Order Code RL33941
Polar Bears: Proposed Listing Under the
Endangered Species Act
Updated February 15, 2008
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Polar Bears: Proposed Listing Under the
Endangered Species Act
Summary
The proposed listing of polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.) highlights the intersection of two significant
issues currently before Congress — climate change and species protection.
According to the ESA, this listing decision rests solely on an interpretation of the
best available scientific understanding of the species and how it may be affected by
changes in its habitat.
Polar bears depend on Arctic sea ice, which most scientists acknowledge will
be affected by climate warming causing, at minimum, an earlier annual or seasonal
thaw and a later freeze of coastal sea ice. Globally, less than one-third of the 19
known or recognized polar bear populations are declining, more than one-third are
increasing or stable. The remaining third have insufficient data available to estimate
population trends and their status has not been assessed. Two polar bear populations
occur within U.S. jurisdiction.
Polar bears are affected by climate change, contaminants, and subsistence and
sport hunting. Environmental organizations have voiced public concern that polar
bear populations are threatened by climate change. Scientists have confirmed that,
in recent decades, the extent of Arctic sea ice has declined significantly as the result
of climate warming: annual ice break-up in many areas is occurring earlier and
freeze-up later. Arctic sea ice is experiencing a continuing decline that may not
easily be reversed, and some models project that Arctic late summer (September) sea
ice could disappear completely by the second half of this century. In addition, three
main groups of contaminants are implicated as potentially threatening polar bears —
petroleum hydrocarbons, persistent organic pollutants, and heavy metals. The United
States allows limited subsistence harvest of polar bears by Alaska Natives. In
Canada, Native hunters are permitted to allocate a limited portion of the subsistence
harvest to sport hunters. Under 1994 amendments to the MMPA, U.S. citizens may
obtain permits to import sport-harvested polar bear trophies from Canada.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing polar bears as a threatened
species under ESA, acknowledging the increasing threats to their existence. This
listing decision is anticipated in late January or early February 2008 and must be
based solely on the best available scientific and commercial information regarding
five factors: habitat destruction, overutilization, disease or predation, inadequacy of
other regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or manmade factors.
Controversy exists over how great a threat the changing climate might be to
polar bears and whether they might be able to adapt to these changing conditions.
Some point out that polar bears today are not coping with changing climate alone, but
also face a host of other human-induced factors — including shipping, oil and gas
exploration, contaminants, and reduced prey populations — that compound the threat
to their continued existence. There is also considerable uncertainty in estimates of
polar bear population numbers and trends as well as in our understanding of polar
bear habitat.

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Circumstances Potentially Affecting Polar Bears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Subsistence and Sport Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Canadian Non-Resident Sport Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Protection Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
List of Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of Polar Bear Populations Throughout the
Circumpolar Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Polar Bear Trophy Import Permits Issued, by Year . . . . . . . 10

Polar Bears: Proposed Listing Under the
Endangered Species Act
The proposed listing of polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.) highlights the intersection of two significant
issues currently before Congress — climate change and species protection. This
listing decision rests solely on an interpretation of the best available scientific
understanding of the species and how it may be affected by changing habitat.
Background
The polar bear, Ursus maritimus, is the largest terrestrial carnivore and a top
predator, inhabiting circumpolar Arctic regions wherever sea ice is present for a
substantial part of the year. Nineteen known or identified populations of polar bears
have an estimated total abundance of 20,000 to 25,000 animals (Figure 1). Two of
these populations occur within U.S. jurisdiction — the Southern Beaufort Sea
population (shared about equally with Canada) is estimated at 1,526 animals,1 while
the Chukchi/Bering Seas population (shared with Russia) is estimated at about 2,000
animals.2
Studies suggest that polar bear numbers are in decline in Western Hudson Bay,3
but a multi-year study, to be completed in fall 2007 and following local reports of
more bears being seen in the northern parts of the population range, will determine
if the observed decline is the result of a change in population distribution or an actual
reduction in abundance.4 In addition, the polar bear population may be starting to
decline in the Southern Beaufort Sea. Simulations suggest that polar bear
populations are also declining in Baffin Bay, Kane Basin, and Norwegian Bay.
Globally, less than one-third of the 19 populations are declining, and more than one-
third are increasing or stable. The remaining third have insufficient data available
to estimate population trends and their status has not been assessed.5
1 E. V. Regehr, S. C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling, Polar Bear Population Status in the Southern
Beaufort Sea
, U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 1337 (2006).
2 This abundance estimate, by the Polar Bear Specialist Group (see footnote 5), has low
confidence, with no estimate of precision or bias.
3 I. Stirling and C. Parkinson, “Possible Effects of Climate Warming on Selected
Populations of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic,” Arctic, v. 59
(September 2006): 261-275.
4 Government of Nunavut, Submission from the Government of Nunavut, Department of
Environment to the Supervisor, U.S. FWS, April 6, 2007, Appendix A, p. 31.
5 Polar Bear Specialist Group, Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC
Polar Bear Specialist Group
, Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission
(continued...)


