bear recovery strategy document was completed. The strategy outlined
8 areas of concern for polar bears, including climate change, need for co-management,
Aboriginal participation, bear mortality rates, etc. (Tonge & Pulfer, 2011, pp. 23). The strategy
provides an action plan for the provincial government to follow that will help mitigate concerns
for polar bears and strengthen management — with an inclusion on the need to consult
Aboriginals in Ontario and to co-manage polar bear populations (Tonge & Pulfer, 2011, pp. 36).
Once the strategy was completed, it was presented to the provincial government and the
key stakeholders involved in polar bear management. The government gave stakeholders an
opportunity to provide feedback, questions, and recommendations (Government of Canada,
2016). The comment period is now complete, and the provincial government is working on a
final policy that will incorporate the recommendations provided in the strategy, as well as the
suggestions offered by stakeholders.
In this setup, stakeholders were allowed to assist in the creation of the management
strategy. For instance, the advisors to the recovery plan included an Aboriginal chief, scientific
scholars, and government officials (Tonge & Pulfer, 2011, pp. iii). The stakeholders were also
able to raise their concerns to the government after the recovery strategy was released. The

8
official policy is yet to be announced, but it will be created solely by the provincial
government.
Critique:
On the surface, the recovery strategy proposal in Ontario seems to address the challenges
associated with polar bear management. One of the biggest issues when it comes to managing
polar bears is Aboriginal participation, but the government of Ontario seems to have recognized
this issue. For instance, prior to the final recovery proposal, First Nations in northern Ontario
were given opportunity to share their traditional ecological knowledge on polar bear health and
populations (Kakekaspan et al., 2013, pp. 232). The knowledge obtained from this type of
information sharing can be useful when outlining a recovery strategy; Tonge and Pulfer indicate
that Aboriginal knowledge should always be considered when managing the bear populations in
Ontario (pp. 27).
Furthermore, some recommendations from the recovery strategy are already being
implemented. For instance, in 2015 the provincial government implemented the Climate Change
Strategy. The goal of this initiative is to reduce fossil fuel emissions in Ontario — which would
help prevent sea ice loss and protect polar bear habitat (Government of Canada, 2016). To lower
emissions, the government has set up a cap and trade system to financially incentivize companies
to reduce their emission rates (Government of Canada, 2016). A cap and trade system ensures
that businesses always have an incentive to reduce emissions because it will save them money —
regardless of the distance between them and polar bears (Jacobs, 1993, pp. 142). This initiative is
clearly a step in the right direction for polar bear management, but is it enough to prevent the
collapse of polar bear populations in Ontario?

9
After the release of the recovery management proposal, Aboriginal communities in
Ontario noticed some areas where the plan was not meeting their expectations. First off, the plan
recommends that traditional ecological knowledge be used in decision making for the future, but
Aboriginals believe that the current proposal lacked the use of their knowledge to come to an
acceptable decision for recovery (Clark et al., 2008, pp. 349). Because of the focus on science
over traditional knowledge, the recovery strategy overlooked some of the important social and
economic needs of the Aboriginals in Ontario. This issue was made very clear when the strategy
recommended the land 5 kilometres around James Bay be recognized and protected as polar bear
habitat (Tonge & Pulfer, 2011, pp. 36). The Aboriginals have taken issue with this
recommendation because they use that land for traditional and economic purposes: they fear that
governmental recommendations will inhibit their right to live on that land as designated by the
treaties in place in Ontario (Kakekaspan et al., 2013, pp. 231).
Additionally, Aboriginals are still angered by the prohibition of polar bear hide sales. The
management strategy recommends research be conducted to understand how polar bears are
important to the Aboriginal economy (Tonge & Pulfer, 2011, pp. 27). But, research does not
allow for the selling of polar bears which Cree Nations in Ontario have relied on for profit in the
past (Kakekespan et al., 2011, pp. 231). While this management strategy recognizes the
Aboriginal economic issues, it does not provide an instant solution. The Aboriginal groups in
Ontario claim that the decision to focus on research, rather than an instant solution, occurred
because of the emphasis on science which does not account for the immediate need to address
the economic and social well-being of Aboriginal groups living in Northern Ontario.

