Olly's comment on the NY Times Polar bear debate...

03rd Jul 2008

(excert taken from NYtimes.com)...I have to agree with Senator Kerry- this is a step forward. But it is only a small step in the right direction and I fear it might be a token step at that...
Much more needs to be done to bring real change to the plight of the Arctic ecosystem and indeed the threat to all of us from the potential warming of the polar ice cap.
I have worked across the high Arctic photographing and painting polar bears for over 14 years. As any one who has travelled and lived in the Arctic will tell you this debate is so much more complex than simply designating a polar bear as "threatened" or "endangered" and we cannot protect the species far less an ecosystem unless we acknowledge and act on the causes of the threat.
As many people in this blog have already noted the polar bear is far from traditionally "endangered" today. Compared to the tiger (less than 3000 thought to be in the wild today) the 20-25,000 polar bears (approx USGS global figures for 2007) might seem almost bountiful. But the threats to the polar bear as a species are far more insipid and hard to contain and control than protecting those killed for their pelts, teeth, bones and gall bladders.
In the case of the polar bear this threat is currently being manifested today in polar PCB and PBDE pollution via the bears food source. The recent results recorded in Svalbard show a high incidence of hermaphrodite young being born as well as low reproduction cycles in numerous tagged bears...

Irregular fjord and open sea ice conditions (both of which are manifested across the Arctic in the past few years) in both winter and summer have further impact on bear's feeding and breeding and of course only time will tell the true impact of a potential loss of summer hunting pack for the bear and all those who survive below the its hierarchy as an apex predator.

As to some of the comments about the lack of impact of drilling on the North Slope, the bear and the eco system as a whole- that is simply not true. Fly over vast tracks of the North Slope in Alaska and you will see evidence of the various pock marking on the tundra due to test drill sites. Drill sites previously deemed in some way “acceptable” or justifiable collateral ecological damage. The seepage in the tundra and permafrost is evident...not to mention the impact such seepage has on the flora, fauna, waterways, rivers and streams that lead to the Beaufort sea.
Then there is the physical infrastructure, the human /manmade footprint, flights, land digging, earth moving, transport impact and grade roads, on the fragile landmass of the north slope... further drilling has an impact-period - an impact on the ground, on the eco system and wildlife and on the environment as a whole (once the oil is burned as fuel). In turn it will have an impact on our "threatened" bear and on “threatened” us!

If one positive thing could come of the this polar legislation, for me it would be that for those trusted with the power to decide which piece of the wilderness is be left untouched or indeed ravaged for insignificant short term gain, then they think of the polar bear, going about his day- innocently oblivious to us all and consider the real long-term impact their decisions will hold for an entire eco-system and for our children and generations to come. The polar bear has always been a powerful iconic symbol.”we saved the polar bear" is a great political strap line-it might even ignite a spark in some of us for more positive action... but the true debate facing those with the power to enable legislative change in our Arctic is far more difficult to face up to.

Olly Williams
Artist, expedition guide and author of "This Way North".