CRS-2
Figure 1. Distribution of Polar Bear Populations
Throughout the Circumpolar Basin
Source: Polar Bear Specialist Group, Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the
IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group
, p. 33. SB = Southern Beaufort Sea, NB =
Northern Beaufort Sea, VM = Viscount Melville, NW = Norwegian Bay, LS = Lancaster
Sound, MC = McClintock Channel, GB = Gulf of Boothia, FB = Foxe Basin, WH =
Western Hudson Bay, SH = Southern Hudson Bay, KB = Kane Basin, BB = Baffin Bay,
DS = Davis Strait.
The status of polar bears in the Central Arctic Basin — transient bears that normally
reside in other regional populations — is unknown. Two of the most southerly polar
bear populations, in Southern Hudson Bay6 and Davis Strait,7 show no evidence of
population decline over the past two decades of decreasing sea ice. Large
5 (...continued)
No. 32 (2006), p. 34-35, available at [http://pbsg.npolar.no/docs/PBSG14proc.pdf].
6 I. Stirling et al., “Polar Bear Distribution and Abundance on the Southwestern Hudson Bay
Coast During the Open Water Season, in Relation to Population Trends and Annual Sea Ice
Patterns,” Arctic, v. 57 (March 2004): 15-26.
7 Government of Nunavut, Submission from the Government of Nunavut, Department of
Environment to the Supervisor, U.S. FWS, April 6, 2007, p.7.

CRS-3
carnivorous mammals are generally considered to be most at risk of population
declines and extinctions,8 and the minimum viable total population of polar bears has
been estimated at 4,961 adults.9
The primary prey of polar bears is the ringed seal — a polar bear may stalk a
seal by waiting quietly for it to emerge from an opening in the ice that seals make to
breathe or climb out of the water to rest. Ringed seals have a circumpolar
distribution and are associated with ice seasonally for birthing and molting in the
spring. Much of ringed seal habitat (especially in offshore drifting sea ice) has not
been surveyed, leading to much uncertainty regarding population size and status.
Current estimates of the global population numbers for ringed seal range from more
than 2 million to as many as 7 million animals. Other prey include bearded and harp
seals, juvenile walrus, beluga whales, narwhal, fish, and seabirds and their eggs.
Over most of their range, polar bears remain on the sea ice year-round or spend at
most only short periods on land. In October and November, male polar bears head
out onto sea ice where they spend the winter. Polar bears are well adapted to this
Arctic environment, where ice thickness can increase or decrease rapidly as well as
differ significantly from year to year and between regions.10
Annual rates of population increase for polar bears may range to as much as 5%,
with mature females reproducing once every three years (commonly twins, more
rarely triplets).11 Pregnant females either seek sites on the sea ice (“pelagic bears”)
or on mainland areas (“nearshore bears”) to dig large dens in snow where they give
birth and spend the winter.12 Females do not require mainland sites for denning, but
some individuals seem to prefer them. Both pelagic and nearshore individuals are
known in all subpopulations studied.13
Currently, polar bears are protected and managed under domestic law and
several international agreements. Because the primary habitat of the polar bear is sea
ice and this species is evolutionarily adapted to life at sea, it is managed as a marine
mammal. In the United States, polar bears are protected under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. §§1361 et seq.), with the Fish and Wildlife
8 M. Cardillo et al., “Multiple Causes of High Extinction Risk in Large Mammal Species,”
Science, v. 309, no. 5738 (August 19, 2005): 1239-1241.
9 D. H. Reed et al., “Estimates of Minimum Viable Population Sizes for Vertebrates and
Factors Influencing Those Estimates,” Biological Conservation, v. 113, no. 1 (September
2003): 23-34.
10 Seymour Laxon, Neil Peacock, and Doug Smith, “High Interannual Variability of Sea Ice
Thickness in the Arctic Region,” Nature, v. 425 (October 30, 2003): 947-950.
11 A. E. Derocher, “Polar Bear,” In Encyclopedia of the Arctic, M. Nuttall, ed. (Routledge,
2005), v. 3, p. 1656-1658.
12 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, “Polar Bear Fact Sheet,” available
at [http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2006/polarbear.pdf], and “Polar Bear Questions and
Answers,” available at [http://www.fws.gov/home/feature/2006/PolarbearFAQ.pdf].
13 Mette Mauritzen, Andrew E. Derocher, and Oystein Wiig, “Space-Use Strategies of
Female Polar Bears in a Dynamic Sea Ice Habitat,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, v. 79
(September 2001): 1704-1713.

CRS-4
Service (FWS) in the Department of the Interior as the federal management agency.
The Alaska Nanuuq Commission, a Native organization representing villages in
northern and northwestern Alaska, has a co-management agreement with the FWS
to provide input on matters related to the conservation and sustainable use of polar
bears.14
Internationally, the multilateral 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar
Bears15 and the 2000 bilateral Agreement Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the
Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population16
provide a basis for cooperation on polar bear management. In addition, Alaska and
Canada exercise joint cross-border management through the Inuvialuit-Inupiat Polar
Bear Management Agreement for the Southern Beaufort Sea.17 The International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies the polar bear as vulnerable
on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The IUCN classification of vulnerable
represents a judgment that the species is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.18
In addition, polar bears are listed on Appendix II of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES). Appendix
II contains species not necessarily threatened with extinction but requiring controlled
trade to prevent population declines, as well as other species whose body parts are
difficult to distinguish by visual inspection (the so-called “look-alike” problem, in
this case in controlling trade in bear gall bladders).19 ESA implements CITES
provisions domestically. As such, ESA affords protection to endangered species and
wildlife of global concern. To complement CITES, ESA specifically prohibits
interstate and foreign commerce in ESA-listed species. FWS agents and inspectors
work to control any illegal trade and international movement of CITES- and ESA-
listed species, since some species found in other countries may be brought into the
United States by activities that could threaten their long-term survival. ESA is
applicable to activities within U.S. jurisdiction, as well as activities by U.S. citizens
anywhere, including the high seas.
14 See [http://www.nanuuq.info/index.html].
15 Parties to this agreement are Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the
United States. See [http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/texts/polar.bears.1973.html].
16 See [http://alaska.fws.gov/media/pbsigning/agreement.html].
17 See [http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic55-4-362.pdf].
18 This assessment is based on a suspected population decline of more than 30% within three
generations (45 years) due to decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, and habitat
quality.
19 For additional background on CITES, see CRS Report RL32751, The Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): Background
and Issues
, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and M. Lynne Corn.