10
Another critical issue with the recovery strategy is that the government is indefinitely
undecided on a formal policy (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2013, pp. 17). They
were given the recovery management strategy 5 years ago, and Ontario has seen no formal policy
to manage polar bears. As Hutchings and Post point out, the timeline to implement a recovery
strategy is not rigid, and the government is not legally bound to implement a policy at all, so they
could procrastinate for years before a policy is finally introduced (2013, pp. 498).
The reason behind their inaction is unknown, but it could come from the societal
disconnect that the government recognizes (Clark et al., 2008, pp. 355). It is challenging to create
a formal policy that placates the global desire to completely preserve polar bears, while also
appeasing Aboriginal communities who want to continue harvesting the bears. Furthermore,
some of the recommendations would result in a relinquishing of governmental control. Tonge
and Pulfer have suggested that the best form of management would deeply integrate Aboriginal
participation in Ontario for knowledge, monitoring, and decision making (pp. 32). For the
provincial government, it is possible that they find it difficult to willingly relinquish their power,
so instead they postpone making a final decision.
While having any form of management strategy is better than nothing, it does not mean
that the strategy will accurately address the environmental challenges polar bears will face in the
future. Countless studies indicate that polar bears are already being affected by climate change:
research shows that current bears are smaller and weaker than their ancestors, and that sea ice is
in rapid decline (Kakekaspan et al., 2013, pp. 230). The recovery strategy recognizes that climate
change is a growing concern and recommends that local action be taken to mitigate climate
change (Tonge & Pulfer, 2011, pp. 24). These recommendations fail to acknowledge the extent

11
of action that needs to be taken to prevent further detrimental effects in the Canadian Arctic
which means that, without worldwide mitigation of climate change, the sea ice in Canada will
continue melting and endangering the lives of polar bears.
Solutions:
Canada plays an important role in polar bear conservation, considering over half of the
world’s polar bear population lives within the Canadian arctic region. Finding appropriate
solutions to protecting the population involves improving current climate change strategies and
reducing the amount of harvesting that occurs in Canadian provinces and territories (Peacock et
al., 2011). Polar bears tend to roam freely across jurisdictions, making it difficult to have one
province or country in charge of their conservation. Current Ontario management strategies
seems to lack a proper platform to ensure that polar bear populations will be protected as they
move across the country. To address these migratory concerns, a co-management approach could
be utilized.
Co-management is important because it is a viable solution to keep polar bear numbers at
an ecologically sustainable level, while also still respecting Indigenous cultures practices. The
“Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar Bear Management Agreement in the Southern Beaufort Sea” is an
agreement between The United States and Canada (Arctic Biodiversity, 2014). From this
agreement, Indigenous groups from Alaska and the western Canadian arctic meet regularly to
discuss ways to keep polar bear numbers at a sustainable level. This is a good example of co-
management: it shows managers why sharing information and working together to find solutions
is necessary to the survival of the polar bear population (Arctic Biodiversity, 2014). The

12
management teams in Ontario, and nearby jurisdictions, could use co-management strategies
from other locations to improve their own management practices.
Incorporating an Indigenous Stewardship Model (ISM) of co-management would also
help ensure proper Aboriginal decision making for polar bear management in Ontario. An ISM
would create a “joint task force” between Indigenous peoples and the government (Kakekespan
et al., 2013, pp. 234). This encourages a partnership where the two groups work closely together
and have equal decision making power to continue monitoring and managing the polar bear
population. This model would ensure that Aboriginals can explicitly state the ecological and
cultural connections between themselves and polar bears while advocating for policies to be put
in place that protect and respect the bears and Aboriginals (Ross, Pickering-Sherman, Snodgrass,
Delcore & Sherman, 2011, pp. 366).
Ontario currently does not have this model in place, but the incorporation of the ISM
would keep Indigenous communities at the forefront of polar bear co-management. It could also
guarantee that the future of cultural and economic Aboriginal practices would be protected. The
provincial government has considered the polar bear to be an threatened species, which directly
affects the Cree people’s ability to hunt and threatens their survival. So, incorporating
Indigenous ecological and cultural knowledge into provincial polar bear policy would be
valuable for polar bears who are best understood by local Aboriginal groups and for the Cree
people who rely on polar bears to maintain their way of life.
Unfortunately, Aboriginal participation will not fully ensure the preservation of Canada’s
polar bears. The main issue for protection is that climate change is an enormous problem which
affects many people and animals. The climate and polar bears are so interconnected that you

13
rarely hear discussions on polar bears without hearing about climate change. Regardless of any
management strategy in Ontario, the preservation of this species relies on the international
community's willingness to address climate change as an imminent threat that could cause the
extinction of polar bears. Because of the large-scale consequences of climate change, it is vital
that Canada continues meeting with other nations and Indigenous communities to discuss climate
change and fight for climate change mitigation policies around the world.
Conclusion
Polar bear conservation has been an important part of Canada since the inception of the
first international polar bear conservation agreement in 1973. Indigenous peoples, in the north,
have been practicing sustainable harvesting for years and it is important that their cultural and
economic practices do not suffer – especially because institutions are in place to protect these
rights. In 2011, after working with key stakeholders and government, the Ontario Recovery
Strategy for polar bears was completed. This strategy recognized Aboriginal rights to the bears
and the land, while also recognizing the importance of preventing further habitat destruction and
climate change. Issues still exist because of the conflict of interest between the government of
Ontario and Aboriginals, but introducing an Indigenous Stewardship Model can help bridge the
gap between stakeholders by creating a co-management system that results in polar bear and
cultural/ economic protection. Unfortunately, climate change is still the current, and most
important, threat to the polar bear population; unless more policies and agreements are initiated
to prevent further sea ice melting, the polar bears of Northern Ontario will one day become an
extinct species.

