There is irrefutable evidence from Barents and Chukchi Sea subpopulations, among others, that polar bears are fat and reproducing well despite marked declines in summer sea ice over the last two decades. These indicators of physical and reproductive health, in any species, are signs of thriving populations. However, these facts negate the premise that polar bears require abundant summer sea ice to flourish, and that creates a problem for polar bear specialists who continue to make that claim (Amstrup et al. 2007; Crockford 2017, 2019).
In other words, the assessment that polar bears are currently thriving is not based solely on estimates of a slight increase in global population size but on published data gathered from field studies on the bears’ physical and reproductive health.
Oddly, biologists repeatedly turn to data from Western Hudson Bay to drive home to the public their preferred message that polar bear health and abundance are being negatively affected by recent summer sea ice declines. However, they fail to mention that robust field data from many other regions, including the Barents and Chukchi Seas, support the opposite conclusion. Moreover, wherever possible, they mumble under their breath (or leave out entirely) the fact that poor ice conditions could not be blamed for a 27% decline in polar bear numbers in Western Hudson Bay since 2016 — because their own data showed sea ice conditions had been strong!
Polar bear specialists refuse to update their 2015 global population estimate of 26,000 to reflect recent subpopulation survey results but when those data are taken into account (e.g. Conn et al. 2021; Dyck et al. 2021, 2022; Matishov et al. 2014), the average global population estimate comes to about 32,000 with a wide range of potential error. Although this modest increase is not statistically significant, it would likely take a 50% increase over that 26,000 estimate to meet that benchmark, considering that a recent 42% increase in Svalbard polar bear abundance was deemed statistically insignificant (Aars et al. 2017). Although a case has been made that global numbers may indeed be as high as 39,000 (Crockford 2019), that’s not why polar bears are said to be thriving.
Spring research in Svalbard, Norway in 2022 showed body condition of male polar bears was stable and the number of females with cubs (both cubs-of-the-year and one-year old cubs) were up compared to many previous years. While many bears have abandoned the Svalbard region for less volatile ice conditions in the eastern Barents Sea around Franz Josef Land, the 300 or so that remain are still doing well (Aars 2015, 2018, 2022; Aars et al. 2017; Anderson et al. 2012; Haavik 2022), despite having lost 5-6 times as much summer ice as Western Hudson Bay (Lippold et al. 2019:988; Regehr et al. 2016).
The graph below shows that the number of females with cubs-of-the-year (blue dots) and one-year-old cubs (red dots) were both up slightly in 2022, although overall, neither metric had a significant trend (declining or increasing) over time:
Body condition of adult male bears shown below was down a bit in 2022 but not significantly, and 2019 saw bears in the best condition since 1995 (2020 data is missing):
Body condition of females is not presented in the annual records posted by Norwegian researchers but Jon Aars stated in 2022 that females were in excellent condition, continuing the trend documented in a 2019 published study (Lippold et al. 2019).
“Unexpectedly, body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005, although sea ice has retreated by ∼50% since the late 1990s in the area, and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013. These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas” [Lippold et al. 2019:988, my bold]
An aerial survey of the Chukchi Sea in 2016 generated a population estimate of 5,444 (range 3,636–8,152), about 2,500 greater than a previous survey (Conn et al. 2021; Regehr et al. 2018).
Field studies found Chukchi Sea bears have been in excellent condition and reproducing well, and are not spending more time on land during the summer than they did during the 1980s (Rode et al. 2014, 2018, 2021, 2022; Wilson et al. 2016). Reports in early 2022 that polar bears have been moving from Alaska to Russia in a ‘mass exodus’ may describe a real phenomenon that reflects the excellent feeding conditions for bears in the Chukchi Sea compared to Alaska, fueled by continued increases in primary productivity made possible by less summer sea ice (Frey et al. 2022).
The Chukchi Sea has lost as much summer sea ice since 1979 as Western Hudson Bay (Regehr et al. 2016).
“Chukchi bears remain larger and fatter and have not seen downward trends in cub production and survival, according to new preliminary information on the health and numbers of bears.” [The Province, interview with Eric Regehr, 2018, my bold]
Other Thriving Subpopulations
Davis Strait: Results from the 2017–2018 survey revealed most bears were fatter than they had been in 2005–2007, with good cub survival; the authors found no relationship between bear survival and summer sea ice conditions, including number of ice-free days (Dyck et al. 2022).