CRS-5
Circumstances Potentially Affecting Polar Bears
Climate Change20
Climate change is widely believed to be one of the most significant
contemporary threats to biodiversity worldwide.21 A May 2002 report by the World
Wildlife Fund raised public concern that polar bear populations are threatened by
climate change.22 Scientists have confirmed that, in recent decades, the extent of
Arctic sea ice has declined significantly as the result of climate warming: annual ice
break-up in many areas is occurring earlier and freeze-up later. Arctic sea ice is
experiencing a continuing decline that it is thought may not easily be reversed,23 and
some models project that Arctic late summer (September) sea ice could disappear
completely by the second half of this century.24 Studies by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) conclude that two-thirds of the world’s polar bear population could
be lost within 50 years.25 However, links between climate-model predictions and
threats to polar bears are characterized as tenuous by many scientists, acknowledging
the limitations of correlational studies and the hypothetical nature of model-based
predictions of environmental conditions decades into the future.26
Distribution patterns of some polar bear populations have changed in recent
years. Greater numbers of bears are being found onshore near the Bering Sea,27 and
20 For background on climate change, see CRS Report RL33849, Climate Change: Science
and Policy Implications
, by Jane Leggett.
21 C. D. Thomas et al., “Extinction Risk from Climate Change,” Nature, v. 427, no. 6970
(January 8, 2004): 145-148; Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming
Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
(Cambridge University Press, 2005), 144 p.
22 Stefan Norris, Lynn Rosentrater, and Pal Martin Eid, Polar Bears at Risk (World Wildlife
Fund, May 2002), available at [http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/polarbears/risk/PolarBears
AtRisk.pdf].
23 R. W. Lindsay and J. Zhang, “The Thinning of the Arctic Sea Ice, 1988-2003: Have We
Passed a Tipping Point?” Journal of Climate, v. 18, no. 22 (2005), pp. 4879-4894.
24 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis
, Summary for Policymakers (Geneva, Switzerland: February 2007), 21 pp.
25 USGS studies are available at [http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar%5Fbears/].
26 D. Berteaux et al., “Constraints to Projecting the Effects of Climate Change on
Mammals,” Climate Research, v. 32 (October 2006): 151-158; D. B. Botkin et al.,
“Forecasting the Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity,” Bioscience, v. 57 (March
2007): 227-236; C. J. Krebs and D. Berteaux, “Problems and Pitfalls in Relating Climate
Variability to Population Dynamics,” Climate Research, v. 32 (October 2006): 143-149; and
M. G. Dyck, et al., “Polar Bears of Western Hudson Bay and Climate Change: Are Warming
Spring Air Temperatures the ‘Ultimate’ Survival Control Factor?” Ecological Complexity,
v. 4 (2007): in press.
27 S. L. Schliebe, T. Evans, S. Miller, and J. Wilder, “Fall Distribution of Polar Bears along
Northern Alaska Coastal Areas and Relationship to Pack Ice Position,” in Collection of
Scientific Papers from the 4th International Conference of Marine Mammals of the

(continued...)

CRS-6
in some parts of Canada,28 with Inuit hunters reporting more bears present on land
during summer and fall.29 There may be several reasons for the observed changes,
including changes in sea ice; those who conduct population censuses of polar bears
will need to be cautious in interpreting whether apparent population variations are
indicative of different habitat use (e.g., greater numbers of bears onshore) or actual
changes in population abundance. Recent studies found that mid-latitude Europe
populations of Arctic fox became extinct at the end of the Pleistocene and did not
track the habitat when it shifted to the north, suggesting that some populations of
Arctic species are unable to track decreases in habitat availability and may be
vulnerable to increases in global temperatures.30
The projected loss of sea ice could affect survival and reproduction of polar
bears by:
! shortening the season during which ice is available to serve as a
platform for hunting ringed seals;31
! increasing the distance between the ice edge and land, thereby
making it more difficult for nearshore female bears that prefer to den
on land to reach preferred denning areas;
! reducing the availability of sea ice dens for gestating pelagic female
bears;
! requiring nearshore bears to travel through fragmented sea ice and
open water, which uses more energy than walking across stable ice
formations;32
! reducing the availability and accessibility of ice-dependent prey,
such as ringed seals, to nearshore populations;33 and
27 (...continued)
Holarctic, V. M. Belkovich, ed. (St. Petersburg, Russia: 2006), p. 559.
28 E. K. Parks et al., “Seasonal and Annual Movement Patterns of Polar Bears on the Sea Ice
of Hudson Bay,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, v. 84, no. 9 (September 2006): 1281-1294.
29 Unpublished reports in 2005 by M. Dowsley and M. Taylor, as cited in the FWS polar
bear status assessment report (see footnote 51).
30 Love Dalen et al., “Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Postglacial Habitat Tracking in the
Arctic Fox,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America
, v. 104, no. 16 (April 17, 2007): 6726-6729.
31 For every week earlier the sea ice breaks up, bears come ashore 10 kilograms lighter in
weight, on average. See Ian Stirling and A. E. Derocher, “Possible Impacts of Climatic
Warming on Polar Bears,” Arctic, v. 46 (1993): 240-245.
32 Loss of sea ice forces polar bears to cross large expanses of water and increases risk of
drowning. In 2004, scientists documented polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore
and observed 4 drowned bears. See C. Monnett and J. S. Gleason, “Observation of
Mortality Associated with Extended Open-Water Swimming by Polar Bears in the Alaskan
Beaufort Sea,” Polar Biology, v. 29, no. 8 (July 2006): 681-687.
33 I. Stirling and C. L. Parkinson, “Possible Effects of Climate Warming on Selected
Populations of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic,” Arctic, v. 59, no. 3
(September 2006): 261-275; S. H. Ferguson, I. Stirling, and P. McLoughlin, “Climate
(continued...)

