Interesting...

On the basis of information presented above, two polar bear populations are
designated as increasing (Viscount Melville Sound and M'Clintock Channel--both were severely reduced in the past and are recovering under conservative harvest limits); six populations are stable (Northern Beaufort Sea, Southern Hudson Bay, Davis Strait, Lancaster Sound, Gulf of Bothia, Foxe Basin); five populations are declining (Southern Beaufort Sea, Norwegian Bay, Western Hudson Bay, Kane Basin, Baffin Bay); and six populations are designated as data deficient (Barents Sea, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, Chukchi Sea, Arctic Basin, East Greenland) with no estimate of trend. The two populations with the most extensive time series of data, Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea, are both considered to be declining.

And since the ESA is concerned with species populations in the United States, it still qualifies.

Also, if you compare the stable and increasing populations to the decreasing populations, the decreaseing populations still far outweigh any gains.

In other words, net loss.

The point here is less whether concern about polar bears does or does not create a legal obligation to act on climate change. Rather, this is another demonstration of how virtually all conservation planning now requires the consideration of climate change effects. This is just one of a thousand cuts through which federal reluctance to effectively regulate greenhouse gasses will need to be eliminated.

a sibilant intake of breath

...and please take note that of the stable and increased populations, none are in the United States (if I'm readin' this correctly, that is).

But I thought this was about 'global' warming.

If some populations are increasing, and others are decreasing, in different countries, then what could it possibly have to do with global climate?

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

If some populations are increasing, and others are decreasing, in different countries, then what could it possibly have to do with global climate?

Several possible reasons for small population increases, as noted in the report.

First, until recently, populations of polar bears had nearly doubled since the 1960s (when many northern countries either banned or put restrictions on hunting), and some populations are still feeling the effects.

Two, several populations of polar bears have turned into "trash feeders", where they've given up their natural diet to scrounge the garbage dumps of northern human populations in order to feed themselves.  Though this had led to an increase in population, it's also lead to individuals who are malnourished and unhealthy due to the diet of trash.

Three, melting sea ice, and the effects associated with it (decrease in salinity, warming of ocean waters that were previously protected by ice reflectiong the sun, etc.), has begun to shift ocean currents in the Arctic.  In a few places, the colder currents have shifted closer to some shorelines, resulting in increased ice coverage in remote locations.  It has also altered the distribution of certain seal populations to areas where polar bears reside in greater numbers, resulting in a temporary one-to-two generation increase in food stocks.  

However, compared to the amount of ice lost, any gain due to this is extremely small.

Four, as I said earlier, even taking the increased populations into account, comparing their numbers to the decline in other populations, the total is still a major net loss.

And there's a very good possibility that those populations which are currently stable or increasing won't be so for much longer, as conditions degrade, with increased competition as habitat literally melts and seal populations (polar bears' food source) begin to die-off as ice shrinks further.