Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area: Summary, Key Findings, and Recommendations.

Full text

ESSA Report Template User Manual
Tips and Tricks for Taming the Template
Prepared for ESSA Technologies Ltd. Staff
Summary, Key Findings, and
Recommendations
Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the
Churchill Wildlife Management Area:
Prepared for Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the
Churchill Wildlife Management Area:
Prepared for:
Manitoba Conservation
and Water Stewardship
Summary, Key Findings, and Recommendations
July 24, 2015
Contact:
Jessica Elliott
Jessica.Elliott@gov.mb.ca
1.204.945.4365
Contact:
Marc Nelitz, Senior Systems Ecologist
mnelitz@essa.com
1.604.677.9554
Suggested Citation:
Nelitz, M., C. Wedeles, R.H. Lemelin, B. Beardmore, and D. Abraham. 2015.
Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill Wildlife Management
Area: Summary, Key Findings, and Recommendations. Prepared for
Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Winnipeg, MB by ESSA
Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC.
Cover Photo:
Polar Bear on Ice, Churchill, Manitoba (Chris Wedeles, AVES Ltd., 2014)
© 2015 ESSA Technologies Ltd.
ESSA Technologies Ltd.
Vancouver, BC Canada V6H 3H4
www.essa.com

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
i | P a g e
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................... i
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................... iii
Foreword from the Authors .................................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... v
About this Report ................................................................................................................................................. vi
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Approach ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
3. Management Context ..................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Valued Components ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Management Strategies .................................................................................................................. 40
4. Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 56
5. Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 61
6. Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................. 69
Appendix A: Pathways-of-Effect and Supporting Evidence .............................................................................. A-1
Appendix B: Literature Cited in Conceptual Models .......................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: Individuals Involved in Technical Review and Stakeholder Consultations ................................... C-1

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
ii | P a g e
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of a portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area (CWMA) and the area of
focus for this review (shaded box). .................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2: Map of vehicle routes driven by tour operators on the designated off-road trail network in
the Churchill Wildlife Management Area during two separate outings in October of the
2014 polar bear season. .................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 3: Graphs of the daily average number of bears seen over recent years as reported by tour
operators. ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Visitor preferences for different statistically significant characteristics of the polar bear
viewing experience, presented on a common scale of visitor satisfaction .................................... 12
Figure 5: Number of bear occurrences and bears handled from 1969 to 2013 as reported by the
Polar Bear Alert (PBA) Program. ................................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Diagram showing the approximate timing of polar bear activities, snow/ice cover, and
tourism operations in Western Hudson Bay. ................................................................................. 16
Figure 7: Conceptual model illustrating linkages and pathways-of-effect that influence polar bears,
other wildlife, and subarctic habitats in Western Hudson Bay based on a summary of
available scientific evidence and peer review. .............................................................................. 19
Figure 8: Air photo mosaic from 1947 for a portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area
representing the landscape prior to any human development. ..................................................... 22
Figure 9: Air photo mosaic from 1974 for a portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area
representing the landscape following a period of military presence and prior to
development of the first tourism operations. ................................................................................. 23
Figure 10: Air photo mosaic from 1993 for a portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area
representing the landscape at a mid-point in the timeline of development of tourism
operations. ..................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 11: Air photo mosaic from 2006 for a portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area
representing the landscape under recent tourism operations. ...................................................... 25
Figure 12: Images of the physical disturbance to sub-arctic habitats in the Churchill Wildlife
Management Area as a result of vehicle use. ............................................................................... 26
Figure 13: Expert ratings on the strength of influence of the various pathways-of-effect influencing
polar bears using a five-point scale from least to most important. ................................................ 29
Figure 14: Expert ratings on the certainty of evidence underlying various pathways-of-effect
influencing polar bears using a six-point scale from not applicable to theoretically a
concern to widespread agreement. ............................................................................................... 31
Figure 15: Expert ratings on a ranking of importance of the tourism-related pathways-of-effect
influencing polar bears. ................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 16: Expert ratings on a ranking of importance of management actions based on their
potential to have an influence on polar bears using a five-point scale from least to most
important. ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 17: Modelled projections of changes in Arctic sea ice extent (in millions of square km) under
different emissions scenarios (from Stroeve et al. 2007). ............................................................. 34
Figure 18: Average temperature deviations from the long term average during the summer from two
climate stations along the Hudson Bay coastline .......................................................................... 35

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
iii | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of the pathways-of-effect illustrated in Figure 7. ............................................................ 20
Table 2: Complete list of all individual pathways-of-effect illustrated in Figure 7 and described in
more detail in Appendix A. ............................................................................................................ 28
Table 3: Summary of the categories of management actions presented to experts to elicit their
judgments on factors influencing polar bears. ............................................................................... 33
Table 4: Summary of key drivers/uncertainties that influence wildlife and habitats under different
plausible scenarios of future change in Western Hudson Bay. ..................................................... 36
Table 5: Rating of management actions and potential interaction with valued components
indicated as positive (+), negative (-), both positive and negative (+/-), no change, or
uncertain relative to the current situation.. .................................................................................... 53

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
iv | P a g e
Foreword from the Authors
People and bears have had a long history of interaction in the Churchill area, as well as
more broadly across Hudson Bay. Although polar bears can be found in many other places
around the world, the congregation of bears around Churchill is exceptional. The geography
of Western Hudson Bay and ecology of this population means that the relative
concentration and predictability of bear migration in the late fall is unique. Over the last
several decades a tourism industry has grown, with oversight by the Manitoba government,
to take advantage of these conditions and visitor demands to see polar bears in sub-arctic
habitats. For those in the community, whether directly or indirectly involved in tourism, some
may have noticed growing tensions related to the way in which tourism has been managed
over recent years. As such, emotions are intense for some people given that individual
livelihoods and the community’s well-being are affected by the way tourism has been
managed in the past and will continue to be in the future. We appreciate and respect the
unique social, ecological, and economic context of Churchill.