CRS-7
! requiring nearshore bears to spend more time on land, thereby
increasing the potential for adverse human-polar bear interactions.34
In addition to changing sea ice conditions, others have expressed concern that climate
change could affect the integrity of polar bear den sites, as rain can destroy ice dens,
exposing young polar bears to the elements prematurely.35
Although some scientists predict the extinction of polar bears under potential
climate change scenarios, not all sea-ice changes would harm polar bears. For
example, reduced sea ice thickness and coverage in far northern regions could
improve polar bear habitat, by increasing the availability and accessibility of ice-
dependent prey, such as ringed seals.36 Others remind biologists that climate-related
changes to a species’ distribution may not necessarily lead to changes in abundance.37
Contaminants
Three main groups of contaminants are implicated as potentially threatening
polar bears — petroleum hydrocarbons, persistent organic pollutants, and heavy
metals. Polar bears are particularly vulnerable to oil spills, because oil damages polar
bear fur (decreasing the bears’ ability to thermoregulate) and because of oil ingestion
(poisoning) via grooming and/or eating contaminated prey.38 Although elevated
concentrations of some persistent organic pollutants have been discovered in polar
bears, it has been difficult to determine what biological effects these chemicals might
have on polar bears; weakened immune systems and reduced reproductive success
are among the concerns.39 Some persistent organic pollutants are endocrine
disruptors and are thought to cause pseudo-hermaphrodism and aberrant genital
morphology in polar bears.40 Mercury is a particular concern because of its toxicity
33 (...continued)
Change and Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida) Recruitment in Western Hudson Bay,” Marine
Mammal Science
, v. 21, no. 1 (January 2005): 121-135.
34 Marine Mammal Commission. Annual Report to Congress, 2005 (Bethesda, MD: July 15,
2006), p. 52.
35 Stefan Norris, Lynn Rosentrater, and Pal Martin Eid, Polar Bears at Risk (World Wildlife
Fund, May 2002).
36 A. E. Derocher, N. J. Lunn, and I. Stirling, “Polar Bears in a Warming Climate,”
Integrative and Comparative Biology, v. 44, no. 2 (April 2004): 163-176.
37 C. J. Krebs and D. Berteaux, “Problems and Pitfalls in Relating Climate Variability to
Population Dynamics,” Climate Research, v. 32 (2006): 143-149.
38 D. J. St. Aubin, “Physiologic and Toxic Effects on Polar Bears,” in Sea Mammals and Oil:
Confronting the Risks
, J. R. Geraci and D. J. St. Aubin, eds. (New York, NY: Academic
Press, Inc., 1990), p. 235-239; N. A. Oritsland, et al., Effect of Crude Oil on Polar Bears,
Environmental Studies No. 24, Northern Affairs Program, Northern Environmental
Protection Branch, Indian and Northern Affairs, Canada (1981), 268 pp.
39 J. U. Skarre et al., “Ecological Risk Assessment of Persistent Organic Pollutants in the
Arctic,” Toxicology, v. 181-182 (2002): 193-197.
40 C. M. Fossi and L. Marsili, “Effects of Endocrine Disruptors in Aquatic Mammals,” Pure
(continued...)

