Ask many Native elders and leaders about the thing that frustrates them most in their interactions with national and international attitudes about the Arctic and they will often mention the polar bear.
While populations of polar bears dipped several decades ago, limiting hunting to mainly subsistence users with the listing of the bears as "vulnerable" in 1988 caused the polar bear populations in Alaska's Arctic to rebound substantially. Now, some 25,000 polar bears are estimated to live in the Arctic, and while some populations in Alaska have dipped slightly, presumably in response to the loss of sea ice habitat, the majority of Alaska's polar bears are at healthy levels today. For those living in communities where polar bears are common, the bears seem even more prevalent than ever, especially as they hunt from shore even more on years when the sea ice is thin.
So when people from the Lower 48 post photos of seemingly struggling polar bear cubs clinging to small chunks of ice, there is more than a bit of frustration for many communities. Polar bears are fine, some leaders say. How 'bout "Save the people" as a slogan instead.
Many Arctic leaders are on board with efforts to reduce emissions responsible for climate change on a national and international level, especially as the impacts of coastal erosion are felt in communities throughout the region.
The contrast of opinions becomes particularly charged when organizations talk about restricting development in polar bear habitat, such as the oil and gas development currently beginning offshore in Arctic waters. While that development holds the promise of more jobs for Arctic communities and much-needed economic stability for the state, it is marked with a bull's-eye by many conservation groups.
Scientists predict, however, that while polar bear populations are strong today, they won't remain that way for long. The federal agency responsible for polar bear populations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, released a draft conservation plan last week that predicts that without a change to the current trajectory of sea ice loss, polar bear populations could decline significantly in a matter of decades or less.
The tricky part about this is that while Alaskans can make incremental impacts by reducing the number of polar bears killed by things other than starvation and habitat loss, those impacts are minor compared to the impact of losing the very sea ice that supports the life cycle of the polar bear.
On the other hand, a major oil spill in Arctic waters would be a serious blow to an already stressed population. That risk will only grow as the sea ice diminishes over time. At what point will that risk be too large? What is the value of the polar bear to the people of the Arctic? Is it worth protecting, even if it is at the cost of human comfort?
The truth of this matter is that there isn't much Alaskans can do independently to stop the main driving risk to polar bears and other creatures that depend on the Arctic sea ice, including humans. Most of the decisions that will make a difference on that front are made far away, and we are a small voice in a large chorus.
But that fact is no excuse for being apathetic and greedy in the face of increased risks to the animals and marine mammals with whom we share a home. At the very least, Alaska would be wise to demand the most stringent regulations on any activity that occurs in the Arctic. If drilling is going to occur, let it occur with new machinery, not outdated rigs that can barely keep oil out of the water before drill bits ever touch oil. Let it occur with Alaskans on board as independent observers, with Alaska pilots who know Arctic conditions guiding the vessels, and with companies committed to an open and transparent process.
The polar bears actually offer us a gift, perhaps their final gift as they venture to the coldest regions of the Earth in search of ice. They offer us a reason to commit to protections that will serve not only them but us humans as well during this time of constantly increasing change. Perhaps those protections won't save them, but they will go a long way to protecting other species, including us. It's time for Alaska to jump on the "Save the bears" bandwagon. Because it's not us or them, it's us and them.
Carey Restino is the editor of Bristol Bay Times-Dutch Harbor Fisherman and The Arctic Sounder, where this commentary first appeared.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.