A Different Polar Bear Book

Field: Arts and Humanities (Social Sciences)

When I opened the padded envelope containing Margery Fee’s new book, Polar Bear, my first thought was “What kind of polar bear book is this?” Instead of the typical full-frame color photo of a polar bear in all its glory, two-thirds of the cover is stark black, with modest lettering for the title and the author’s name. The remaining one-third features a black and white photo of a polar bear’s face. When I picked the book up, I was struck by the unusual, almost silk-like feel of the cover, which is unlike anything I’ve previously encountered in a paperback. The pages have such a pleasant feel that I relished turning them. As I did, it quickly became clear that this is a most unusual polar bear book; not just in look and feel, but in its contents. Most books about polar bears describe their natural history or the threats to their future. Fee’s Polar Bear, instead, takes a story-telling approach. It diverges from the usual linear path between the first Western encounter with polar bears and modern times, focusing instead on the relationship between polar bears and humans, including evidence that Inuit people have been hunting polar bears for at least 8,000 years. The book is well annotated, unlike many written for public consumption, and is replete with descriptions of early encounters, tracing lore and legend. In her attempt to synthesize knowledge about polar bears from “cultural and multi-disciplinary perspectives,” Fee entwines current events with historic ones. She combines scientific and cultural knowledge with early observations, guiding the reader through the polar bear’s transition in public perception from ferocious beast to adorable mascot. This helps us understand how polar bears have captured the human heart and plucked at its strings. New to me, Fee presents a feminist version of the drive among early explorers to be first to conquer the Arctic and its inhabitants, including polar bears. Great rewards, in terms of wealth and social status, often were bestowed on historic firsts, but Fee suggests parallels between the drives to conquer great natural/geographic challenges and to exert domination over women, arguing that “Control over large exotic animals and beautiful women stands in for power and control over nature, land, and resources.” To “win the Queen of the Arctic” is presented as one more example of the imbalance of power between men and women that continues today. In suggesting this masculinized drive for Arctic domination, I think Fee missed an opportunity. We can’t really know the pervasiveness of such a view in the minds of early adventurers. But today, a powerful few in executive offices and board rooms around the world, still mostly men, really do hold the polar bear’s future in their hands. Whereas the book’s story-telling approach makes for an intriguing read, its nonlinear presentation gets a bit lost when discussing bears in captivity. Fee nicely covers the history of polar bears in captivity from the year 880, when Iceland’s Ingimundr the Old gave two cubs to Norway’s King Harald the Fairhaired, apparently starting a trend of live polar bears being prized commodities of European royalty. She, however, fails to adequately track the evolution from bears as trophy captives or circus entertainers to those under human care in modern zoos. There certainly is much negative to be said about the history of polar bears and other animals in captivity, and many “road-side attractions” still need to be shut down. But in covering the grisly history of bears in captivity, this book gives short shrift to the progress made by modern zoos. Fee states “Few (zoos) have the expansive grounds that would allow the bears enough space in which to roam.” The fact that polar bear activity areas can approach 600,000 km2 (Amstrup et al. 2000) obviates the need to even mention this, and no zoo purports to match the space used by the large mammals they house. In pointing out the space issue, however, Fee overlooks the fact that in captivity, polar bears are not required to cover long distances because their nutritional and other needs are met. Modern zoos use the best available veterinary, nutritional, and behavioral science to maximize animal welfare, and polar bears in zoos typically live longer than in the wild. Fee also fails to acknowledge the huge contribution of zoos to conservation efforts in the wild. Between 2016 and 2018, organizations accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums contributed over $650 million in conservation support, including over $75 million in research. During those same years, these institutions contributed nearly $1.5 million to polar bear conservation efforts and nearly $600,000 to research efforts. Similarly, Fee does not acknowledge the value of education in modern zoos as a positive force for conservation. Unless we halt global warming, there will be no long-term future for polar bears. The biggest challenge in halting warming is to educate the public and inspire the informed to take action. In recognizing that many people love zoos, Fee points out that ~700 million people visit zoos worldwide, every year. These zoo visitors include every demographic group and present a huge education opportunity. It would have been helpful if Fee had celebrated the fact that many zoos have developed messaging that assures their polar bears are true ambassadors