Spring

Mid-June, and, after generous rains, the land is looking fresh and alive again after the effects of the crushing mantle of snow have worn off and become a distant memory. Today, like yesterday, was one of those stellar days that sits on the threshold between spring and summer; cloudless, high blue which, by early afternoon, has gone beyond warm to hot, and shrouded itself in a patina of haze. The forest is beginning to smell warm, a fragrant mix of cottonwood buds and fir sap and drying grass.

These changes make me think of the Arctic spring, plying its trade on the tundra and the little trees of the taiga, and on the surface of the frozen sea. Specifically, I have been thinking about the ice breaking up on Hudson Bay, and that the polar bears there will be returning to shore to wait until the ice returns, in November. I am hoping that this spring is not too early, like some others have recently, and that the bears are leaving the ice having fed enough to get them through the coming lean months.

In southern cities, spring is simple; it's about shorts and T-shirts, lightening mornings and gardening. There is talk of global warming, but it means little, directly, being more a distant notion, and a catch phrase of environmental scare-mongers. It can't be proved, after all, and yet it persists, causing a little guilt, and dampening, slightly, any carefree sense of summer and the sun. But up on Hudson Bay, a new pattern of later freeze-up and earlier break-up is hard to deny. The reduction in ice time has reduced overall available feeding time by about a month, or 12%. Some Inuit people have also reported weak ice that won't hold their sleds, and which prevents them, like the bears, from being able to hunt efficiently. Polar bears are supremely adapted to ice and intense cold, as they are to the water, but they do not do well in the place in-between, on weak ice that can not hold their weight. Weak ice is neither good for travel nor for hunting, and it is becoming more common.

As well as the problems of a foreshortened ice period on Hudson Bay, I've also been thinking about some of the other issues facing polar bears on shore. In the fall, when the bears move back to the bay in preparation for freeze-up, and thousands of tourists flock to Churchill to observe them, the potential for further problems increases significantly. During this time, they are likely to encounter Tundra Buggies, lumbering around the shoreline to the east of town, and they will also be likely to come upon the Tundra Buggy 'motels'. These facilities, made up of a series of wheeled trailers hitched together "train-wise", provide overnight accommodation on the tundra. Their permanence, and the odours that come from them make them potentially highly habituating. The gray- water drain areas, for example, attract large numbers of bears, who spend long periods attempting to dig down to the leeching areas beneath them. While they may not get anything very substantial for this endeavour, they evidently get enough of something to maintain their interest. Interest in those "buildings" may fuel interest in the buildings of the Churchill Northern Studies Centre, outlying cabins and properties, and inevitably, the town itself, all of which sets the stage for potential conflicts.

Beyond the Study Centre is a property where a local dog-musher runs a "legal" racket by overfeeding his dogs and charging people to come and photograph the habituated bears that feed on the excess. A little further east things complicate further; the bears encounter the garbage dump which is just within a 10km diameter bear no-go-zone that encircles Churchill itself. Under the Polar Bear Alert Scheme, any bears within this area are liable to be captured and taken to the "bear jail" where they are confined for up to 30 days, before being re-located. While it is a sign of progress that the bears are generally no longer killed for being near town, they are not taken far, and a good deal find their way back to Churchill, perhaps to be captured and moved again. Progress or not, it is difficult not to conclude that Polar Bear Alert is more self- sustaining than the result of enlightened conservation thought.

We have done much to complicate the lives of polar bears around Churchill, and I ponder what can be done to help remedy that. A more "radical" approach would be to ban Tundra Buggies, and regulate tourist activity so stringently that there would be no interaction between people and bears. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who advocate expansion; more viewing vehicles, more land accessible to them, even multi-million dollar theme parks, which, so far, have thankfully been denied development permission.

Between these two worlds, we might find the best option for a sustainable future for the Churchill area: Churchill is there to stay, and wise residents will realise that the bears are so significant to it that anything other than committed conservation would be a form of socio- economic suicide. From a conservation standpoint, this involves a certain compromise in changing the question from if the bear tourism industry continues to how it will continue. "Compromise" might be better substituted for "balance", in which it is understood that a well managed concentration of bear tourists is better than an unregulated dispersal. Within this balance, what can be learned in Churchill may be extremely valuable to polar bear conservation in general, giving greater validity to its being called "The Polar Bear Capital of the World".

