Inuit Can Keep Trading Polar Bear Skins

[scribblet]

If polar bears are a threatened species how can even the Inuit continue killing them.

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-brief/69988-inuit-can-keep-trading-polar-bear-skins?NewsWatchCanada.ca

A US-led proposal to ban the trade in polar bears and their parts has been defeated at an international meeting.

At the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Thailand was persuaded by the arguments of Inuit groups, who said they needed the revenue to survive.

Canada is the only country in the world to allow trade in polar bears, with around 300 skins sold for rugs each year. They fetch an average of $2,000 to $5,000, with some prize specimens topping $12,000.

"As polar bear hide prices have skyrocketed, more bears are being offered at auction, and hunting levels have increased," says Dan Ashe, head of the US delegation, in a statement. "A CITES Appendix-I listing would have ensured that commercial trade would not compound the threats of habitat loss that are facing this species."

But Inuit groups successfully argued that polar bear populations are currently fairly high, and that their hunting was sustainable.

from 2009

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2009/11/08/the_bear_facts_about_the_polar_bear_hunt.html

Inuit hunters insist those experts have it all wrong because they are using computer models based on outdated data and ignoring the traditional knowledge of people who share the land with wildlife.

[waldo]

If polar bears are a threatened species how can even the Inuit continue killing them.

from 2009

Inuit hunters insist those experts have it all wrong because they are using computer models based on outdated data and ignoring the traditional knowledge of people who share the land with wildlife.

the recent CITES ruling reflects upon classification distinctions: threatened with allowed but regulated cross-border trade in polar bears and their parts versus threatened with trade banned.

your 2009 reference is not representative as it presumes upon one of 19 recognized sub-populations of polar bears within Canada... that one area, the Western Hudson Bay area, again, is but one of those 19 sub-populations. In an April 2012 MLW thread, I presented 2009 research/data from the IUCN that concluded, "of Canada's 19 recognized sub-populations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions."

[shortlived]

Two prong, yes it sucks, however if they are dying drowning and starving wtf does it matter, they are going to starve to death anyway.

Without a federal program to feed the polar bears they are dead, global warming has ruined their habitat.

Its good they are hunting traditionally - if so.

however it shouldn't just be for the skins.

Of course let the bear that is meant to live live.

If bears are going to die of starvation anyway, either the feds should cough up funds to feed them, or allow humane death.

I do generally think animals shouldn't be killed for survival or for humane reasons.

If the bears are terminal and in pain then its not so bad feeding them though is an option. I think they should wait till bears die of natural causes unless it is life and death,

Edited March 10, 2013 by shortlived

[scribblet]

I don't see how allowing them to be hunted for their skins is conserving, in fact I'd say that allowing this only encourages poaching. Either they should be protected or not.

How can we say that they are in danger from habitat loss but at the same time allow trading which puts the bears at a greater risk. As I said, the Inuit should be able to hunt for food, but not to sell the furs.

[PIK]

I don't see how allowing them to be hunted for their skins is conserving, in fact I'd say that allowing this only encourages poaching. Either they should be protected or not.

How can we say that they are in danger from habitat loss but at the same time allow trading which puts the bears at a greater risk. As I said, the Inuit should be able to hunt for food, but not to sell the furs.

How nice of you to tell a people how to do their business. Poaching is a very small problem , but make it illegal and poaching becomes huge. This way they can at least control it.

[shortlived]

leaving them up there to die isn't a solution either.

Its not like you are going to refreze their habitat.

Unless there are programs actively feeding these things this is just how long they last.

The only real solution is to build fishing platforms for the bears I can think of.

And fridge stations.

Edited March 10, 2013 by shortlived

[scribblet]

How nice of you to tell a people how to do their business. Poaching is a very small problem , but make it illegal and poaching becomes huge. This way they can at least control it.

But it's okay to tell everyone else how to do their business when it comes to saving a species etc.