CRS-8
at low concentration, and its magnification and accumulation through the food web.
However, polar bears appear able to demethylate (i.e., alter the chemical form and
biological reactivity of) mercury and accumulate somewhat elevated levels of
mercury without harm.41 Climate change may alter contaminant pathways through
increased precipitation, increasing the potential threat to polar bears.42
Subsistence and Sport Harvest
The United States allows limited subsistence harvest of polar bears by Alaska
Natives. Subsistence harvest of depleted, threatened, and endangered marine
mammals can be managed in different ways. Due to concerns for depleted beluga
whales in Cook Inlet, AK, subsistence harvest by Alaska Natives has been severely
restricted (0 to 2 animals annually) since 1999.43 On the other hand, a substantial
Alaska Native subsistence harvest of endangered bowhead whales continues, with 75
whales permitted to be struck in 2006.44 In the year from July 1, 2004, through June
30, 2005, Alaska Natives harvested 27 polar bears from the Southern Beaufort Sea
population and 33 polar bears from the Chukchi/Bering Seas population. In addition,
there is particular concern for the Chukchi/Bering Seas population due to anecdotal
evidence that unregulated harvest by Russian Natives on the Chukotka Peninsula may
be reaching unsustainable levels.45
Some have suggested that habitat alteration from climate change may interact
with subsistence and sport harvest to increase polar bear mortality. For example,
they believe that large adult male bears, more likely to be targeted by hunters, could
also be more at risk from the effect of climate change on prey availability since larger
bears require greater amounts of food. Others counter that habitat conditions and
prey availability for polar bears could improve as climate warms as a result of
increased marine productivity in regions currently dominated by multi-year ice.46 In
addition, since male bears represent a threat to cubs and juvenile bears,47 any factor
40 (...continued)
and Applied Chemistry, v. 75, nos. 11-12 (November-December 2003): 2235-2247.
41 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent
Organic Pollutants in the Arctic
(Oslo, Norway: 2005), p. 123.
42 R. W. Macdonald, T. Harner, and J. Fyfe, “Recent Climate Change in the Arctic and Its
Impact on Contaminant Pathways and Interpretation of Temporal Trend Data: Review
Article,” Science of The Total Environment, v. 342, no. 1-3 (April 1, 2005): 5-86.
43 71 Fed. Reg. 15697-15698 (March 29, 2006).
44 71 Fed. Reg. 7539 (February 13, 2006).
45 Marine Mammal Commission. Annual Report to Congress, 2005 (Bethesda, MD: July 15,
2006), p. 50-51.
46 A. E. Derocher, N. J. Lunn, and I. Stirling, “Polar Bears in a Warming Climate,”
Integrative and Comparative Biology, v. 44 (June 2004): 163-176; I. Stirling and C.
Parkinson, “Possible Effects of Climate Warming on Selected Populations of Polar Bears
(Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic,” Arctic, v. 59 (September 2006): 261-275.
47 A. E. Derocher and O. Wiig, “Infanticide and Cannibalism of Juvenile Polar Bears (Ursus
(continued...)

CRS-9
— such as sport and subsistence hunting — that reduces this mortality may exert a
larger positive influence should bears become nutritionally challenged in the future.
Canadian Non-Resident Sport Harvest.48 In Canada, Native Inuit hunters
are permitted to allocate a limited portion of the subsistence harvest to sport
hunters.49 Under 1994 amendments to the MMPA, U.S. citizens may obtain permits
to import sport-harvested polar bear trophies from Canada, if taken under quotas
scientifically designed to ensure the maintenance of the affected population at a
sustainable level.50 In 2006, FWS issued 72 permits for importing polar bear trophies
from Canada, with more than half taken from the Lancaster Sound population (see
Table 1). The U.S. permit issuance fee for sport-hunted polar bear trophies is
$1,000.51
Although each Canadian jurisdiction manages polar bears in its own territory,
non-resident hunts (i.e., sport hunts) only occur in Nunavut and the Northwest
Territories (NWT). Some of the regional polar bear populations in Nunavut and
NWT are shared with other jurisdictions; harvest sharing is undertaken through inter-
jurisdictional meetings and awareness of neighbors’ hunting needs. The overall
harvest quota for each jurisdiction is based on recommendations made by two
federal-provincial-territorial polar bear committees (the Polar Bear Technical
Committee and the Polar Bear Administrative Committee) made up of appropriate
representatives of the relevant jurisdictions.
Nunavut. The total allowable harvest (TAH) level for each of the 12 polar
populations found in Nunavut is determined based on the best scientific knowledge;
this determination is then subject to review and adjustment by Inuit knowledge
holders. Three Regional Wildlife Organizations (RWOs, representing the Hunters
and Trappers Organizations from each of the Nunavut communities) make an initial
determination of how these TAHs will be shared among the communities that hunt
bears.
Memoranda of understanding (MOUs) are negotiated with each community by
the Nunavut Department of Environment (within which the Wildlife Management
Service is found), which works with an MOU Working Group. The MOU Working
Group includes Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (the organization representing all Nunavut
Inuit land claim beneficiaries), the three RWOs, the Nunavut Department of
Environment, and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (the co-management
board responsible for wildlife and fisheries management decisions in Nunavut; this
board represents Nunavut users and territorial and federal departments).
47 (...continued)
maritimus) in Svalbard,” Arctic, v. 52 (September 1999): 302-310.
48 Much of the material in this section was provided by Milton M.R. Freeman, Canadian
Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
49 M. M. R. Freeman and G. W. Wenzel, “The Nature and Significance of Polar Bear
Conservation Hunting in the Canadian Arctic,” Arctic, v. 59, no. 1 (2006): 21-30.
50 P.L. 103-238, §§4, 5; 16 U.S.C. §1371(a)(1); 16 U.S.C. §1374(c)(5).
51 MMPA, §104(c)(5)(B).