In undertaking this carrying capacity review, it has been our intention to provide an impartial
review and summary of what we understand to be the current situation. In doing so, we
recognize and deliberately separate evidence or observations about social, ecological, or
economic conditions from preferences and values that reflect what people want. This
distinction is important. Evidence reflects a statement of facts about the ways things are
without an interpretation about whether these things are desirable or not. Preferences refer
to the choices people make based on an interpretation of facts. There is no single truth or a
right and wrong choice that underlie people’s preferences. Choices are made as a result of
trade-offs among the competing things that people want (e.g., more economic development
may result in more impacts on the environment while a more pristine environment may
result in less economic development). In this report, we present our findings based on a
summary of available evidence and understanding of stakeholder preferences. We provide
our professional judgments on how we believe changes in management might lead to
changes in the different things that people care about. It is neither our intent nor our role to
recommend a decision on how polar bear viewing within a constrained portion of the
Churchill Wildlife Management Area should be managed going forward. That decision is left
to the relevant decision-makers who need to assess the pros and cons of different options
to make the trade-offs across the different things that the community of Churchill and
province of Manitoba value.
We further disclose that none of the report authors have been influenced while preparing
this report and none have a vested interest in the way Churchill’s tourism operations are
managed. As such, this report represents the professional judgments of the authors, not
those of Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship. Although this report draws upon a
large amount of scientific and stakeholder information, we acknowledge that we have not
been able to consider everything about Churchill and its polar bears.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
v | P a g e
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the many people who contributed information to help us understand the
social, ecological and economic context for this review. These people included a mix with
different geographies (inside/outside Churchill) and different perspectives/connections to
polar bears (public, tour operators, educators, managers, conservationists, scientists). In
particular, we are grateful to the many visitors to Churchill who responded to a visitor
experience survey, to members of the Churchill public who attended an open house and
responded to a public survey, an informal group of stakeholders who met with us to share
their perspectives on the community (see Appendix C), bears, and tourism activities, as well
as a group of technical experts who provided a peer review of parts of our work (see
Appendix C). Without the breadth and depth of knowledge and experience of these people,
this review would not have been possible. We are also extremely thankful for the
contributions of Ashleigh Hall, Pierce Roberts, and Jessica Elliott with Manitoba
Conservation and Water Stewardship who provided us with useful insights, guidance, and
support to see this work through to its completion.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
vi | Pa g e
About this Report
Polar bears are an iconic species for the province of Manitoba and town of Churchill. The
town has a long history of interactions with polar bears which includes a tourism industry
that has been in operation since the 1970s. More recently, between 6,000 and 10,000
visitors are drawn to view polar bears around Churchill each year. Tourism peaks in the late
fall as polar bears congregate close to the shoreline waiting for ice to form on Hudson Bay
in an area known as the Churchill Wildlife Management Area (CWMA), a provincially
managed landscape less than 10 km east of Churchill. Two companies are permitted by the
provincial government to operate tundra vehicles along a designated off-road trail network
in the CWMA for the purpose of providing polar bear viewing opportunities to tourists. For
many years the number of permitted off-road tundra vehicles has remained the same.
In 2014, Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship requested an independent review
to assess the ecological and sociological carrying capacity of commercial ecotourism
operating in the designated off-road trail network. The specific goals of this review were to:
(1) assess the cumulative impacts of tourism activities; (2) identify the amount of tourism
use that can be supported; (3) determine the ecological and social carrying capacity of the
area; and (4) understand the implications of climate change on the area’s carrying capacity.
This report provides a summary of evidence and key findings from the ecological and
sociological carrying capacity review, as well as a set of recommendations to inform the
operation and management of tourism activities in the Churchill Wildlife Management Area.
