Environmental group calls for trade ban with Canada as polar bear hunt expands
CBC News |
Jan 25, 2012
A U.S. conservation group is calling for trade sanctions against Canada because of an increased polar bear hunt quota in the Western Hudson Bay region.
In October, the environment minister of Nunavut, a territory in Canada's eastern Arctic, increased the quota in the Arviat, Nunavut area from eight to 21.
The Center for Biological Diversity claims this increase violates the 1973 Convention on Polar Bears, which was signed by Canada and several other countries.
The group filed a formal request with the U.S. Department of the Interior Tuesday. It is calling for a ban on Canadian wildlife products.
In a release, the organization said the polar bear is on an extinction trajectory because of climate change.
"If we want to keep polar bears in the world, we have to dramatically cut greenhouse emissions and also reduce all the other threats to its survival, including overhunting," said Brendan Cummings with the centre.
The California-based group said Nunavut did not use the best scientific knowledge available in making its decision. The centre also said the hunt is not sustainable.
The government of Nunavut disagrees.
"There is a very sound management process here in Nunavut. Our minister submitted a request to Nunavut Wildlife Management Board to increase the harvest for this year and this year only," said David Akeeagok from the Department of Environment.
Akeeagok said the results of the most recent aerial survey of the Western Hudson bay bear population will be made public in March. That will determine next year's quota.
In the meantime, the center is asking the United States government to restrict the import of Canadian wildlife products. The U.S. government can restrict trade of any wildlife product if it agrees the convention was violated.
Mickey Akavak, the chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, said the international agreement signed almost 40 years ago is outdated.
"I'm hoping that the Inuit and scientists alike can work together to get the best available combined information," said Akavak.
Akeeagok also said the request makes no sense because it's based on just one sub-population of polar bears out of thirteen.
Currently bear populations are as high as they've been since we started counting. That's the only hard science involved thus far.
It is assumed/projected that loss of sea ice will reduce the bear's normal prey opportunities and drive them onto land, which is assumed to likely result in fewer bears being able to support themselves and thus loss of bears due to starvation.
So, if we have a carefully managed hunt we can track any reductions and in fact reduce the population to the assumed lower carrying capacity of the on-shore environment while managing for a good balance of fertile sows versus boars -or- we can feel so bad about killing anything (while simultaneously wishing for some non-existant and magical way to stop or reverse climate change) that, assuming climate change affects the bears as believed, we force the bears to compete for limited on-shore resources with the resulting starvation, which we know from experience will disproportionately impact sows and cubs.
Where's the "scientific knowledge" in that latter position, much less "the best". Hell, where's the basic logic?
It's an a-rational, emotionally driven, ideology framing itself with science instead of using science to create rational, practical, solutions to projected problems.
Single Page
Comments