The Offshore Voyaging Reference Site

Self-Study of Polar Bears

JHH5II-12304-p-let

Those of you who follow this site may have read my two previous posts on the subject of polar bears (here and here). Taking a risk that I’m beating a dead horse (as one of our commentors said, “Let’s beat a dead horse because details are so important…and it’s fun”), I’m going to detail how our thinking has evolved on the issue of polar bear “management” over the last number of years.

That Was Then…

When John and I first started going north to Labrador, Baffin and Greenland on Morgan’s Cloud, the ice was still in good shape. Polar bears followed the ice as it retreated north in the spring and the few bears that missed the ice and ended up stranded on land were usually shot very quickly by Inuit hunters.

Yes, we carried deterrents and firearms for protection but we never saw a polar bear during our numerous visits north. So we didn’t hesitate to go ashore and carried the guns unloaded as we were more frightened of shooting ourselves by tripping with a loaded gun than running into a bear.

And our experience wasn’t unusual—most summer visitors to Labrador and southern Greenland would be one of a privileged few if they were to see a bear.

Our first polar bear sighting in the wild was in Svalbard in 2002 and that was of its back end as it swam to shore and ran away from the boat. But it was there that we met Louis Nielsen, a trapper who has lived off the land in Svalbard for over 30 years, and he told us that we needed to take polar bears very seriously. He said an unloaded gun is just a stick. He also said that polar bears are fearless and completely unpredictable, even bears that he has interacted with for many decades. (Note that Louis has never had to shoot a bear in all his years of making a living off the land, though he’s come close.)

Even after our discussion with Louis we didn’t feel that the chances of meeting a bear were high enough to forego shore excursions, so the only changes we made in our polar bear “management” strategy were to increase our vigilance, have deterrents on hand at all times, and carry our guns loaded (chamber empty) with the safety on when hiking.

This Is Now

But that all changed in 2011 during our voyage to Baffin and down the Labrador coast. Not only did we see bears on several occasions but other sailors we met mentioned seeing 15 or more.

The increasing number of bears on land in the summer was confirmed by the manager of the Torngat Mountains National Park and the manager at Hebron (an historic site just north of Nain). Added to this, the manager of the Park reported that bears were catching seals from the land and looked to be in relatively good shape.

So all this got me wondering what is actually happening with bears in the north. And, on a very personal basis, if the chances of meeting a bear are so much more likely than before, what does this mean for our approach to shore excursions?

And so I underwent a self-study course on polar bears.

What The Scientists Say

I started with the book Never Look a Polar Bear in the Eye. An amusing read, it tells the story of dyed-in-the-wool conservationist Zac Unger who goes to Churchill, Manitoba to see polar bears before they are exterminated by climate change.

After getting nowhere with the “big name” scientists who espouse the certain demise of the polar bear, he ends up spending time with an “outlier” scientist who suggests that the polar bear may be able to adapt to climate change by eating while stranded on land.

The next books I read, Polar Bears: The Natural History of a Threatened Species by Ian Stirling and Polar Bears: A Complete Guide to Their Biology and Behaviour by Andrew E. Derocher (both scientists belong to the “big name” group that refused to hang out with Zac), are not only intensely interesting, they’re incredibly beautiful books with a wealth of photographs and a ton of information.

Their take is that polar bears are under great threat from climate change, especially the West Hudson Bay group (centred in the Churchill, Manitoba area), as they require seals to provide enough fat to justify the energy expenditure that moving their huge bodies around requires (eggs and birds and berries just don’t cut it), and there aren’t any seals in that area during the ice-free period.

Ring seals, who stay with the ice, provide the vast majority of the polar bear’s food intake as their numbers are large enough to support the present population of bears—worldwide considered to be about 20,000 to 25,000. Young and very old walrus (healthy adult walrus can fight off a bear), beluga whales (the only whale small enough for a bear to manage), larger whale carcasses, other breeds of seals—none of these exist in the numbers and close proximity to each other that ring seals do.

Polar bears need to eat enough over the winter to last them through the fasting period, which can be as long as 8 months (and growing). And this is where climate change is so dangerous—that the length of time that there is viable ice for the bears to hunt from is shrinking and the condition of the ice is deteriorating.