M’Clintock Channel: Dyck et al. 2021 found that by 2014-2016, this subpopulation in the central Canadian Arctic had increased in abundance and body condition of bears had improved since the previous study, likely due to increased biological productivity.
Kane Basin: Field work by polar bear specialist Kirstin Laidre and colleagues (2020) found that numbers had not only increased significantly (from about 224 to 357, a 59% increase) but that bears were in excellent condition and reproducing well.
“Our study provides evidence for range expansion, improved body condition, and stable reproductive performance in the KB polar bear subpopulation. These changes, together with a likely increasing subpopulation abundance, may reflect the shift from thick, multiyear ice to thinner, seasonal ice with higher biological productivity.” [Laidre et al. 2020: abstract, my bold]
Gulf of Boothia: Local Inuit insist polar bears are physically “robust” and abundant; a recent survey conducted by biologists concluded the population was stable but noted improved body condition since the previous study. High survival of adult females and cubs indicated “healthy reproduction” despite the region having the highest known density of bears anywhere in the Arctic (8.9 bears per 1,000km2) (Dyck et al. 2023).
Southeast Greenland: Researchers Kristin Laidre and colleagues discovered a previously unknown subpopulation of about 234 polar bears living in SE Greenland (below 64 degrees N) that are genetically distinct and geographically isolated from East Greenland bears to the north. Photos provided by the authors show fat bears at the end of summer (see one above) and they state:
“Adult female body mass, an important determinant of cub production and survival, was lower in Southeast Greenland than in several other subpopulations but was similar to that of Northeast Greenland bears and the Barents Sea subpopulation, both of which use glacial fjords.” [Laidre et al. 2022: 1334, my bold]
Western Hudson Bay
Not thriving but not due to lack of sea ice. Far from being representative of all subpopulations, it is an anomaly.
A Western Hudson Bay survey conducted in 2021 revealed a 27% decline in polar bear abundance over the previous five years but the information released to the media in late December 2022 (still no report publicly available) admits that reduced summer sea ice conditions could not be responsible for this population decline because sea ice conditions had been “moderately good” for four out of five years. This is surely an understatement, as another study found no temporal trend in sea ice or departure dates of polar bears from shore between 1991 and 2020 (Miller et al. 2022) and in several years, preliminary information on departure dates suggest they were as early as they had been in the 1980s.
No details about the body condition of WH bears were released to the media to substantiate the implication that large numbers of bears could have starved to death between 2017 and 2021.
Polar bears in most studied subpopulations that have been recently assessed (seven so far) are in good or excellent body condition and reproducing well. These are known indicators of a thriving species. The evidence to date shows that declines in summer sea ice have not been detrimental to polar bear health and survival. On the contrary, in virtually all areas, much less sea ice has been beneficial: the opposite of what polar bear models predicted would happen.
Thriving subpopulations prove there is no “immediate existential threat to the entire species,” as the chief research scientist from activist organization Polar Bears International would have the public believe:
“It is both simultaneously true to point to part of recent history and say there’s a conservation success story here, and that should rightfully be celebrated, and to also say there’s an immediate existential threat to the entire species right now,” said John Whiteman, chief research scientist for Polar Bears International. [2 December 2022, It’s misleading to claim that polar bears are ‘thriving’ because of ‘increasing population’, my bold]
Aars, J. 2015. Research on polar bears at Norwegian Polar Institute. Online seminar (‘webinar”), January 14. pdf here.
Aars, J. 2018. Population changes in polar bears: protected, but quickly losing habitat. Fram Forum Newsletter 2018. Fram Centre, Tromso. Download pdf here (32 mb).
Aars, J. 2022. ‘Receding ice poses threat to polar bears.’ Norwegian Polar Institute, Youtube, 6 May.
Aars, J., Marques,T.A, Lone, K., et al. 2017. The number and distribution of polar bears in the western Barents Sea. Polar Research 36:1. 1374125. doi:10.1080/17518369.2017.1374125
Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. & Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. US Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Pdf here
Andersen, M., Derocher, A.E., Wiig, Ø. and Aars, J. 2012. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) maternity den distribution in Svalbard, Norway. Polar Biology 35:499-508.