This review used a multi-criteria decision making approach to summarize information to
better understand the ecological and sociological carrying capacity of tourism in the
Churchill area. This approach recognizes that identifying the capacity of the area can not
necessarily be defined as a single limit on tourism. Multiple limits may exist for which the
preference among them depends on what stakeholders want and the balance of benefits
and costs that decision makers deem appropriate. This review deliberately recognizes and
separates evidence or observations about social, ecological, or economic conditions from
preferences and values that reflect what people want. Although there is a rich basis of
information about Western Hudson Bay polar bears, sub-arctic habitats, and the community
of Churchill, there is a relatively weak understanding about some of the interactions among
these factors and their relationship to tourism. To address this gap, structured approaches
were also used for eliciting the preferences of polar bear tourists, values from stakeholders,
and judgments from technical experts to provide additional information to support this study.
Stakeholder consultations, a visitor experience survey, and a review of the available
evidence revealed several key findings about the social context for managing polar bear
opportunities in the CWMA. The quality of the visitor experience, safety of the community,
reputation of the community, community cohesion, and cultural connections were identified
as core values that stakeholders are most concerned about. Although the tourism industry
has been in operation since the 1970s there are few data that quantitatively describe the
level of tourism since that time, and more recently no standardized data available to

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
v i i | P a ge
describe the number of vehicles and their proximity to bears over the course of the tourist
season. A survey of 72 visitors in the 2014 tourist season identified the number of bears
and wildlife species seen as having significant positive effects on the visitor experience. The
distance to nearest bear and number of vehicles viewing bears at the same time had a
negative influence on the visitor experience, meaning that visitors are most satisfied when
they see bears up close and with fewer other vehicles. A review of data from the Polar Bear
Alert Program shows that the number of bear occurrences around Churchill has steadily
been increasing over the last several decades, with supplemental evidence suggesting that
this trend is likely due to a combination of human interventions (e.g., shift in the focus of the
Alert Program from destruction to prevention) and changing environmental conditions (e.g.,
changes in the timing of sea ice formation). Although there is evidence that human activities
can increase potential for encounters with bears (e.g., proximity of bears to people,
presence of attractants, and food-conditioning of bears), due to a lack of data it is unknown
whether tourism since the 1970s has had any contributing influence on this pattern of bear
occurrences around Churchill.
The environmental context for the Western Hudson Bay ecosystem was informed by a rich
foundation of scientific information, stakeholder consultations, and judgments from a group
of highly knowledgeable technical experts. The well-being of polar bears, well-being of other
wildlife, and condition of sub-arctic habitats were the core environmental values that
stakeholders are most concerned about. The ecology of the Western Hudson Bay
population of polar bears (~1,000 individuals) is relatively well understood and is one of the
most well studied populations in the world. However, there is some unresolved
confusion/uncertainty around the true status and abundance of the Western Hudson Bay
population due to uncertainty about the size of the historic population, varying scientific
estimates of recent population size, and differences between scientific and anecdotal
observations. Within the CWMA air photo evidence from 1947 to 2006 shows an increasing
footprint/disturbance of the trail network due to military activity (initially) and tourism activity
(more recently), though this area represents a relatively limited portion compared to the
extent of coastline along which bears can migrate onto the ice. Knowledgeable technical
experts rated pathways involving climate change as having the most important influence on
polar bears, in particular changes to the timing and duration of se ice leading to impacts on
marine feeding opportunities, changes in the availability of marine prey, habitat
displacement, and impacts on denning success. Three pathways related to tourism
(associated with habituation of bears, avoidance behaviour of bears, and damage to sub-
arctic habitats) were rated as less important than climate related pathways, though the
certainty of evidence for all tourism pathways was generally rated as being preliminary. As
such, the potential impacts related to the tourism industry are best considered from a short-
term perspective as compared to the more pervasive and disruptive impacts of climate
change in the medium to long term. Although there is some uncertainty around the timing of
changes associated with climate change, future scenarios consistently suggest that climate
impacts will lead to negative outcomes for polar bears and sub-arctic habitats.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
v i i i | P ag e
Although economic considerations were beyond the scope of this review, stakeholder
consultations and a preliminary review of publically available information provided some
context on the importance of economic objectives to Churchill and its polar bear tourism
industry. Stakeholders were concerned about six economic considerations related to
financial benefits and economic welfare of the community, which included:
 financial benefits from polar bear tourism;
 financial benefits from other resource uses;
 local distribution of benefits;
 protection of historic/current investments in tourism;
 opportunities for future investments; and
 certainty of business opportunities.
Few data are available to describe the current economic context for Churchill, although
some data are available describing the financial benefits of polar bear tourism, non-market
value of polar bears, and investments of different organizations in polar bears and the
related tourism industry. Economic considerations were identified as the most contentious
to address since they represent the greatest divergence of opinion across stakeholders
when compared to social and economic objectives.
