RJ Hamster
Polar Bears International: Still refusing further protection for polar…
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
Polar Bears International: Still refusing further protection for polar bears
APR 29
∙
GUEST POSTREAD IN APP
Protect the Wild recently published an exposé of international conservation charity Polar Bears International (PBI). Our supporters have already sent more than 6000 messages to PBI calling for them to adopt a firm stance against the international trade in polar bear furs, skins and body parts, and take a stand against trophy hunting.
So far, they’re refusing to listen… We need to make sure they do. Please sign our petition calling on them to change their stance.
One of the ‘asks’ in our petition was for Polar Bears International to stop opposing an uplisting of polar bears from Appendix II to Appendix I at the meetings of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES. An uplisting at CITES would end the legal international trade in polar bear skins, furs and body parts. Conservation organisations like the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and PBI have contested both of the previous attempts to protect polar bears at CITES.
We hoped that PBI might see sense. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened yet. In a 14 April statement on their website the organisation wrote:
“Appendix I is reserved for critically endangered species whose primary threat is directly linked to trade.”
This fundamentally isn’t the case. CITES does not require a species to be “critically endangered.” The Convention’s language is “threatened with extinction“ which is defined to include species which are undergoing or projected to undergo a “marked decline” due to factors such as habitat loss. Furthermore, CITES defines species qualifying for listing on Appendix I as:
“ all species threatened with extinctionwhich are or may be affected by trade.”
The source that PBI cites in making the claim that polar bears do not meet the criteria for inclusion in CITES Appendix I is outdated. It was published more than a decade ago. Several contributors to the report were working directly in polar bear ‘management’ in the Canadian Arctic, throwing serious doubt on its objectivity.
Even more damning is that CITES is a trade agreement. The conservation gold standard is the IUCN’s Red List. Polar Bears are listed as Vulnerable to Extinction on the Red List of Threatened Species, a status it has held for over 30 years. A detailed assessment published in 2014 clearly warns of a reduction of the global population of more than 30% within three generations.
Are Polar Bears International seriously saying that polar bears aren’t threatened with extinction? Or that international trade that incentivises the killing of thousands of polar bears will not affect their survival? To be frank, we call bullshit!
A deplorable stance
Let’s get one thing straight. We think Polar Bears International’s stance is deplorable and indefensible. There are only around 26,000 polar bears remaining in the wild and scientists warn that two-thirds could disappear by the mid 21st century. A full polar bear taxidermy can reach in excess of $40,000. This lucrative international trade, which has incentivised the killing of nearly 2000 polar bears in the last 15 years has to be stopped.
Organisations like PBI and WWF should be shouting that from the rooftops, not using their advocacy to ensure that the trade can continue.
Polar bear skins on sale at a Canadian auction house
Refusing to take a stance on trophy hunting
In our petition we also demanded that PBI take a strong stance against the trophy hunting of polar bears, which is still legal in the Canadian Arctic if hunters are guided by members of First Nations communities who sell rich bloodsports enthusiasts the ‘tag’ (or permit) to kill the bear. PBI have dug their heels in on that issue too. They say:
“some [First nations] communities will sell tags to sport hunters. Currently, a small number of these tags (under 10%) are used for guided hunts by visitors to communities in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
This does not increase the number of polar bears killed — in fact, usually it results in fewer kills. This is because once a tag is allocated to a non-resident, it can’t be reallocated, regardless of the outcome of the hunt. Tags that stay in the community, however, are reallocated if a hunt is unsuccessful. It is up to Indigenous communities how they wish to use the tags.”
However, that doesn’t add up either. Trophy hunting companies are advertising that on their ‘expeditions’ hunters have a 100% chance of killing a bear.
Furthermore, ‘sports hunters’ want to target the largest, fittest males, which conservationists warn could be genetically devastating for an already threatened population. This is completely different to traditional subsistence practices, where hunters have no interest in killing the biggest and strongest bears.
Trophy hunting ‘a real and serious threat to polar bears’
World-renowned polar bear expert Dr. Nikita Ovsyanikov, who knew PBI’s founder personally, told Protect the Wild that the organisation has been effectively “stolen” from its original mission, and that the hunting of polar bears keeps them at the “minimum survival level” – leaving no buffer against the accelerating threats posed to their habitat by climate change.
In his opinion, the NGO’s refusal to see trophy hunting “as a real and serious threat to polar bears”, despite the “damage it does to the reputation” of Polar Bears International, “indicates a strong personal interest in the business”.
Dennis Compayre, a wildlife filmmaker, renowned guide and a resident of Churchill in Canada’s Arctic north, told Protect the Wild that in his view this interest may well be the NGO’s need for access to communities in the Canadian Arctic where PBI conducts scientific research and organises polar bear tours.
In Compayre’s opinion, PBI may be worried that if they took a strong stance against ‘trophy hunting’ they might have doors slammed on them along the Hudson Bay coast where they are trying to operate. But is that a good reason to refuse to condemn the killing of an endangered animal for sport? We don’t think so.
Polar Bear skin, Norway
Norway stockpiling bear skins
NRK, Norway’s national broadcaster, has recently released photos of a secret stockpile of polar bear skins in Bergen. Norway is still the largest importer of polar bear skins, receiving 185 hides from Canada between 2012 and 2021. The mainstream media coverage has prompted renewed calls for Norway to support an uplisting of the polar bear to Appendix I at the next CITES meeting in 2028.
Polar bear expert Ovsyanikov posted this renewed call for an end to the skin trade on social media:
“At the first stage of extinction process it can be stopped and put in reverse, but only if effective conservation measures are truly and professionally implemented!
Uplisting to CITES’ Appendix I would protect [the] polar bear from massive extermination for commercial fur trade. It would be [a truly effective] measure to slow and possibly put in reverse the extinction process before it [comes] to critical no-return stage!
This is time to [consolidate] efforts of all parties for proper polar bear protection.”
Polar bears are running out of time
According to Protect the Wild founder Rob Pownall:
“PBI’s position is not the neutral, science-based stance they claim. Hunters target the largest, fittest males, the animals most resilient to climate change, and when a species is already under pressure, additional stressors only accelerate its decline. Refusing to oppose the skin trade or support CITES uplisting isn’t caution. It’s complicity. Polar bears are running out of time and running out of advocates.”
Polar Bears International are continuing to solicit donations from animal lovers in the UK. We think that if their donors knew the full story, many of them would withdraw their support. Please help spread the word by sharing this article.
We need your help to persuade Polar Bears International to change its stance, to oppose trophy hunting and to support the uplisting of polar bears from Appendix II to I at CITES.
- Sign our petition calling on PBI to change its position.
- Read Protect the Wild’s detailed exposé of PBI here.
- Urge the Norwegian government to support further protection for polar bears at CITES 2028.
A guest post byTom Anderson
Journalist for Protect the Wild
Subscribe to TomLIKECOMMENTRESTACK