But what about the interesting thing we saw in Labrador, that the bears there are hunting seals (other species than ring seals) during the former fasting time? And we have recently learned that Inuit in Labrador have on occasion observed polar bears hunting caribou. Which does seem to support the suggestion by the “outlier” scientist that bears may be able to adapt by hunting on land.

One thing which became very clear in the research I did is that scientists have, because of ease of access, focused mainly on the West Hudson Bay polar bear population and there is no saying whether findings for that population are true for all Arctic populations (scientists refer to 19 relatively discrete subpopulations of polar bears in the Arctic).

So the bears in Labrador may very well have adapted to hunt on land where the bears in West Hudson Bay have not, probably because there is nothing to hunt in the summer in their area.

What This Means For Visitors

Now, only time will tell whether the Labrador and Baffin bears will be able to survive by hunting on land. I certainly hope so. However, either in the short term or hopefully in the long term, what this translates into is a lot of bears along the Labrador and Baffin coasts who are now in full-on hunting mode in the summer.

And what does that mean for our shore excursions? Well, it means we will have to be exceptionally careful about where we go ashore—places where there are good sight lines, where there are no signs of bears, and where we can protect ourselves in case of an attack. Think about it: bears are hunting seals along the shore, you pull up to the shore in your gray dinghy…

But what about within the Torngat Mountains National Park (Labrador) and Auyuittuq National Park (Baffin Island), where Parks Canada is encouraging visitors while at the same time outlawing guns for everyone except Inuit hunters and bear monitors?

(Sadly, as I was writing this post, a hiker was attacked by a bear and severely injured while hiking in Torngat Park—he was in his tent and with a group, both situations which, according to the Park’s bear safety brochure*, are supposed to provide protection from bear attacks. Note that his group chose not to hire a bear monitor.)

Well, if I was on a land-based hiking trip, I would definitely hire a properly trained and equipped bear monitor (note: rusty 22s don’t cut it).

However, visiting the north by boat is a different kettle of fish (sorry!). Since mariners can access these Parks at a number of places, not just through Base Camp or a community, this may rule out even getting access to a monitor. And even if a monitor is available, what are the logistics of having another person aboard, a stranger who is unfamiliar with yachts, etc.?

Personally, I don’t think taking a polar bear monitor aboard a normal sized yacht is a viable option. So that means going ashore while within Park boundaries is not prudent, and John and I will follow this protocol happily, since, with this many bears around, we aren’t comfortable going ashore anyway. As John has been known to say, there’s no good outcome in case of an attack: either we kill the bear, which sucks, or we miss the bear, which sucks.

But what if we have to put in a shorefast for safety? Or if something happens to the boat and we have to take shelter ashore? Probably in these cases force majeure would take effect if we did have to protect ourselves from an attack.

What About Parks Canada?

I believe that Parks Canada needs to make up its mind how it wants to market the Parks, before there’s another tragedy. Either they:

  • continue to encourage visitors to the Parks but mandate that they hire a properly trained and equipped (I’m emphasizing this point) bear monitor if they wish to go ashore; or
  • continue to encourage visitors to the Parks but mandate that they either carry firearms for protection as per the Svalbard model or hire a properly trained and equipped bear monitor if they wish to go ashore (note that visitors to Svalbard are provided with guidelines on how to deter a bear—shooting it being the absolutely final line of defense; punishments are inflicted if a bear is harassed or killed unnecessarily; and all parts of a killed bear must be returned to the governor so that there is no incentive to kill a bear for its pelt); or
  • designate the Parks as bear sanctuaries and prohibit going ashore; or
  • designate some parts of the Parks as bear sanctuaries and some parts where visitors can go ashore but with the above mandates in effect.

A rewrite of the Park’s polar bear safety brochure would not go amiss either: I find it hard to see how a tent is going to offer protection from an animal that is used to punching through the roof of a snow den to get at ring seal pups.

What Next?

Though this third discussion of polar bear “management” might have seemed like beating a dead horse to some of you, for me it provided an opportunity to learn about an incredibly beautiful, interesting, and highly adaptable animal that survives in an incredibly hostile and fascinating part of the world. All in all, a wonderful project.

Now, on to my next self-study project—French. À la prochaine!

*Update April 2017: this brochure seems to have disappeared from Parks Canada’s website. Readers are now referred to a different government website, which makes no mention of polar bears.