Beyond maintaining current management approaches, stakeholders identified 18 additional
actions that could be used to address the varying social, environmental, and economic
valued components around polar bear tourism listed above. These actions related to
changes in the permitting process, permit conditions, vehicle management, lodge
management, access management, compliance/enforcement, research and monitoring, as
well as other actions. They tended to be positioned from one or a mix of four distinct
stakeholder perspectives, specifically in providing: (A) greater security for current operators,
(B) greater local access/benefits, (C) greater protection of the environment, or (D) greater
tourism benefits with the least environmental and social impact.
An informal stakeholder group was generally supportive of the following actions:
 implementing a performance review/evaluation of permits;
 clarifying performance standards/guidelines for permit holders;
 clarifying training requirements for permit holders;
 maintaining current number of allowable vehicles;
 ensuring minimum seat availability for “special” situations;
 enhancing in-season monitoring of compliance and enforcement of permit
conditions;
 enhancing research & monitoring of social, environmental, and economic conditions;
and
 improving communication, engagement, and education.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
ix | P a g e
While the same group was generally unsupportive of these actions:
 reducing the number of allowable vehicles;
 changing allocation of vehicles between existing permit holders;
 disallowing lodges; and
 improving condition of off-road trail network.
The greatest level of disagreement among the group emerged around the following:
 clarifying rules of permit access/renewal;
 changing oversight for managing permits;
 changing allocation of vehicles among existing/new permit holders;
 expanding areas to access; and
 allowing other forms of access to CWMA.
Each action was seen as addressing a different combination of valued components. In
some cases several actions likely need to be implemented jointly to be fully effective.
Noteworthy is that stakeholders were in general agreement to maintain the current number
of vehicles (i.e., there were no suggestions to increase the number of tundra vehicles).
Changes in allocation of vehicles among existing/new operators and expanding the areas to
access within the CWMA were seen as ways of potentially improving tourism benefits and
changing the distribution of benefits within the community, though these actions are also the
most contentious/challenging to implement given disagreements among stakeholders.
Actions related to training, performance, compliance, and research were noted by
stakeholders as having many benefits with few adverse effects. Technical experts
consistently rated the number of tundra vehicles and managing the spatial extent of access
as the actions having the most important influence on polar bears. Although the specific
details around these actions have yet to be described, the solution to improved
management likely lies in some combination of these actions.
A review of eight other locations providing polar bear tourism opportunities from around the
world revealed that Churchill and Svalbard, Norway are the most comparable with each
supporting significant numbers of visitors. Most other locations provide smaller scale
viewing opportunities. Recently developed destinations tend to employ a high standard of
safety and environmental protection alongside collaborative approaches to managing
tourism opportunities. Experience from these locations suggests that too few restrictions
can overwhelm the resource (habituation, food conditioning), degrade the tourism product,
increase risk and stress on wildlife and polar bear viewers (in some instances leading to
loss of life), and can potentially result in visitors seeking alternative destinations to view
these animals. Too many restrictions can curtail innovations or hinder development of new
complimentary products to polar bear tourism.
An assessment of the key findings from this review revealed that there are three
fundamental recommendations (in no order of importance) that can help improve upon the
current management situation.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
x | P a g e
Recommendation #1: Address knowledge gaps to improve understanding about the current
context and how different management actions might affect the values that stakeholders
care about since existing knowledge gaps are leading to disagreements among
stakeholders. In particular, the following knowledge gaps were identified:
 Data describing the level of tourism activity of the industry including the number of
daily vehicle trips and proximity of vehicles to bears over the course of each polar
bear viewing season;
 Studies examining the effect of number and proximity of tundra vehicles on bear
habituation and if appropriate, identifying measures to mitigate impacts on habituation;
 Improvements to the digitally mapped location of the designated off-road trail network;
 Spatial information on the condition of the designated off-road trail network and
impacts on sub-arctic habitats;
 Measures of visitor satisfaction with the tourism experience and community
satisfaction with the way in which polar bear tourism operations are being managed;
 Standardized estimates of population size of Western Hudson Bay polar bears;
 Status and trends of other wildlife species that provide value to eco-tourism;
 Consistent monitoring of local changes in duration and timing of sea ice extent and
timing of polar bear migration onto the sea ice; and
 Economic information on the financial benefits of major tourism opportunities in
Churchill and distribution of those benefits, alongside an improved understanding
about the factors that influence the generation and distribution of benefits.
It will be important to design and implement data collection in a way that ensures knowledge
gaps are sufficiently addressed. Otherwise if data collection is poorly designed and
implemented, conflicts due to knowledge gaps may remain. Rigorous data collection
requires ensuring high data quality and appropriate consideration of data governance,
prioritization, evaluation design, sampling design, and sampling protocols.