CRS-10
Table 1: Number of Polar Bear Trophy Import Permits Issued, by Year
Population
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Tot
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
al
Approved
Southern Beaufort
32
12
16
18
9
5
13
14
10
6
135
Populations
Sea
(includes bears
taken before
Northern Beaufort
41
4
8
9
16
4
13
16
16
16
143
the 1994
Sea
MMPA
Viscount Melville
5
4
0
0
1
4
5
4
0
3
26
amendment)a
Sound
Lancaster Sound
17
16
10
31
33
28
29
30
25
37
350
4
Norweg
ian Bay
0
0
1
1
2
4
0
1
2
3
14
Western Hudson
0
2
2
2
3
3
4
9
4
6
35
Bay
Population
M’Clintock
23
13
10
14
7
0
1
0
0
0
68
approval
Channelb
withdrawn
(includes pre-
amendment
bears)
Deferred
Gulf of Boothia
3
2
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
13
populations
(pre-
K
ane Basin
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
amendment
Ba
ffin Bay
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
8
2
0
15
and
grandfather
Foxe Basin
5
2
0
0
0
0
1
14
2
1
25
bearsc ONLY)
Da
vis Strait
3
3
1
1
0
0
1
5
0
0
14
Southern Hudson
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bay
Total by year
13
60
14
76
71
48
68
10
61
72
838
2
2
8
Source: Data provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, January 9, 2007; bears may have been taken in years before
permit issuance.
a. Bears taken before April 30, 1994 (enactment date of MMPA Amendments of 1994); permits issued 1997 to 2003.
b. Approved only for bears lawfully taken on or before May 31, 2000.
c. Grandfather bears are those taken before February 18, 1997 (allowed under the MMPA amendment of November 10,
2003) from deferred (non-approved) populations; permits issued 2004-2006.

CRS-11
Once the MOU is negotiated and accepted by a community, it is the
responsibility of the community-based Hunters and Trappers Organization (HTO) to
manage the hunt (e.g., quota allocation, dates of the hunting season, how to handle
nuisance bears, etc). Quota allocation includes the division of polar bear ‘tags’ (a
hunter must possess a tag before he/she can hunt polar bears) between residents’
subsistence hunts and outfitters’ sport/conservation hunts. Where there may be more
than one outfitter in the community, the allocation among different outfitters is also
decided by the HTO.
Northwest Territories. The situation is generally similar in the NWT, the
differences being that, in place of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, there is
an Inuvialuit Game Council (IGC) and a subsidiary body of IGC known as the
Wildlife Management Advisory Council — NWT. These two bodies, together with
the NWT’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources (within which the
Wildlife Division is found), negotiate MOUs with each community’s Hunters and
Trappers Committee.
Economic Impacts. The NWT and Nunavut governments charge non-
resident hunters (i.e., U.S. or other non-Canadian resident) a Can$750 trophy fee plus
a Can$50 tag fee,52 and in addition the federal government collects a 6% goods and
services tax (GST) on all goods and services (except food and certain other exempt
items) purchased in Canada. These monies go to the federal government. In
addition, the local outfitter charges for his/her services and, as part of that service,
hires guides and assistants, provides transportation (dogs and skidoos), food, and
camping gear, and may provide locally made caribou/wolf skin clothing (or this can
be custom-made and purchased) and accommodations in the community if bad
weather prevents leaving on the hunt.
The amount spent varies by community. A 2002 NWT government report found
that, for the four NWT native communities hosting tourist hunters, an average of
Can$43,000 was spent for a polar bear hunt.53 However, this sum includes the airfare
to reach the community and the southern-based (often in the United States, but also
in Ontario, Alberta, or British Columbia) trip wholesaler’s commission.54 Included
in the Can$43,000 are taxidermy charges paid outside of the native community. In
a comparable Nunavut study, costs appear to be similar (almost Can$42,000 on
average being the cost paid by a visiting polar bear hunter).55 However, these figures
were converted from U.S. to Canadian currency when the Canadian dollar was worth
significantly less than today.
52 In July 2007, Can$1.00 was approximately equal to US$0.95.
53 Investments & Economic Analysis, 2001 Hunter Survey Report: General Report on
Hunters to the Northwest Territories
, Resources, Wildlife & Economic Development
(September 2002), 63 pp.
54 Only a few native outfitters, with long-established businesses, market their services
directly to hunters.
55 G. W. Wenzel and F. Bourgouin, Outfitted Polar Bear Hunting, Community Economy and
Species Conservation in the Kitikmeot and Qikiqtaaluk Regions of Nunavut
, Final Report
to the Dept. of Sustainable Development, Government of Nunavut (2002).