14
Works Cited
Arctic Biodiversity. (2014). Retrieved December 3, 2016, from Grid Arendal: A Centre for
Collaborating with UNEP:http://www.grida.no/publications/arctic-
biodiversity/page.aspx?id=4597
Clark, D., Lee, D., Freeman, M., & Clark, S. G. (2008). Polar Bear conservation in Canada:
Defining the policy problems. Arctic, 61 (4), 347-360. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40513222
Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2011). National polar bear conservation strategy for
Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.ec.gc.ca/nature/default.asp?Lang=En&n=60D0FDBD-1
Environmental Commissioner of Canada. (2013). Laying siege to the last line of defence: A
review of Ontario’s weakened protection of species at risk. Retrieved from
http://docs.assets.eco.on.ca/reports/special-reports/2013/2013-Laying-Siege-to-ESA.pdf
Government of Canada. (2016). Polar bear SARA management plan progress report. Retrieved
from http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/MpPr-PolarBear-
v00-2016Sep21-Eng.pdf
Hutchings, J. A., & Festa-Bianchet, M. (2009). Scientific advice on species at risk: A
comparative analysis of status assessments of Polar Bear, Ursus Maritimus.
Environmental Reviews, 17, 45-51. DOI: 10.1139/A09-002

15
Hutchings, J. A. & Post, J. R. (2013). Gutting Canada's fisheries act: No fishery, no fish habitat
protection. Fishers, 38(11), 497-501, DOI: 10.1080/03632415.2013.848345
Jacobs, M. (2013). Instruments for environmental protection. In M. Jacobs (ed.), The Green
Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development, and the Politics of the Future
(pp.134-149). Vancouver: UBC Press
Kakekaspan, M., Walmark, B., Lemelin, R. H, Dowsley, M., & Mowbray, D. (2013).
Developing a polar bear co-management strategy in Ontario through the indigenous
stewardship model, Polar Record, 29(250), 230-236. DOI: 10.1017/S0032247412000575
Lemelin, R. H, Dowsley, M., Walmark, B., Siebel, F., Bird, L., Hunter, G., Myles, T., Mack, M.,
Gull, M., & Kakekaspan, M. (2010). Wabusk of the Omushkegouk: Cree-polar bear
(Ursus maritimus) interactions in northern Ontario. Human Ecology, 39, 803-815. DOI:
10.1007/s10745-010-9355-x
Lemelin, R. H., Peerla, D., Walkmark, B. (2008). Voices from the margins: The Muskekowuck
Athinuwick/Cree people of Northern Ontario and the management of Wabusk/polar bear.
Arctic Institute, 61(1), 113-115. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40513192
Molnár, P. K, Derocher, A. E., Thiemann, G. W., Lewis, M. A. (2010). Predicting survival,
reproduction and abundance of polar bears under climate change. Biological
Conservation, 143(7), 1612-1622. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.004

16
Peacock, E., Derocher, A. E., Thiemann, G. W., & Sterling, I. (2011). Conservation and
management of Canada’s polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in a changing Arctic. Canadian
Journal of Zoology, 89(5), 371-385. DOI: 10.1139/z11-021
Ross, A., Pickering-Sherman, K., Snodgrass, J. G., Delcore, H., & Sherman, R. (2011).
Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge Binds and
Institutional Conflicts. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Species at Risk: A guide to endangered and threatened species, and species of special concern in
Alberta. (2015). Retrieved from http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/species-
at-risk-publications-web-resources/documents/SpeciesAtRiskGuide-Jan-2015.pdf
Species at Risk Public Registry. (2016, October 19). Polar bears. Retrieved from
http://www.registrelep.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=167
Tonge, M.B., & Pulfer, T. L. (2011). Recovery strategy for polar bear (Ursus maritimus) in
Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Retrieved from
http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-at-risk/stdprod_086036.pdf
Unger, Z. (2012, December 1). The truth about polar bears. Canadian Geographic. Retrieved
from https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/truth-about-polar-bears

REM 356_Polar Bear Management in Canada

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to REM 356_Polar Bear Management in Canada

Similar to REM 356_Polar Bear Management in Canada (11)

REM 356_Polar Bear Management in Canada