Recommendation #2: Resolve disagreements in stakeholder preferences to reduce
conflict/improve community cohesion. The following issues were identified as being the
most contentious to resolve:
 A lack of common alignment of stakeholders with the six different economic
components listed above (related to financial benefits and economic welfare), since
these values align most closely with the desired outcomes for different stakeholder
interests; and
 Disagreement in support among stakeholders for the following actions:
o clarifying rules of permit access/renewal
o changing oversight for managing permits
o changing allocation of vehicles among existing/new permit holders
o expanding areas to access
o allowing other forms of access to CWMA

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
xi | Pa g e
As a starting point, a voluntary or third party facilitated negotiation process that applies
principled negotiation techniques is advisable for enabling successful resolution.
Recommendation #3: Prepare the community for unavoidable changes in the environment
to strengthen the community, tourism industry, and local environment in the longer-term.
Churchill has undergone and will continue to undergo unavoidable changes in the
environment over the coming decades, largely as a result of climate change. Although there
is some uncertainty around the timing of these changes, future scenarios consistently
suggest that climate impacts will lead to negative outcomes for bears. An eventual decrease
in polar bears whether due to a decrease in abundance of the Western Hudson Bay
population or habitat displacement as a result of changing sea ice, overland migration, and
denning locations can be expected to have a negative impact on tourism. Hence, there is a
need to plan for the future and implement strategies that are robust to the forthcoming
changes, especially since preparations will require a long lead time to implement.
Longer-term actions can be viewed as operating at three scales. A first scale of actions
involve a subset of management measures identified through this review that were broadly
supported by stakeholders, have the potential to provide multiple benefits to the
environment and community, and help strengthen the information base for decision making:
 Implementing a performance review/evaluation of permits;
 Clarifying performance standards/guidelines for permit holders;
 Clarifying training requirements for permit holders;
 Maintaining current number of allowable vehicles;
 Ensuring minimum seat availability for “special” situations;
 Enhancing in-season monitoring of compliance and enforcement of permit conditions;
 Enhancing research and monitoring of social, environmental, and economic
conditions; and
 Improving communication, engagement, and education.
A second scale of actions relate to ensuring Churchill’s polar bear tourism product is as
robust as possible to be competitive in the global market for polar bear viewing. Such
actions will be particularly relevant for Churchill if there are changes in perceptions of
destination impacts and increases in travel costs for tourists as a result of transitioning
towards a low carbon economy. Best practice in the ecotourism industry suggests that
ecotourism products implement the following principles:
 Minimize impact;
 Build environmental and cultural awareness and respect;
 Provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts;
 Provide direct financial benefits for conservation;
 Provide financial benefits and empowerment for local people; and
 Raise sensitivity to host countries' political, environmental, and social climate.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
x i i | P a ge
A last scale of actions relate to longer-term planning and adaptation of the tourism industry
to the impacts of climate change. The experience of others suggests that a diversity of
technological, managerial, policy and behavioural measures can be used in the tourism
sector to deal with climate impacts. These measures can include the following:
 Raising awareness and educating tourists and operators of potential hazards and
what to do in the case of extreme events or incidents;
 Diversifying tourism products and markets;
 Strengthening the support for adaptation in the tourism industry;
 ‘Climate-proofing’ tourism policies and regulations;
 Integrating the tourism sector into other government policies;
 Including disaster, incident, and adaptation responses in tourism training curricula;
 Locating (or translocating) tourist facilities/operations in low-risk areas to avoid
negative impacts and minimize the risk of poor investment decisions;
 Promoting environmental management practices that protect natural ecosystems,
reduce external stresses, and use scarce natural resources efficiently; and
 Strengthening relations between tourism facilities, operators and local communities, to
collaborate in preventing, mitigating, and responding to climate impacts.
The purpose of these recommendations is to provide guidance to decision makers and
stakeholders on what options are available to best support the multiple objectives for
managing the designated off-road trail network of the CWMA. Since the choice among
alternative paths forward requires a consideration of the pros and cons of different options,
the intention is not be overly prescriptive in how the CWMA and polar bear tourism should
be managed. Those decisions are left to the appropriate decision makers who need to
evaluate trade-offs across the different things that matter to interested and affected parties.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
1 | P a g e
1. Introduction
Churchill has a long history of interactions with polar bears (Struzik 2014). In recent
decades, this history has been punctuated by a tourism industry that draws between 6,000
and 10,000 visitors to Churchill each year and supports an abundance of social and
economic activities in the community and beyond (Dawson et al. 2010). The tourist season
peaks in the late fall as polar bears congregate close to the shoreline waiting for ice to form
on Hudson Bay. Most tourism activities occur within the Churchill Wildlife Management Area
(CWMA), a provincially managed landscape less than 10 km east of Churchill. Polar bear
tourism in the area has evolved into an experience that is entirely consistent with the
specific management objectives for the CWMA (CWS no date) and goals of Wildlife
Management Areas as laid out under the Manitoba Wildlife Act, which includes “provide[ing]
opportunities for wildlife viewing and commercial eco-tourism in a manner that will maintain
high quality viewing experiences and minimize the impact on the landscape and individual
animals”.