CRS-12
On average, Inuit outfitters received Can$19,300 per hunt (as southern
wholesalers may retain from a third to half the client’s cost as their commission plus
payment of air travel to the community). Thus, in total, the 20 polar bear hunts by
non-resident hunters in Resolute (with an Inuit population of about 130) in the spring
of 2000 brought Can$460,000 into the community. This was disbursed by the Inuit
outfitter within the community as follows: Can$280,000 to hire guides and
assistants,56 Can$50,000 to purchase polar bear tags from the subsistence hunters,
Can$19,000 to purchase supplies and equipment from the community-owned store,
with other local services costing another $1,000 or $2,000.57 The outfitter, a local
Inuit family-owned business, also receives payment for making all needed
arrangements for the visiting hunter. Thus almost all the money that enters the
community circulates in the community — even the purchase of supplies from the
local cooperative store results in a dividend paid to co-op members (i.e., virtually all
community households). The disbursement of cash varies from community to
community, but in each case, more than 90% is disbursed and circulates locally. In
2001, the 74 outfitted hunts in Nunavut generated Can$1.221 million, a figure
significantly higher than that derived annually from all other tourist/private visitor
activities.58
Finally, government license fees benefit communities indirectly by supporting
polar bear research and monitoring. For example, Nunavut spends about Can$1
million annually on polar bear research and monitoring.
Protection Efforts
On February 17, 2005, FWS received a petition from the Center for Biological
Diversity requesting that FWS list the polar bear as threatened under ESA throughout
its range and that it designate critical habitat for this species.59 The Natural
56 For example, a dog team-owning guide was paid Can$9000 for his services during a single
14-day hunt, and his assistant received Can$5000 — a sizeable contribution to their seasonal
income in the spring.
57 Other smaller-cost services, often provided by women, include repairs to winter skin-
clothing (about Can$500 per outfit), cleaning polar bear hides for shipment (a similar
amount), and sewing new skin clothing (from Can$1,000 to Can$1,500 per outfit). Visiting
hunters during the 6 to 8 week season enable local hotels to open (in many of the small
hunting communities, it’s too expensive to keep hotels open outside of the short summer
tourist season) so cleaners, kitchen staff, etc. are hired. In addition, hunters are generous
tippers, with some giving gratuities of more than Can$1,000 to guides and Can$500 to hunt
assistants. Hunters also purchase arts and crafts/souvenirs, averaging more than Can$1,600
per visitor.
58 This Can$1.2 million is a minimal figure, as the Wenzel and Bourgouin study focused
exclusively on the polar bear hunt; some hunters also hunt for a muskox, caribou, wolf, or
grizzly bear, incurring additional costs when extending the stay in the community for these
additional hunts.
59 A species may be designated as either endangered or threatened, depending on the severity
of its decline and threats to its continued survival. The prohibitions and penalties of ESA
(continued...)

CRS-13
Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace, Inc., joined as petitioners on July 5,
2005. On December 15, 2005, the petitioners filed a complaint, challenging FWS’s
failure to issue a 90-day finding on the petition. On February 7, 2006, FWS
announced a finding that the petition presented substantial scientific information
indicating that listing the polar bear might be warranted, and subsequently announced
the initiation of a formal status review.60
In a settlement agreement, approved on July 5, 2006, FWS agreed to submit a
12-month finding on the petition by December 27, 2006. On January 9, 2007, FWS
announced its 12-month finding on the petition — concluding that, after a review of
scientific and commercial information, listing the polar bear as a threatened species
under ESA was warranted — and formally proposed such listing.61 This proposed
rule does not designate critical habitat for the polar bear. A 90-day period (through
April 9, 2007) was announced to receive data and comments, with requests for a
public hearing accepted for 45 days (through February 23, 2007). A decision on
whether to list polar bears was due from FWS in early January 2008. However, FWS
announced on January 7, 2008, that this decision was delayed and would be finalized
“within the next month.”62 Some suggest that the delay in listing the polar bear was
beneficial to proceeding unimpeded with the Mineral Management Service’s Chukchi
Sea Planning Area Oil & Gas Lease Sale 193 on February 6, 2008, in Anchorage,
Alaska.63
The Secretary of the Interior must decide whether to list polar bears under ESA
based only on the best available scientific and commercial (i.e., trade) information,64
after an extensive series of procedural steps to ensure public participation and the
collection of relevant information. The listing decision considers information
relating to five factors: habitat destruction, overutilization, disease or predation,
59 (...continued)
apply primarily to those species listed as endangered. Under § 4(d) of ESA, the Secretary
may promulgate special regulations to address the plight of species listed as threatened.
Protections and recovery measures for a particular threatened species can be tailored to
particular situations. 50 C.F.R. §17.31 also affords threatened species for which a special
rule has not been promulgated the same protections as endangered species. For additional
background on ESA as well as regulatory procedures under this act, see CRS Report
RL31654, The Endangered Species Act: A Primer, by M. Lynne Corn, Eugene H. Buck, and
Pamela Baldwin.
60 71 Fed. Reg. 6745 (February 9, 2006). Information on the status of the polar bear was
solicited from the public in this notice and again in 71 Fed. Reg. 28653 (May 17, 2006).
61 72 Fed. Reg. 1064-1099 (January 9, 2007). The polar bear status assessment document
is available at [http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/Polar_Bear_%20Status_
Assessment.pdf].
62 News release at [http://www.fws.gov/news/NewsReleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=
54D2A6BD-E928-94E6-6BA905F3F540B8F7].
63 “Bush Administration Set to Offer Chukchi Sea to Oil Industry,” AlaskaWild Update, no.
272 (January 10, 2008) at [http://www.alaskawild.org/alaskawild-update-272-january-10-
2008/#more-472].
64 16 U.S.C. §1533(b)(1)(A).

