Posts
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) released its 2006 Red List of Threatened Species earlier this month. Here are the opening sentences of the 2 May press release:
The number of known threatened species reaches 16,119. The ranks of those facing extinction are joined by familiar species like the polar bear, hippopotamus and desert gazelles; together with ocean sharks, freshwater fish and Mediterranean flowers.
Polar bears "facing extinction"? Whoah! That brought strong reaction from some polar bear experts. Inuit leader Jose Kusugak was personally offended and dismissed the report.
A national Inuit leader says his people were blindsided by an international organization's decision to give polar bears a higher profile on its endangered species list.Jose Kusugak says the World Conservation Union's upgrading of the status of polar bears to "vulnerable" on its red list of species in danger is "unfair."
The Union, which describes itself as the world's largest conservation network, heightened its listing of the bear because of the threat to its habitat due to climate change.
. . .
But Kusugak, the head of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, says they weren't consulted or warned about the change in status.He says the decision is not based on facts.
"It feels really bad and you can probably imagine how we felt when that kind of decision actually affects Inuit in Canada," said Kusugak. "And it seems very unfair that they're going from a scientific-base kind of study to fortune telling or forecasting of what's going to happen to the polar bear."
Mr Kusugak has requested an urgent meeting with Environment Minister Rona Ambrose to ensure that Inuit hunting rights are not impaired by the IUCN report.
Several Inuit organisations “denounced” the report.
A third Inuit organization has denounced a recent decision by the World Conservation Union to give polar bears a higher protection profile.
"Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. opposes the World Conservation Union's decision to list polar bears as a vulnerable species on their red list." Raymond Ningneocheak, NTI's second vice-president, said on Friday.
Earlier this month, the union downgraded the status of polar bears to "vulnerable," saying climate change could see the species drastically decline in the next half-century.
The move was condemned last week by the Inuit Tapariit Kanatami and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference.
. . .
Ningneocheak's comments highlight a growing rift between Inuit and conservation groups.
Dr Mitch Taylor, polar bear biologist with the Government of Nunavut, ridiculed claims that the polar bear is endangered.
Polar bears are becoming the poster-species for "doomsday prophets" of climate change, even though groups pushing for higher protection for the animals don't have the evidence to prove their case, Nunavut's manager of wildlife says.
. . .
"At present, the polar bear is one of the best-managed of the large Arctic mammals," Taylor said. "If all the Arctic nations continue to abide by the terms and intent of the Polar Bear Agreement, the future of polar bears is secure."Taylor noted the estimated number of bears on the Boothia Peninsula, 1,300 kilometres west of Iqaluit, has actually increased to 1,500 animals from 900. He said environmental groups don't seem to want to take information like that into consideration when pressing their case.
IUCN got well and truly trounced by local experts. How did the IUCN take it? We’re misunderstood, its spokesman claims.
Canada's Inuit people may have misunderstood the intent of listing the polar bear as "vulnerable," says a spokesperson for the World Conservation Union.An official with the international conservation organization says it's surprised by the reaction it's received in Canada's North to its upgrading of polar bears on its red list earlier this month.
. . .
But Craig Hilton-Taylor of the World Conservation Union, says the Inuit organizations may have misunderstood what the listing is all about."All we're doing is looking at the possibility of extinction of the species, we're not saying this is a high priority for conservation action and that you must do X, Y and Z," he said.
"It's just an alert being put out there saying the species is potentially threatened, here's the problem, and then it's up to them to have the right discussions and dialogues with the people concerned, then decide what action, if any, is required."
Hilton-Taylor says it's clear climate change will affect the Arctic and the polar bear's habitat and population to some extent.
"It's a precautionary listing, it's anticipating what's going to happen in 40 years' time. It may be wrong," he said.
Mr Hilton-Taylor just contradicted his own organisation’s report. Check this from the footnotes:
The IUCN Red List threat categories are the following, in descending order of threat:
- Extinct or Extinct in the Wild;
- Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable: species threatened with global extinction;
- Near Threatened: species close to the threatened thresholds or that would be threatened without ongoing specific conservation measures;
The IUCN classified polar bears as “vulnerable”, i.e., “threatened with global extinction”. That’s a definite statement, not "potentially threatened" nor a “precautionary listing”.
Mr Hilton-Taylor lets slip the IUCN’s bigger agenda:
"There's a possibility that it might not go down as far as we think it will go down, which would be good news. But it's much better to put out that warning now to try and get governments to do something about what's happening to the global climate."
It’s not about preserving individual species as such; it’s about getting governments to climb on board the climate change bandwagon.