Further Bibliography

Polar Bears: A Guide to Safety

Polar Bear Safety PDF

Polar Bear Specialist Group

Polar Bears International

Wild Ones: A Sometimes Dismaying, Weirdly Reassuring Story About Looking at People Looking at Animals in America by Jon Mooallem is a fascinating look at species conservation.

Some We Love, Some We Hate, and Some We Eat by Hal Herzog is a very interesting analysis of why we are so conflicted in our relationships with animals. The title says it all!

32 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marc Dacey

A well-observed and practical guide. Thank you.

I suppose the irony here is that the same forces that are forcing the bears to congregate on the inappropriately ice-free shores are the same forces that are allowing greater numbers of park visitors to access these high-latitude locales in the first place. Tourists will inevitably show up on the menu, we being the size of a smallish caribou or an average seal, though I doubt we are nearly as nutritious to a bear!

If the situation was normal, they would be so spread out as to be the rare sight they once were. I also believe that if hungry enough, they will eat each other if they can. Certainly the adult males will consume cubs if seals run out.

Tom Chapman

If you choose to enter that part of the food web and are eaten by a bear, that’s not a tragedy…that’s nature. But an excellent piece. Thank you.

Dick Stevenson

Phyllis, Thank you. That was quite interesting. I assume that, over time, you have come across the extra-ordinary movie of polar bears: the one done by the extremely creative photography units that look like R2D2. It is not scientific, but is terrifically entertaining and shows the curiosity and intelligence of polar bears impressively. If you have not seen it, I will try to find its source for you.
My best, Dick Stevenson, s/v Alchemy

Patrice Venne

Unless things have changed in the last 40 years (since I use the parks), Park Canada’s policy have always been firearm free zone. All you need is a bit of luck and a good karma. It’s part of a decision to go to the wild or not. I spent a summer with my girlfriend in 1982 in Banff, Jasper and Mount Robertson areas. Before leaving, we had to visit and register at Park Canada office where a ranger will show us on our maps were the Grizzly bear population was last seen. So we new where we entered bear territory. Did it gave us something? Absolutely not, it does not matter if you know, the same precautions apply and it’s all about if it is check out time or not. We had 3 bear encounters; the first at night at the Lake Louise campground, it went for our food which was hanged on a tree (apparently not high enough), the second was on the North Boundary Trail (a 200 km trail linking Jasper to Mount Robertson) we were on the trail hiking the mother was very protective and decided to charge us but fell short of attacking us ( you have to stand ground and not run) and the last one was, on the same trail a few days later, I came face to face ( less than 30 feet) with a beautiful golden brown grizzly bear. Needless to say the bear did not want to play with me and I had a good karma. Every year in the Rockies, hikers, climbers, mountaineers and visitors have black, grizzly bear encounters, most live to tell the tale others don’t. I always wanted to hike Baffin Island but refrain from it precisely because of the polar bear factor. It’s a personal decision that everyone of us has to take seriously. In my personal opinion firearms are not the solution. Sailing is much safer.

John Harries

Hi Patrice,

It is a very bad and potentially fatal mistake to equate what works with grizzly bears with polar bears. While it is true that the two animals are closely related and can even interbreed, they hunt completely different prey in completely different ways.

All the karma in the world is not going to help you if a polar bear, as frequently happens, decides to hunt you for food.

This is exactly the problem with Parks Canada’s policy: applying a rule that works with brown bears to white ones. The Norwegians, who administer Svalbard, require you to carry a fire arm at all times because they understand the difference. Or, as Phyllis recommended to Parks Canada, they simply ban humans from important polar bear areas.

RDE (Richard Elder)

Hi John,

You point that polar bears and the grizzlies in Victor and my back yard are two different animals can’t be emphasized enough. Although the mountain biker who found herself in a race with one a mile or so from my house probably wasn’t convinced that it made much difference! Glad to hear they “pray in completely different ways” That always helps! LOL

If one does choose to buy a weapon for hikes in polar bear country forget about a bolt action and look for a Browning BAR semi automatic in one of the larger calibers, and then spend some time learning how to accurately rapid fire it. They are very common used for as little as $600.

John Harries

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the proof read, something I always need.

Be aware that automatic military type weapons are illegal in Canada and possession of said will, I believe, get you serious prison time.

RDE

Hi John,
Sometimes typos have a hidden content! And humor.

