Are there any modifications to the legalized hunting policy that would help the polar bear over the long run? Explain.
Even as environmentalists warn that polar bears are threatened, scientists believe that legalizing polar bear hunting could help rein rampant poaching. The rationale behind this is that if hunters are allowed to take some bears legally, they will be less tempted kill them illegally for meat and for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that their fur can fetch. There are various modifications to the legalized hunting policy that would help protect the polar bear population in the long run.
In Canada, where polar bears are hunted for meat and their furry white pelts, there are clear government recommendations regarding polar bear hunting to ensure sustainability. One such recommendation is the killing of two males for every female. Targeting males disproportionally is critical as they can mate with multiple females in a year, while on the contrary, females mate once every two years. Including this requirement in the legalized hunting policy would help prevent overharvesting of polar bears by limiting the number of females removed from the ecosystem.
Another modification is the introduction of hunting quotas. Polar bear populations should be assessed every year and quotas should be regularly adjusted to account for the effects of pollution, industry impact, and climate change. In Canada, for instance, territorial and provincial governments set up their own hunting quotas on an annual basis. Quotas guarantee sustainability by ensuring active monitoring of harvest data to determine whether there is overharvesting. This promotes the adoption of evidence-based practices and science-based policy decisions. As such, government agencies tasked with safeguarding polar bears should use science as a tool to determine how many bears can be killed in a season.
Finally, there should be provisions in the legalized hunting policy that prohibits hunting of bears for profit-driven commercial trade. Specifically, countries such as Canada and Norway that are home to almost two-thirds of the world’s remaining bears should ban the sale of polar bear skins, and thus follow in the footsteps of the United States and Russia. Policymakers need to recognize the fact that subsistence hunting of bears for clothing and meat can be managed sustainably. However, hunting for commercial trade is too risky as the high demand for bear fur will always push the prices up, hence leading to more killing. Additionally, allowing commercial trade encourages the creation of a system that is susceptible to manipulation and corruption. This is because trading pelts is likely to influence the quota-setting process, allowing traders to make huge profits by increasing the number of animals that can be harvested in a given year. That said, the principal threat to the existence of polar bears is climate change. As such, governments should pass legislations that seek to diminish the impact of climate change on polar bears and help save one of the world’s most majestic creatures.
Question 8: Why did the U.S. sign a treaty with Russia to create a joint committee who would administer legal hunting of polar bears? Why has legalized hunting gained WWF support?
The United States and Russia were willing to put aside their differences and work together to help save the polar bear from extinction. According to Jeffrey Flocken, North American regional director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Russia’s willingness to sign the treaty despite having opposed a similar proposal by the U.S. three years prior was indicative of the increasing danger facing polar bears. It is also important to note that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has expressed personal interest in polar bear preservation programs and that his affection for bears could have played a key role in the signing of the treaty despite the increasingly frosty relations between the two nations.
The treaty recognized that polar bears are impacted by dangers from all sides – pollution, climate change, industrial activity, and poaching. In the treaty, both countries acknowledge that stringent measures have to be taken to protect the endangered species. The U.S. led proposal sought to grant polar bears the highest level of protection by banning international commercial trade in bear fur, skins, as well as other items made from bear parts. The joint committee was charged with the responsibility of managing the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population. The treaty recognized polar bears as a valuable subsistence harvest species for residents of Alaska and Chukotka. As such, it was affirmed that the natives of these regions had the authority to hunt polar bears for their subsistence needs while allowing each country’s domestic laws to offer further protection to the animals.
The treaty also meant that the contracting parties were to undertake efforts to conserve polar bear habits. To this end, both countries agreed to take steps to prevent degradation of such habitats, that results in, reduced productivity or mortality or long-term decline in the polar bear population. Consequently, the joint committed was mandated to establish scientific working groups to assist in data sharing and carrying out other pertinent protective tasks.
Finally, legal hunting has gained WWF support because it is an ideal way of reducing demand for illegal polar bear parts and products. Legalization discourages poaching. For a country like Russia, where there is lax enforcement of anti-poaching laws, allowing some legal hunting of bears results in fewer people being tempted to break the law to acquire polar bear parts for trade.