Scientific advice on species at risk: A comparative analysis of status assessments of polar bear, Ursus maritimus

Environmental Reviews

Volumn 17, Issue , 2009, Pages 45-51

  Hutchings, Jeffrey A ^a   Marco, Festa Bianchet ^b  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA; ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS; COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKERS; POLAR BEARS; POPULATION CHANGE; PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS; SCIENTIFIC MERITS; SPECIES AT RISKS; WORLD CONSERVATION UNIONS;

BIODIVERSITY;

RISK ANALYSIS;

URSUS MARITIMUS;

EID: 68649116773     PISSN: 11818700     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/A09-002     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Aars, J., Lunn, N.J., and Derocher, A.E. 2006. In Proceedings of the 14th working meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 20-24 June 2005, Seattle, WA: Polar bears. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
2. ACIA. 2005. Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press. 1042 p.
3. Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G., and Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the range-wide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. USGS Alaska Science Center Administrative Report, Anchorage, AK.
4. Atatahak, G., and Banci, V. 2001.Traditional knowledge polar bear report. Dept. Sustainable Development, Govt. Nunavut, Kugluktuk, NU. 15 p.
5. Brundtland, G.H. 1997. The scientific underpinning of policy. Science, 277: 457. doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.457.
6. COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the polar bear (Ursus maritimus). Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.
7. Dowsley, M. 2005. Inuit knowledge regarding climate change and the Baffin Bay polar bear population. Final Wildlife Report 1. Dept. Environment, Govt. Nunavut, Iqaluit, NU. 43p. Durner, G.M., Douglas, D.C., Nielson, R.M., Amstrup, S.C., and
8. McDonald, T.L. 2007. Predicting the future distribution of polar bear habitat in the Polar Basin from resource selection functions applied to 21st century general circulation model projections of sea ice. ISGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK.
9. Gotelli, N.J. 2008. A primer of ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
10. Green, D.M. 2005. Designatable units for status assessment of endangered species. Conserv. Biol. 19: 1813-1820. doi:10.1111/j. 1523-1739.2005.00284.x.
11. Hutchings, J.A. 2000. Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature, 406: 882-885. doi:10.1038/35022565. PMID:10972288.
12. Hutchings, J.A., and Festa-Bianchet, M. 2009. Canadian species at risk (2006-2008), with particular emphasis on fishes. Environ. Rev. 17: In press.
13. Hutchings, J.A., and Reynolds, J.D. 2004. Marine fish population collapses: consequences for recovery and extinction risk. Bioscience, 54: 297-309. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004) 054[0297:MFPCCF]2.0.CO;2.
14. Hutchings, J.A., Walters, C., and Haedrich, R.L. 1997. Is scientific inquiry incompatible with government information control? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 1198-1210. doi:10.1139/cjfas-54-5-1198.
15. IUCN. 2008. Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria, version 7.0. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Keith, D., Arqvig, J., Kamootak, L., Ameralik, J., and Gjoa Haven
16. Hunter's and Trappers' Organization. 2005. Inuit Qaujimanituqangit Nanurnut, Inuit Knowledge of Polar Bears. Gjoa Haven Hunters' and Trappers' Organization and CCI Press, Edmonton, Alta.
17. Krebs, C.J. 2009. Ecology: The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. 6th ed. Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, Calif.
18. Leiss, W. 2001. In the chamber of risks: understanding risk controversies. McGill-Queens, Montreal and Kingston.
19. Mace, G.M., Collar, N.J., Gaston, K.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Akçakaya, H.R., Leader-Williams, N., Milner-Gulland, E.J., and Stuart, S.N. 2008. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN's system for classifying threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 22: 1424-1442. doi:10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2008.01044.x. PMID:18847444.
20. Myers, R.A., and Worm, B. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature, 423: 280-283. doi:10.1038/ nature01610. PMID:12748640.
21. NTI. 2005. What if the winter doesn't come? Inuit perspectives on climate change adaptation challenges in Nunavut. Summary Workshop Report, 15-17 March 2005. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Iqaluit, NU.
22. O'Neill, S.J., Osborn, T.J., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., and Watkinson, A.R. 2008. Using expert knowledge to assess uncertainties in future polar bear populations under climate change. J. Appl. Ecol. 45: 1649-1659. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01472.x.
23. Roff, D.A. 2002. Life history evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass. Schliebe, S., Evans, T., Johnson, K., Roy, M., Miller, S., Hamilton,
24. C., Meehan, R., and Jahrsdoerfer, S. 2006. Range-wide status review of the polar bear (Ursus maritimus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK.
25. Schliebe, S., Wiig, Ø., Derochers, A., and Lunn, N. 2008. Ursus maritimus. In IUCN 2008, 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available from www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed 23 February 2009].
26. Shank, C.C. 1999. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): a 21-year retrospective. Can. Field Nat. 113: 318-341.
27. Shelton, P.A. 2007. The weakening role of science in the management of groundfish off the east coast of Canada. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64: 723-729. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsm008.
28. Stroeve, J., Holland, M.M., Meier, W., Scambos, T., and Serreze, M. 2007. Arctic sea ice decline: faster than forecast. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34: L09501. doi:10.1029/2007GL029703.
29. Thiemann, G.W., Derocher, A.E., and Stirling, I. 2008. Polar bear conservation in Canada: an ecological basis for identifying designatable units. Oryx, 42: 504-515. doi:10.1017/ S0030605308001877.
30. USA. 2008. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) throughout its range. Federal Register 73. Fish and Wildlife Service. pp. 28212-28303.
31. USFWS. 1996. Policy regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments. Federal Register 61. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. pp. 4722-4725.
32. VanderZwaag, D.L., and Hutchings, J.A. 2005. Canada's marine species at risk: Science and law at the helm, but a sea of uncertainties. Ocean Dev. Int. Law, 36: 219-259. doi:10.1080/ 00908320591004333.
33. World Bank and Food and Agriculture Organization. 2008. The sunken billions: The economic justification for fisheries reform. Agriculture and Rural Development Department, The World Bank, Wash.
34. Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotzke, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J., and Watson, R. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on coean ecosystem services. Science, 314: 787-790. doi:10.1126/science.1132294. PMID:17082450.