The Bear Killed in Iceland: Was It Really the Only Option?

A polar bear was killed in Iceland. He had arrived on an iceberg from (relatively) nearby Greenland and, once he reached the north-western tip of the Icelandic island, he had the bad idea of ​​getting very close to the house of an elderly lady who, having taken refuge on the upper floor of her house, called for help. The local police, after consulting the national environmental agency which refused to take action to move him elsewhere, intervened by shooting him down. “It’s not something we like to do,” he told the newspapers Helgi JenssonChief of Police of the Westfjords. – In this case the bear was very close to a summer house and inside there was an elderly person.” This is the chronicle of a demolition absolutely legal under Icelandic law because it was dictated by the need for emergency intervention to eliminate a danger to the population. In Iceland, in fact, although bears are a protected species and it is forbidden to kill one at sea, they can be killed if they represent a threat to humans or livestock. But was it the only way to resolve the situation?

Polar Bears: Vulnerable, Endangered: About 30,000 Left

«The available data tell us that, in the Arctic regions that represent their only habitat, there are now just under 1000 surviving 30,000 specimensdivided into 19 subpopulations – explains Isabella Prateswildlife manager of the WWF Italy. – The polar bear, the largest terrestrial carnivore, is considered vulnerable to extinction. Its survival is linked to the pack, the layer of sea ice resulting from the crumbling of the ice floe that is essential to allow it to hunt the seals on which it mainly feeds, which however is continuing to decrease with a truly dramatic effect on its survival. According to experts, in 2050 there could be a 30% reduction in the number of surviving specimens».

“Not saving him was a missed opportunity, a small failure.”

In light of these elements, therefore, it comes to mind that the choice of kill onealthough dictated by necessity, should really be the only viable alternative. «From a conservationist point of view there is no doubt that it is the desirable choice – explains Pratesi. – a specimen outside its habitat survives with great difficulty and is perhaps destined to succumb. The hypothesis of a transfer, after a sedation adequate, it is practicable but has very high costs and, according to some, it is not worth supporting them for the protection of a single specimen. That said, the feeling of having missed an opportunity to offer a lesson in humanity. An exemplary gesture could have been made that could also become the symbol of the fact that much more can be done about a nature that we are destroying.”

Sedate and transfer him, costly but possible

What types of interventions could have been done to avoid the demolition? «It is certainly a question of expensive interventions and challenging. In the meantime, we need to organize a veterinary team to evaluate what to do; then we need to think about isolating the bear by following it and probably limiting its range of action with a flying fence to prevent it from becoming a danger to people. Then we need to evaluate the sedation methods and finally, after having sedated it, provide for its transfer which is certainly not simple, given the size of the animal and its dangerousness”. All operations that would have required much more time and cost than hiring a hunter or an armed policeman for a quick kill.

No polar bears have been sighted in Iceland since 2016

However, this is not a very frequent situation. According to Anna Sveinsdottirdirector of scientific collections at the Icelandic Institute of Natural History, polar bears are not native to Iceland but occasionally come ashore after traveling on the Greenland ice floes. The bear shot Thursday was the first sighted in the country since 2016. Sightings in Iceland are relatively rare, with only 600 recorded since the 9th century, and attacks on humans are also quite rare. Of the 73 documented attacks from 1870 to 2014 in Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia and the United States that killed 20 people and injured 63, only 15 occurred in the last five years of this period.

At the same time a study of the Wildlife Society Bulletin of 2017 highlighted that the loss of sea ice due to global warming has led more hungry bears to move in search of food. “Precisely because of their characteristics – adds Pratesi – polar bears need to eat up to 2 kilograms of seal blubber a day during the summer to survive the rigors of the polar winter.” Living conditions that are becoming increasingly difficult with climate change and the decrease in ice and therefore ideal hunting conditions, so much so that a study from a few years ago highlighted a reduction in the birth weight of newborn cubs. “Very simply, underweight mothers produce underweight cubs,” concludes Pratesi.

It’s right to kill him for scientific reasons, but ethically the discussion is different

All this leads the bears to displacement in search of food and in Iceland, after the arrival of two bears in 2008, the environment minister went so far as to appoint a task force to study the issue. The final evaluation of the working group identified the killing of any specimens considered dangerous as the best strategy to adopt in case of need, both for the management of the danger represented for the inhabitants and for the exorbitant costs represented by a transfer to Greenland. «The evaluations, from a conservationist point of view, are undoubtedly correct – according to Isabella Pratesi. – but a case like this is truly dramatic. A bear that manages to survive and move such distances has the right to have a chance of survival».

One wonders why the real and concrete possibility of saving a polar bear in obvious difficulty did not arouse the same empathy that the photo did. “Ice Bed” by English photographer Nima Sarikhani? The heartbreaking image of a polar bear sleeping on a bed of ice that in 2023 won the People’s Choice Award section of the prestigious Wildlife Photographer of the Yearhad in fact forced everyone to reflect passionately on the state of conservation of these magnificent animals, but the same was not true for the bear mercilessly killed in Iceland. «I cannot help but think that we are facing a small failure – concludes Pratesi. – Not enough value was given to that individual and the easiest path was chosen, certainly the most comfortable and economical. But what will we teach our children if we continue to have this approach towards the animal world? That man can always arrogate to himself the right to intervene, without considering the value of other living beings? At this point it is a question of ethical question: after what these sentient beings are suffering due to our impact on their ecosystems, shouldn’t we also look at things from a different perspective than just the advantage of humans?