CRS-14
inadequacy of other regulatory mechanisms, and other natural or manmade factors.65
At this point in the ESA process, the Secretary may not consider the economic effects
that listing may have. The listing determination is the only place in ESA where
economic considerations are expressly forbidden; such considerations may enter in
other stages, including critical habitat designation.
Economic factors cannot be taken into account at this stage because Congress
directed that ESA listing be fundamentally a scientific question: is the continued
existence of the species threatened or endangered? If polar bears were listed under
ESA, federal agencies would be required to ensure that anything the federal
government authorized, funded, or carried out that is likely to affect polar bears or
their habitat would not jeopardize the survival of these bears or destroy or adversely
modify their habitat.
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)
is also reviewing the status of the polar bear in Canada. In addition, many would cite
the multilateral 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears as a significant
and substantive protection effort that provides international oversight of various
national research and management programs.66
Controversy
Supporters of increased protection for polar bears argue that polar bears are the
most iconic Arctic species, representing the Arctic as lions represent Africa. They
further assert that it would be irresponsible to let the polar bear become extinct as a
result of human action, and would be a terrible blow to the psyche of humankind.
However, some critics suggest that the current proposal to list polar bears as
threatened is premature, with this species being used as a “poster child” for the evils
of climate change by the popular press in recognition of polar bears’ charismatic
appeal; some believe the less-glamorous walrus could be facing similar or greater
immediate risk.67
Some scientists also point out that, since polar bears have survived at least two
major warming periods over the last 10,000 years, including the intense warming
event that ended the Last Glacial Maximum about 8,000 to 9,000 years ago (when
temperatures were believed to have been much warmer than now), polar bears and
other Arctic mammals could be capable of adjusting, adapting, and coping with the
current climatic change. At the end of the last Ice Age, the Northern Hemisphere
entered an extended period of rapid warming, with temperatures in Arctic regions
eventually reaching levels several degrees warmer than today. At that time, the sea
ice above North America is known to have retreated substantially, allowing Arctic
species such as bowhead whales and walrus to move northward into areas of the
65 16 U.S.C. §1533(a)(1).
66 P. Prestrud and I. Stirling, “The International Polar Bear Agreement and the Current
Status of Polar Bear Conservation,” Aquatic Mammals, v. 20, no. 3 (1994): 113-124.
67 See [http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/08/sea.ice.walrus.ap/index.html].

CRS-15
Canadian Arctic that they cannot reach today. The Mid-Holocene Warm Period
peaked about 11,000-9,000 years ago near Alaska and about 8,000-5,000 years ago
near Greenland and Northern Europe. In both areas, temperatures rose rapidly 10-15
degrees Centigrade to a point significantly warmer than present (about 2.5 degrees
Centigrade warmer; but less than the temperatures projected by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for 2100), and about 5-10 degrees
Centigrade of that warming took place within 30 years or less.68
Another significant but shorter warm period occurred about 1,000 years ago,
when Arctic temperatures were slightly warmer than today. This warming also
triggered sea ice reductions in Arctic regions and was accompanied by significant
reductions in Greenland glaciers, creating so much arable land that Viking settlers
established farms on the west coast of Greenland that were occupied for about 400
years.69
There is no evidence to suggest that ice in the Arctic Basin disappeared entirely
during either of these warm periods, which were of equal or greater warming than
predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s climate-warming
models, nor did any ice-dependent species become extinct.70 Polar bears and their
primary prey existed before the last Ice Age and significant populations of them
remain today. The tight association of polar bears and their prey species with moving
sea ice may give them a flexibility that land-based carnivores do not have.
Critics, however, counter that polar bears today are not coping with changing
climate alone, but also face a host of other human-induced factors — including
shipping, oil and gas exploration, contaminants, and reduced prey populations — that
compound the threat to their continued existence.71 In addition, the opportunity for
a catastrophic disease event is greater in populations subject to multiple stressors.
Others suggest that there is considerable uncertainty in the estimates of polar
bear population numbers and trends as well as in our understanding of polar bear
habitat. Much of what we know about the polar bear habitat is confined to regions
close to shore that have been studied during long summer days, with little known
about what happens on drifting sea ice far from shore, especially in winter when there
68 D. S. Kaufman et al., “Holocene Thermal Maximum in the Western Arctic (0-180 Degrees
W,” Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 23, nos. 18-19 (October 2004): 2059-2060; Arthur S.
Dyke, et al., “The Late Wisconsinan and Holocene Record of Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus)
from North America: A Review with New Data from Arctic and Atlantic Canada,” Arctic,
v. 52, no. 2 (June 1999): 160-181; Arthur S. Dyke and James M. Savelle, “Holocene History
of the Bering Sea Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) in its Beaufort Sea Summer
Grounds off Southwestern Victoria Island, Western Canadian Arctic,” Quaternary
Research
, v. 55 (2001): 371-379.
69 Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, “Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past
1000 Years,” Climate Research, v. 23 (January 31, 2003): 89-110.
70 D. B. Botkin et al., “Forecasting the Effects of Global Warming on Biodiversity,”
Bioscience, v. 57 (March 2007): 227-236.
71 A. Shi, A. M. Bell, and J. L. Kerby, “Two Stressors are Far Deadlier Than One,” Trends
in Ecology and Evolution
, v. 19 (2004): 274-276.

CRS-16
is little or no daylight. These critics also urge caution in interpreting studies of sea
ice change that are based primarily on surveys of nearshore regions, rather than the
drifting sea ice environment in the Central Arctic Basin, where ice may be thickest.
While the Central Arctic Basin currently is marginal habitat for small numbers of
transient bears from other populations, changing climate could cause this area to
become more important as a refugium for polar bears.
Under ESA, the Secretary is required to take into account foreign polar bear
conservation programs, including conservation hunting programs involving non-local
(including U.S.) hunters. However, an ESA listing as “threatened” triggers an
automatic listing as “depleted” under the MMPA, a listing that would prevent U.S.
citizens from importing polar bear products into the United States. Such an import
ban, effectively stopping U.S. participation in conservation hunting programs, is
likely to seriously compromise successful Canadian community-based conservation
programs.72
72 M. M. R. Freeman and G. W. Wenzel, “The Nature and Significance of Polar Bear
Conservation Hunting in the Canadian Arctic,” Arctic, v. 59, no. 1 (2006): 21-30.