The reason I suggested the BAR is that it is a non-military sporting style rifle that is both cheap and commonly available. Don’t know how Canada’s laws view it, but it isn’t an AR-15 that can be converted to full automatic, and you can get it in large magnum calibers.

Patrice Venne

Dick,
Sorry I clicked the wrong button, my comment was not meant as a reply to your post. How are you doing? We got Resourceful on the hard yesterday.
Patrice

Victor Raymond

Thank you Phyllis for the interesting post. Here in Jackson Hole we have both black and grizzly bears. We even have had them at the house on occasions as well as moose, elk, deer, moutain lion etc. So it is still a wild place but with children in the neighborhood. So what to do? Whose land is it afterall?
One thing we did learn from reputable bear scientists is that there have been no known bear attacks on humans where there is a group of three or more (humans). Obviously if you all scatter to the winds when you see one approaching, you are fair game. But there is safety in numbers apparently.
Having said that a very hungry animal may exhibit unusual behavior, but like everything we do, statistics in this case are in your favor if you follow this simple rule.
I personally have managed to get bears to stand down on several occasions by not starring at them, or being aggressive but appearing taller by climbing on a rock. Also bears are trained by their mothers to be fearful of certain sounds or sights. If you can reproduce those, there is a great chance they will high tail it when you approach. For black and grizzly bears it is the sound of a cracking branch or twig. In bear territory we always carry one to break so they will be alerted that danger is coming.
Another final point if camping out in bear country. Do not cook, prepare food or have anything that smells good anywhere near where you are to sleep. It is just too tempting for them. We always hang our packs with everything except our sleeping bag and tent a very long way from the campsite. It is a pain but worth it for a safe and hassle free night.

John Harries

Hi Victor,

See my comment above about the dangers of applying brown bear rules to polar bears. While there is probably some safety in numbers effect with polar bears, it is much less than that with brown bears. A fact that has been born out by at least two recent attacks on larger groups of people (10-20) by polar bears, one in Labrador and one in Svalbard. One ended in the death of a young man and in the other the armed guard shot the charging bear.

This is like the dangerous fallacy that a tent will make you safer from a polar bear. Tell that to a Svalbard resident who must build his cabin like Fort Knox with steel doors and long sharp spikes pointing outward to deter polar bears.

Marc Dacey

My wife has a degree in animal behaviour studies, and commented once that a typical cabin to a polar bear is akin to a blister pack to a human: a little frustrating to open, but you eventually extract the contents.

Mike

Hi
Just found your site, it appears to be a great resource.
As one commenter noted, federal parks are no firearm areas. I visited Kootenay National Park when I was young (oh so long ago). The park is also has a highway running through it. At that time firearms needed to be sealed and if the seal was broken you could be fined. The same problem existed with grizzly bears. There were warnings at every entrance and information stop. I didn’t even really think about it being young, stupid and firm in the belief that I would never die. At least until I came across some fresh tracks in mud. The paws were bigger then my head, and that didn’t include the claws, each of which were longer then my hand.

I’d also like to comment on your link to the book “Don’t Go Back To School”. The site itself doesn’t take comments, which I believe is ironic considering that is the major failing with the philosophy. Humans have many failings, and one of the worst is we have a tendency to reinforce previous held beliefs even if they are baseless or completely contrary to reality. We tend to filter out information that doesn’t match our expectations and when we meet information that contradicts, we ignore it and double down on our false assumptions. A good example is the subject of climate change which so many deny is happening, even though there is plenty of information on the subject available. A person who denies climate change is likely to stick sources that reinforce that belief and ignore any sources that give conflicting information. The same holds true for both evolution and geology for young earth creationists, who believe the earth is only six to ten thousand years old. They have to ignore museums and universities full of information and evidence that deny their beliefs, and that is exactly what they do.

The internet has given us more opportunity for learning then anyone has ever had before, yet at the same time it is aiding people who are pulling themselves into a bubble of information that reinforces there beliefs. We are seeing the results of this taken to the absurd in the USA.

But I don’t want to give the impression that I don’t want people to learn by themselves. I do. I wish more people do what you did, learn about something then share it with others. But I very much want my doctor to have a university medical education.

Thank you for your site, your efforts, your knowledge. Sorry for my semi rant on a tangential topic.