Conn, P.B., Chernook, V.I., Moreland, E.E., et al. 2021. Aerial survey estimates of polar bears and their tracks in the Chukchi Sea. PLoS ONE 16(5): e0251130. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251130
Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 19 January 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v1 Open access. https://peerj.com/preprints/2737/
Dickie, G. 2022. ‘Canada’s Hudson Bay polar bear population plummets as climate change warms Arctic’. Reuters, 23 December. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadas-hudson-bay-polar-bear-population-plummets-climate-change-warms-arctic-2022-12-23/
Dyck, M., Lukacs, P.M.and Ware, J.V. 2021. Recovery from reduction: M’Clintock Channel polar bear subpopulation, Nunavut, Canada. Arctic 74(4):509-524.
Dyck, M., Dunham, K.D., Ware, J.V., et al. 2022. Re-estimating the abundance of the Davis Strait polar bear subpopulation by genetic mark-recapture. Final Report [amended 9 May 2022], Government of Nunavut, Department of Environment, Iglulik.
Dyck, M., Regehr, E.V. and Ware, J.V. 2023. Demographic assessment using physical and genetic sampling finds stable polar bear subpopulation in Gulf of Boothia, Canada. Marine Mammal Science 39:151-174.
Frey, K.E., Comiso, J.C., Cooper, L.W., et al. 2022. Arctic Ocean primary productivity: the response of marine algae to climate warming and sea ice decline. 2022 NOAA Arctic Report Card, https://doi.org/10.25923/0je1-te61
Haavik, E. 2022. ‘Svalbard’s polar bears persist as sea ice melts — but not forever. The World, 21 July.
Laidre, K.L., Atkinson, S.N., Regehr, E.V., et al. 2020. Transient benefits of climate change for a high‐Arctic polar bear (Ursus maritimus ) subpopulation. Global Change Biology 26(11):6251-6265. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15286 [paywalled]
Laidre, K.L., Supple, M.A., Born, E.W., et al. 2022. Glacial ice supports a distinct and undocumented polar bear subpopulation persisting in late 21st century sea-ice conditions. Science 376 (6599): 1333-1338. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq5267
Lippold, A., Bourgeon, S., Aars, J., et al. 2019. Temporal trends of persistent organic pollutants in Barents Sea polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to changes in feeding habits and body condition. Environmental Science and Technology 53(2):984-995.
Matishov, G.G., Chelintsev, N.G., Goryaev, Yu. I., et al. 2014. Assessment of the amount of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) on the basis of perennial vessel counts. Doklady Earth Sciences 458 (2):1312–1316.
Miller, E.N., Lunn, N.J., McGeachy, D., and Derocher, A.E. 2022. Autumn migration phenology of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in Hudson Bay, Canada. Polar Biology 45:1023-1034.
Regehr, E.V., Hostetter, N.J., Wilson, R.R., et al. 2018. Integrated population modeling provides the first empirical estimates of vital rates and abundance for polar bears in the Chukchi Sea. Scientific Reports 8 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34824-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-34824-7
Regehr, E.V., Laidre, K.L, Akçakaya, H.R., et al. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556 Supplementary data here.
Rode, K.D., Douglas, D.C., Atwood, T.C., et al. 2022. Observed and forecasted changes in land use by polar bears in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, 1985-2040. Global Ecology and Conservation 40: e02319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02319Rode, K.D., Olson, J., Eggett, D., et al. 2018. Den phenology and reproductive success of polar bears in a changing climate. Journal of Mammalogy 99(1):16-26. here.
Rode, K. D., Regehr, E.V., Bromaghin, J. F., et al. 2021. Seal body condition and atmospheric circulation patterns influence polar bear body condition, recruitment, and feeding ecology in the Chukchi Sea. Global Change Biology 27:2684–2701. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15572
Rode, K.D., Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D., et al. 2014. Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change Biology 20(1):76-88. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12339/abstract
Wilson, R.R., Regehr, E.V., Rode, K.D., and St. Martin, M. 2016. Invariant polar bear habitat selection during a period of sea ice loss. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 283:20160380.