Polar Bears live in an area more susceptible to changes of climate than others. They have therefore achieved an iconic status in the discussion on climate change. Polar bears have survived previous warm inter-glacial periods over 10s of thousands of years. There is concern that if the sea-ice they rely on as a base for seal hunting is reduced below previous levels they are at risk of extinction.

The evidence suggests that before the International Agreement on Polar Bears of 1973, bear populations were much lower than today, possibly only 20% of today’s levels. This was due to unregulated “harvesting” (a euphemism for hunting).

The following map shows the sub-populations of polar bears used in analysis of populations.

This table below shows the estimates of polar bears in each population group and their status:

Sub-population	Estimated Number	Year	Historical	removals	Potential maximum removals	Observed or predicted trend
			Number	Percent
M’Clintock Channel	284	2000	3	1.06	3	Increase
Norwegian Bay	190	1993	3	1.58	4	Declining
Viscount Melville Sound	215	1996	4	1.86	7	Increasing
Lancaster Sound	2541	1998	74	2.91	85	Stable
Northern Beaufort Sea	1200	1986	36	3.00	65	Stable
Gulf of Boothia	1523	2000	46	3.02	74	Stable
Southern Hudson Bay	1000	1988	37	3.70	43	Stable
Southern Beaufort Sea	1500	2000	58	3.87	81	Declining
Foxe Basin	2300	2004	97	4.22	109	Stable
Western Hudson Bay	935	2004	45	4.81	64	Declining
Kane Basin	164	1998	11	6.71	15	Declining
Baffin Bay	1546	2004	217	14.04	234	Declining
Davis Strait	1650	2004	65	3.94	74	Data deficient
East Greenland	unknown		70		50	Data deficient
Barents Sea	2997	2004	Not available			Data deficient
Kara Sea	unknown		Not available			Data deficient
Laptev Sea	800-1200	1993	Not available			Data deficient
Chukchi Sea	2000	1993	43 - Alaska, unknown. but substantial in Chukotka		Uncertain	Data deficient
Arctic Basin	Unknown		Not available

The above figures are based on Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group,20–24 June 2005, Seattle, USA. They demonstrate that for many sub-populations the information is insufficient to make a reliable estimate of numbers or to assess changes in the population. Where the data are sufficient they show that “removals” have a significant effect on the status of the population. In three of the four areas where removals are less than 3%, the population is increasing or stable: in three of the four areas with removals of 3% to 4% the population is stable: in the three of the four areas with removals greater than 4% the population is in decline.