Two companies are permitted by the provincial government to provide polar bear viewing
experiences by operating tundra vehicles that access a designated off-road trail network in
the CWMA. This mode of transportation supports access to the challenging terrain and
helps protect people, polar bears, other wildlife, and sensitive sub-arctic habitats. In recent
decades, the number of permitted off-road tundra vehicles has remained the same. While
some in the community consider the number of vehicles to be excessive, some believe the
current situation is appropriate and others wish to see more opportunities. For instance,
current operators, and some other operators who would like to have access to the CWMA,
have requested authorization to operate additional off-road tundra vehicles in recent years.
In 2014, Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship requested an independent review
to assess the ecological and sociological carrying capacity of commercial ecotourism
operating in the designated off-road trail network in the Churchill Wildlife Management Area
(see study area delineated by shading in Figure 1). Around the same time, Manitoba
Conservation and Water Stewardship began considering changes to the designation of the
Churchill Wildlife Management Area to a provincial park. Though the outcome of the park
proposal is unrelated to the results of the carrying capacity review, any changes in
designation of the CWMA would have some implications on the oversight and management
of tourism, even if the current rules around tourism do not change. Hence, the Parks and
Protected Spaces branch of Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship has been
tasked with overseeing completion of the carrying capacity review.
This report provides a summary of results and key findings from the ecological and
sociological carrying capacity review. The specific goals of this review were to:

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
2 | P a g e
(1) Assess the cumulative impacts of tourism activities in the designated trail network on
polar bears, other wildlife species, and sub-arctic habitats;
(2) Identify the amount of use, in particular the number of permitted tundra vehicles, that
can be supported by polar bears, other wildlife species, and sub-arctic habitats;
(3) Determine the ecological and social carrying capacity of the area, in terms of ecological
sustainability and the tourism experience; and
(4) Identify the implications of climate change in relation to the area’s carrying capacity.
An ultimate output from this review is to propose a set of recommendations related to the
operation and management of tourism activities and tundra vehicles in the designated off-
road trail network. These recommendations would then be considered by senior decision
makers within the Manitoba government and others who have a role in managing the
resource. Economic considerations were not an explicit part of this review. Recognizing the
importance of polar bear tourism to the community of Churchill and province of Manitoba,
this review did, however, require consulting with the public and stakeholders who are
directly and indirectly affected. A separate report summarizes the approach and results from
stakeholder consultations which sought to gather information around the critical issues
related to polar bear tourism, community well-being, and ecological integrity (see Nelitz and
Beardmore 2015).
Figure 1: Map of a portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area (CWMA) and the
area of focus for this review (shaded box).

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
3 | P a g e
2. Approach
In ecology, “carrying capacity” is defined as the maximum population size that an
environment can sustain indefinitely given the resources available (Krebs 1994). Similarly,
“tourism carrying capacity” has been defined as “the level of human activity an area can
accommodate without the area deteriorating, the resident community being adversely
affected or the quality of visitors experience declining” (Shaw and Williams 2002). Implied
by the goals of this review is a desire to identify scientifically defensible boundaries on polar
bear tourism within which it can operate and be sustainable in the long-term given the
ecological and sociological constraints of the Churchill area. Identifying sustainable limits on
development are not necessarily defined by a single state, however. Multiple states may
exist since decisions around management constraints are value laden choices and are
based on what a decision-maker is trying to achieve (Lackey 2001). For instance, if a
decision-maker desires a pristine ecosystem, then an acceptable level of tourism may be
very low. On the other hand if there is interest in maximizing economic opportunities in the
short-term, a very intense level of tourism may be acceptable. Neither of these alternatives
is right or wrong. Choices depend on what people value and the trade-offs or weightings of
importance that decision makers place on different objectives (i.e., balance across
environmental protection, community cohesion, and economic opportunities). Scientific
information is an important consideration in a decision so that a manager understands the
social and ecological consequences of different levels of tourism, but ultimately
management limits are not established using science alone. As such, we approached the
problem of identifying the ecological and sociological carrying capacity, as well as
developing management recommendations, as best addressed using multi-criteria decision-
making techniques.
Many decades of research in decision analysis have shown that complex decisions are
made easier when structured using formal approaches that help decision-makers evaluate
the alternative choices available to them (Morgan and Henrion 1990; Clemen 1996). A key
advantage of multi-criteria decision techniques is that they help structure information in a
way that allows for a clear separation of scientific information, which is more neutral, from
the policy preferences of stakeholders, which are inherently value-laden. This advantage
can be important and sometimes even necessary when faced with making a decision in
situations with strongly contrasting stakeholder views. Structured Decision Making (Gregory
et al. 2012) is a specific approach that recommends the consideration of several key pieces
of information – management objectives, alternatives, consequences, and trade-offs – so
the evidence base and rationale underlying a decision are clear. This review uses a
Structured Decision Making framework to summarize information to better understand the
ecological and sociological carrying capacity of tourism in the Churchill area.