for their wild kin. And, she could have closed by encouraging all zoos to follow suit for all the animals in their care. As with the discussion of bears in captivity, the book’s presentation of field research and conservation efforts wanders in ways that will mislead many readers. For example, she states that the government of Nunavut (Canada), where approximately half of the world’s polar bears occur, prohibits tranquilizing bears for research purposes. Although Nunavut carefully scrutinizes permits for research that involves sedation, such research is not prohibited. Fee also is less than careful in describing the role of continuing harvest in the face of human-induced sea ice loss. Some subpopulations, not yet feeling negative impacts of habitat loss, still can be safely harvested. And, it may be that declining populations can be harvested at a level that does not obviously increase the rate of decline. But there is no such thing as truly sustainable take when population declines are driven by unabated habitat loss. Fee nicely covers issues about which local people and scientists differ, and she acknowledges that nearly all parties “indigenous or not,” believe humans “have a responsibility to keep polar bears from suffering or dying out.” But, some passages in the book seem to suggest that scientists value polar bears more than they value the people of the north. This notion that a scientific focus on polar bears is misplaced is in itself severely misplaced. Like the bears, traditional lifestyles of indigenous people are seriously threatened by a warming climate. Every scientist I know is committed to the idea that saving polar bears and their ecosystem will, in fact, preserve the traditions and rights of northern peoples. Fee’s equivocal language related to impacts of global warming also will be confusing for many readers. Her conclusion, for example, that “if polar bear numbers continue to decline…tensions between hunters and the tourism industry will mount,” misses the point that there is no “if.” Polar bear numbers can only continue to decline as long as global temperatures rise. Many still deny the evidence that current global warming is caused by societal reliance on fossil fuels and that only human actions can halt that process. Illusory “ifs” only confuse readers and exacerbate existing misunderstandings about global warming. Whereas Fee does not deny the threats of global warming to the bears and arctic habitats, her presentation focuses too much on marginal uncertainties, difficulties in solving the problem, and denial. Disturbingly, Fee devotes three pages to the Internet-based activities of Susan Crockford, a known global warming denier, calling Crockford “by no means unbiased,” rather than stating explicitly that she is dishonest. In her efforts to deny global warming by proxy, Crockford distracts from the fact that polar bears ultimately will disappear without greenhouse gas mitigation by focusing on the fact that polar bears in many areas are still doing well. This ignores the fact that polar bears were declared a threatened species because of the threat global warming poses to their future, not because of their current status. That the impact of sea ice loss has not yet reached all polar bear subpopulations is, in fact, an important reason to maintain hope that we still can halt warming in time to save them. Fee devotes more than a page to explaining Crockford’s claim that declines in summer sea ice projected for mid-century, which were the basis for listing them as threatened, have already occurred. This is simply not true. Our mid-century projections for up to a two-thirds loss in polar bear numbers were based on a projected summer sea ice extent of around one million square kilometers, far below the approximately four million square kilometers of recent years. Fee’s labeling of Crockford’s absurd claims merely as “not unbiased” is a disservice to the reader who may not yet be convinced of the threat global warming presents to polar bears or the rest of us. Crockford’s duplicity was laid bare in a 2018 article in the prestigious journal BioScience (Harvey et al. 2018). Fee cites this paper but fails to explain the egregious nature of Crockford’s activities it revealed. Margery Fee’s Polar Bear is a compelling story about the interface between polar bears and people, but with serious limitations. The appearance and feel of the book, and its captivating story-telling style captured my attention. I enjoyed reading it, and all readers will find new information and have their thoughts provoked by the many threads presented. The failure to tighten those threads into a consistent message, not just about our past relationship with the bears, but what they are telling us about their future and that of the rest of life on earth, is unfortunate. The last paragraph seems to suggest that we should give up trying to solve the global warming crisis and other major conservation challenges and instead embrace the more humble challenge of packing out our own trash. Sure, societies’ challenges seem ominous. But the evidence is crystal clear that if societies don’t come together to halt the artificial warming of the world, neither packing out your own trash nor anything else will matter. Suggesting we focus on the lowest of low-hanging fruit is a disservice to all who strive to save a world similar to the one in which polar bears, and all of us, have flourished.