As is often the case, many of the conservation issues around Churchill are less complicated than they are contentious due to vested interest. Despite the town being heavily reliant on polar bear tourism, the bear is still seen more as an exploitable renewable resource to than as a spiritual and cultural emblem that must be nurtured and preserved. A little altruism incorporated in a few basic conservation measures could make a world of difference. For example, the number of Tundra buggy permits should not be increased from the 19 that operated in 2001, and the tourism "window" should not be increased from its present 6-week duration. Tundra Buggy routes should be strictly confined to the existing system of old military roads north east of Churchill (this is presently the rule, but it is significantly abused). The Tundra Buggy motels may be the most problematic aspect of the whole industry, and, ultimately, they should be removed as the habituation caused by them is very serious and very evident.

With strict protocols enforced on vehicle movements and occupants, the Tundra Buggies may be the least of a number of evils necessary to manage the human/bear interface. Included in this, a number of simple rules could significantly reduce our impact on the bears. For example, no more than three vehicles at any particular viewing location at any time, and, if other vehicles are in the area, drivers should only stop at a particular viewing location for a maximum of 10 minutes. In addition, eventual conversion of the Tundra Buggies? diesel engines to LPG would significantly reduce air pollution associated with bear viewing.

The next piece of wizardry would be to first enclose and then remove the infamous dump! A simple fence, possibly electrified, is all that is necessary to do this; heavy-gauge, 12 feet-high, outward-angled top. There is talk that a new enclosed, garbage and recycling facility may be built at the Churchill docks; so much the better if that goes ahead, but in the meantime fencing the present dump is relatively cheap and eminently sensible. All the arguments about cost of fencing come to naught when compared to that of the Polar Bear Alert Scheme, for employee time and the very expensive relocation process. Polar Bear Alert will simply self-perpetuate, particularly if bears are only taken 50 to 80km, as they often are. Habituated bears will return over that distance in a single day! What is needed are measures that prevent habituation in the first place, not high profile 'band aid' policies that pay lip-service to effect rather than dealing with cause.

I don't want to totally refute the Polar Bear Alert Scheme, because it has done some good, and it is the result of a new tolerance that did not exist in the past. However, I would like to see it focusing more on education about the needs and realities of bears and their movements. It should advocate the removal of the dump, with less emphasis on relocation. Where relocation was used, bears should be taken much further away, which would be more affordable if less relocation was being carried-out. Inevitably, perhaps the most constructive and sustainable conservation action in the Churchill area would be the instatement of a Karelian Bear-dog kennel. This would be an inexpensive, long-term alternative to the present nebulous 10km no-go-zone/capture/relocate policy, and a large part of its mandate would be education.

These are just some of my thoughts as spring grows and fades into summer, and as I think of the implications of that time for the polar bears, as the melting ice leaves them stranded and waiting until the ice forms again. In the temperate zone, many people cannot fathom why warming of the climate could be any problem even if it is a reality, but for the ice-dependent polar bears, it may mean that in 30-50 years the southern Hudson Bay area will no longer be viable habitat for them. If they cannot feed adequately, they will move north, and in the time in-between, the very young and the very old will die. The situation with the ice, and the maze of habituating problems in the Churchill area, are marginalising it as polar bear habitat, and change is necessary if we are to reach higher levels of sustainability and balance. Unfortunately for the people of Churchill, however, where global warming is involved, the decisions needed to make the necessary changes need to be made at the global level. And it may be that whatever Churchill does itself, for the bears, the rest of the world's ignoring will bring all its endevour to naught. In the benign forest-scented spring I see gradually capitulating to summer where I live, I can't help wondering at how different it is to that distant sub-Arctic spring, and what it means. And I wonder too how many more there will be when the polar bears still return to the shores of southern Hudson Bay.

Rupert Pilkington.