Management objectives are statements reflecting what decision makers and stakeholders
value, whether related to economic, environmental, or social/cultural components. For
instance, some may value the jobs and other economic benefits that polar bear tourism
provides for the community. Some may be concerned about the crowding of tundra vehicles

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
4 | P a g e
and potential impact on the quality of the viewing experience and people’s willingness to
pay for it. Others may be concerned about the potential impacts of polar bear tourism on
sub-arctic habitats and their ability to support wildlife tourism at other times of year. We
engaged stakeholders and the community through a public open house, public survey, and
an informal stakeholder group to collect information on what matters to the community (see
Nelitz and Beardmore 2015). A summary of objectives underlying the management and
operation of polar bear tourism is presented in Section 3.1, framed as Valued Components.
This summary also includes an overview of the available evidence (e.g., scientific literature,
peer review and expert judgments, historic air photos, visitor information, operator data, and
government data) describing our understanding of how polar bear tourism, the community,
and the environment interact with a subset of these valued components.
Alternatives represent the range or combination of management strategies or actions that
could be implemented by provincial managers to achieve the management objectives of
interest. For example, some might believe that increasing the number of vehicles and extent
of the off-road trail network could provide greater economic benefits. Others might believe
that restoration or better maintenance of the off-road trail network might be the best way to
protect the environment, while others might believe that no changes are necessary since
the current situation provides the most benefits to the community. The choice among
options will be well informed by those individuals who are most familiar with the operations
and management of the CWMA. These individuals will also be interested in knowing how
well different management actions compare to find the best strategy that addresses the mix
of stakeholder concerns. Hence, we gathered information from the community and
stakeholders on management actions at the same time as engaging them to understand
what matters (i.e., public open house, public survey, and an informal stakeholder group, see
Nelitz and Beardmore 2015). We supplemented this information with a review of
management of polar bear tourism elsewhere. This information is summarized in Section
3.2, framed as Management Strategies. Though the focus of this review was to identify
actions that are within the control of the Manitoba government, we acknowledge that there
may be other actions within the control of the community or tour operators that may also
help achieve the objectives of interest.
Consequences represent the effects or performance of a management action relative to the
various management objectives. For instance, an increase in the number of tundra vehicles
(a management action) may increase the economic benefits to the community while
simultaneously having adverse effects on the quality of the visitor experience and leading to
increased stress or habituation of polar bears to people (different effects relative to different
objectives). In other words, consequences represent the pros and cons of different
alternatives. We used readily available data and our understanding of the interactions
among tourism, the community, and the environment to make inferences about how
different management actions would have different effects on a subset of management
objectives. A summary of the potential consequence of different management actions is
summarized in Section 3.2.3, Effect of Management Strategies on Valued Components.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
5 | P a g e
Trade-offs represent a comparison and evaluation of the performance of different
management actions against different objectives. Trade-offs involve value-based
considerations and a thoughtful weighting of different management objectives to understand
which are the most/least important and which actions result in (un)acceptable outcomes.
Trade-off evaluations eventually lead to a decision or selection of a preferred management
alternative. This review does not provide information on appropriate trade-offs. That
judgment is left to the relevant decision-makers best suited for making trade-offs among the
competing objectives of the community, stakeholders, and government managers. This
report does, however, provide a summary of Key Findings in Section 4 to clarify the current
information base for making a decision, and propose a set of Recommendations in Section
5 to help decision-makers make choices going forward.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
6 | P a g e
3. Management Context
3.1 Valued Components
The concept of “valued components” has its roots in the field of environmental assessment
where it has been applied for several decades (Beanlands and Duinker 1983). This concept
has proven useful since it encourages a scoping of the many possible issues that could be
included in an assessment into a narrower set of topics on which to focus. Given practical
constraints in resources (time, money, people), it would not be possible to assess impacts
of polar bear tourism and management on all possible “endpoints”. Furthermore, only a
subset of issues will align with the values and priorities of affected stakeholders, Aboriginal
groups, public, and/or government. Hence, valued components are typically identified
through a comprehensive review of available information and consultation with key
stakeholders. We employed various modes of engagement to identify the valued
components related polar bear tourism in and around Churchill (discussed in Section 2 and
Nelitz and Beardmore 2015). These valued components include:
Social
 *Quality of the visitor experience
 *Safety of community (e.g., visitors, operators/staff, and members of the public)
 Reputation of community (e.g., town of Churchill and current operators)
 Community cohesion (e.g., awareness and empathy for the environment,
relationships within the community)
 Cultural values and connection to natural resources
Environmental
 *Well-being of polar bears (e.g., behaviour, safety, and abundance)
 *Well-being of other wildlife
 *Condition of sub-arctic habitats
Economic
 Financial benefits from polar bear tourism
 Benefits from other resource uses (e.g., hunting & trapping, research & education)
 Local distribution of benefits from polar bear tourism
 Protection of current business investments in polar bear tourism
 Future business opportunities in polar bear tourism
 Certainty of conditions for business investments
The sections that follow provide a narrative describing these issues in varying levels of
detail. Where possible and within the scope of this review, we add a summary of the
evidence around factors that influence these valued components. Although we present the
full set of valued components here, we were only able to assess a subset of these since
some are out of scope (e.g., economic components) and others cannot easily be assessed
with available data (e.g., reputation of community, community cohesion). Components with
an asterisk (*) in the list above are described in more detail below.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
7 | P a g e
3.1.1 Social
Stakeholder consultations identified five critical social components that are affected by
management of polar bear tourism and the relevant portion of the CWMA:
 There is interest in maintaining a high quality tourist experience in town, in the
vehicles, and in the CWMA for visitors who are attracted to town and its viewing
opportunities.
