Table 2b.
The reported TEK status and the PVA probability of decline for each Canadian polar bear subpopulation were examined to determine subpopulation status. We also included the proportion of runs that were truncated during post‐2013 simulations for each Canadian subpopulation. Post‐2013 harvested subpopulation growth rates were not reported because truncations are known to bias estimates of subpopulation growth rates (S5). Post‐2013 simulations were run for a 20‐year period using the 2007/2008–2011/2012 mean annual removals (Table E3) to determine the probability of decline
| Subpop. | Post‐2013 simulation results | TEK Reported Status | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PVA probability of decline (SE) | Prop. of truncated runs | ||
| Baffin Bay | 0.934 (0.0035) | 0.9176 | Abundant/Stable/Increasinga |
| Davis Strait | 0.3894 (0.0069) | 0.0056 | Abundant/Stable/Increasingj |
| Foxe Basin | 0.2892 (0.0064)/0.2224 (0.0059)a | 0.180/0.0054a | Abundant/Increasingc |
| Gulf of Boothia | 0.2016 (0.0057) | 0.107 | Abundant/Stable/Increasinga |
| Kane Basin | N/A | N/A | Overhunted/Decliningc |
| Lancaster Sound | 0.3632 (0.0068) | 0.1312 | Abundant/Stableb |
| M'Clintock Channel | 0.3178 (0.0066) | 0.0458 | Recovering/Increasingc |
| Northern Beaufort Sea | 0.8348 (0.0053)/0.9344 (0.0035)f | 0.7328/0f | Abundant/Stabled |
| Norwegian Bay | 0.4034 (0.0069) | 0.0106 | Low Density/Stablee |
| Southern Beaufort Sea | 0.889 (0.0044)/0.779 (0.0059)f | 0.5008/0f | Abundant/Stablef |
| Southern Hudson Bay | 0.9816 (0.0019)/0.8772 (0.0046)g/0.0910 (0.0041)f/0.9586 (0.0028)f , g | 0.9696/0.7586g/0f/0f , g | Abundant/Stableh |
| Viscount Melville Sound | 0.1884 (0.0055) | 0.1106 | Recovering/Increasingh |
| Western Hudson Bay | 0.9954 (0.0010)/0.9766 (0.0021)i/1 (0)f/1 (0)f , i | 0.747/0.1554i/0f/0f , i | Abundant/Stable/Increasingj |
The BB TEK status was summarized from Dowsley (2005, 2007, 2010), Dowsley and Taylor (2006a), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Dowsley and Wenzel (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).
The DS TEK status was summarized from Brice‐Bennett (1976), McDonald et al. (1997), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Kativik et al. (2010), Kotierk (2010a,b), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).
Simulations were also conducted using a 2013 estimate simulated from a recent aerial survey estimate from Stapleton et al. (2016).
The FB TEK status was summarized from McDonald et al. (1997), Van De Velde et al. (2003), Keith and Arqviq (2006), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Ghazal (2013), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014),
The GB TEK status was summarized from Van De Velde et al. (2003), Keith et al. (2005), Keith and Arqviq (2006), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).
The KB TEK status was summarized from Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).
The LS TEK status was summarized from Keith and Arqviq (2006), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).
The MC TEK status was summarized from Keith et al. (2005), Keith and Arqviq (2006), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014),.
Simulations were also conducted using total survival rates (S2: Table S1).
The NB TEK status was summarized from Stirling and Andriashek (1992), Parks Canada (2004), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Slavik (2009), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).
The NW TEK status was summarized from Riewe (1976), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).
The SB TEK status was summarized from Stirling and Andriashek (1992), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Slavik (2009), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).
Simulations were also conducted using a 2013 estimate simulated from a recent aerial survey estimate from Obbard et al. (2013).
The SH TEK status was summarized from McDonald et al. (1997), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Kativik et al. (2010), Lemelin et al. (2010), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).
The VM TEK status was summarized from Farquharson (1976), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).
Simulations were also conducted using a 2013 estimate simulated from a recent aerial survey estimate from Stapleton et al. (2016).
The WH TEK status was summarized from McDonald et al. (1997), Dowsley and Taylor (2006b), Tyrrell (2006), Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (2007), Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (2008), Dowsley and Wenzel (2008), Canadian Wildlife Service (2009), Dowsley (2010), Polar Bear Technical Committee (2014).