Norwegian Bay (NW)

A population size of 203 was estimated in 1998, now dated. The population is data deficient, previously thought to be declining.

Status table outtake

Subpopulation size Subpopulation trend Sea ice metrics 1979-2018 Human-caused removals 2013/2014–2017/2018
Estimate and uncertainity Method and type of evidence Year and citation Long term (approx 3 generations) Short term (approx 1 generation) Change in date of spring ice retreat / fall ice advance (days per decade) Change in summer sea ice area (percent change per decade) 5-year mean
Quota (bears per year) Actual (% of total population)
203
115-291
Physical C-R1997Data deficientData deficient-1.8/3.9-1.74.02.0 (1.0%)
See also the complete table (all subpopulations)

Comments, vulnerabilities and concerns

Initial PVA simulations resulted in population decline after 10 years, however vital rates from 2 populations were pooled for the analyses. Projections of decline were also high because of small sample size. Current data are >15 years old; small population.

Status and delineation

Norwegian Bay subpopulation mapThe Norwegian Bay area. See also the complete map (all subpopulations).

The Norwegian Bay subpopulation appears to be genetically unique (Malenfant et al. 2016). This subpopulation is bounded by heavy multi-year ice to the west, islands to the north, east, and west, and polynyas to the south (Stirling et al. 1993; Stirling 1997; Taylor et al. 2008b). Data collected during mark-recapture studies, and from satellite radiotracking of adult female polar bears, it appears that most of the polar bears in this subpopulation are concentrated along the coastal tide cracks and ridges along the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries (Taylor et al. 2001). The most current (1993 – 97) estimate is 203 ± 44 (SE; Taylor et al. 2008b). Survival rate estimates for the NW subpopulation were derived from pooled Lancaster Sound and NW data because the subpopulations are adjacent and the number of bears captured in NW was too small to generate reliable survival estimates. The 5-year mean harvest (2009/10 – 2013/14) has been well below a sustainable harvest level for that population size. Population data are dated.

References

Reference list