Climate Change Is Real

I read with sadness the ITK resolution on opposing capture-based scientific studies on polar bears, given that the needs for monitoring are increasing given the fact --- as you say --- climate change is real. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, because of the importance to defend aboriginal harvest and sport harvest, which also benefits some Inuit, good scientific data are needed. While Inuit Knowledge can also be valuable, and in fact is used everyday in wildlife management and research in the North, the rest of the world doesn't rely on Inuit Knowledge - they rely on scientific information.

The part of the ITK resolution that is most sad is that you think that collecting less reliable information (which less-invasive scientific methods provide) will benefit polar bears and the nutritional and cultural needs of the Inuit. In fact the opposite is the case. With less accurate and less precise data (from either IQ or "non-invasive" scientific studies), the governments and wildlife co-management boards will be forced to be more conservative in the allocation of quotas. As it is their mandate to ensure sustainability. This means lower quotas. When one drives a ski-doo in clear weather, they can drive the ski-doo faster than when driving in a blizzard. In the past - because governments collected very reliable data - through capture programs - we could defend maximum sustained levels of Inuit harvesting. Now, we won't be able to, because we will be forced to use less reliable methods.

Another sad part of this resolution is that you think that these methods harm polar bears. There is absolutely no evidence that helicopter-based capture of polar bears affects birth rates or survival or body condition of polar bears. The scientific and gray literature are replete with this information. For some reason, some (not all) Inuit choose to ignore these facts.

In addition - it is very important to point out that Inuit in communities have very diverse views on this issue. Some Inuit very much want reliable scientific data to ensure continued high levels of harvest, sport hunting, and to throughly understand the effects of development on wildlife and Inuit (Industry doesn't use Inuit Knowledge, they only respond to hard scientific facts). Just because the representatives to ITK may have a political or economic agenda of having less reliable scientific data, doesn't mean that it is embraced uniformly by the Inuit.

It is true that the concept that to bother some individuals for the sake of informed-management of entire populations is entirely a western concept. This concept is not embraced by the Inuit. However, I personally support this concept.

It appears that you have not been made aware of these above important points. Although these points have been made very clear in community meetings, at the Polar Bear Round Table, at Polar Bear Technical Commitees and at the recent Wildlife Sympoisium in Rankin Inlet. Unfortunately, someone is not giving you all the information. I would advise that perhaps you research the issue a bit more so you can understand more fully the ramifications of using less reliable scientific information.