Polar bears and CITES: A rejoinder to Parsons and Cornick

• Main Authors: Clark, Douglas A., Meek, Chanda, Cheechoo, John, Clark, Susan, Lee Foote, A., Lee, David, York, Geoff
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: unknown
• Subjects: Ursus maritimus
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X12001534

In 2010 a US proposal to uplist polar bears to Appendix I of CITES was rejected. Parsons and Cornick (2011, [1]) critiqued this decision and the IUCN/TRAFFIC analysis that supported it. Their critique overlooks several important dimensions of polar bear conservation. Foremost, they failed to explore what subsistence hunting actually means in this context. Paradoxically, prohibiting international trade through CITES might actually increase the number of bears killed by northern Aboriginal peoples. Second, they misread the scope of the IUCN/TRAFFIC recommendation. Third, uplisting polar bears under CITES would allow national governments to claim they are saving polar bears through a decision that only addresses peripheral threats and diverts attention from insufficient action to mitigate climate change: the factor that Parsons and Cornick rightly point out as the primary threat to polar bears. CITES; Climate change; Endangered species; Polar bear; Subsistence; Ursus maritimus;