 It is very important to maintain a high standard of safety for visitors involved in polar
bear tours, operators and staff who bring visitors on tours, and members of the
Churchill community who may have interactions with bears from the CWMA.
 There is a strong interest in maintaining the reputation, credibility, and performance
of the tourism experience, including the town of Churchill as a world class
destination for polar bear viewing, and current operators who have worked for many
years to develop markets for tourism and a clientele from around the world.
 It is important to maintain strong relationships among residents, operators, visitors,
government staff, and the CWMA itself. Since Churchill is a relatively small and
close knit community, community cohesion affects the functioning of the tourism
industry (e.g., management, operations, and delivery of supporting amenities). More
broadly, the unique ecology of the area offers an opportunity for raising awareness
about northern environments/communities and raising people’s empathy towards the
environment.
 There are intrinsic values associated with the CWMA and an interest in the
community to preserve the rich heritage and cultural connections to the area which
requires having an intact environment and maintaining access to undertake
important activities (e.g., hunting, recreation, enjoying nature).
Polar Bear Tourism and the Visitor Experience
Polar bear tourism in Churchill is a relatively recent phenomenon, growing from only a few
wildlife photographers in the late 1970s to between 6,000 and 10,000 tourists during the
peak viewing season in recent years (Dawson et al. 2010; Olar et al. 2011; CWS no date).
Most tourism activities occur within the CWMA, an area created in 1978 to protect polar
bear staging and denning areas, nesting grounds for geese, and habitat for caribou (CWS
no date). In 1998 a large portion of the CWMA, including Cape Churchill, was transferred
from the Government of Manitoba to the Government of Canada and Wapusk National Park
was formed. Within a small portion of the CWMA there is a designated off-road trail network
where tourism operators are permitted to operate off-road tundra vehicles to provide polar
bear viewing opportunities (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The CWMA also contains a small
built-up road network which provides access to the off-road trail network and other facilities,
such as the Northern Studies Centre. To support viewing opportunities Manitoba
Conservation and Water Stewardship allow two ecotourism companies to operate a
maximum of 18 tundra vehicles that can access off-road areas in the CWMA at any one
time. Importantly, the current distribution of tundra vehicles between tour operators is the
result of private financial transactions (i.e., sale and transfer of licenses) among operators
that occurred over recent decades.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
8 | P a g e
Figure 2: Map of vehicle routes driven by tour operators on the designated off-road trail network in the Churchill Wildlife
Management Area during two separate outings in October of the 2014 polar bear season. Route data recorded on
separate outings with each operator, distinguished by different route lines.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
9 | P a g e
The tourist season peaks in October and November as polar bears congregate in the area
waiting for the ice on Hudson Bay to form. Figure 3 shows the average number of bears
seen and the dates of operation reported by operators. Based on these data, tours tend to
operate for about 50 days with a start in early October and end near the end of November.
A study of the visitor experience conducted during the 2002 and 2003 seasons provides
baseline information on visitor socio-demographics, expectations and trip outcomes,
motivations and satisfaction, as well as wildlife values and perceptions (Lemelin 2005;
Lemelin 2006; Lemelin and Smale 2006). During those seasons, visitors generally went on
two to three outings while visiting the Churchill area (Lemelin 2005). Tundra vehicle outings
were typically about seven hours long, bringing about 18 passengers per vehicle out into
the CWMA. The average outing saw about 10 to 11 polar bears, with some outings seeing
no polar bears and some up to 20 or more (Lemelin and Smale 2006). The distance that
tundra vehicles were able to approach to bears was quite variable with an average distance
of around 180 m (Lemelin and Smale 2006). Through this research, Lemelin and Smale
(2006) attempted to determine the relative influence on the visitor experience of the number
of bears seen, their proximity, level of activity, visibility and the number of other wildlife
species seen as inferred by observations of social interactions among people on tundra
vehicles. Their analysis found that, overwhelmingly, the number of polar bears encountered
on an outing was the most significant feature in defining visitor’s bear watching experiences.
As part of this carrying capacity review, we administered a visitor survey in the 2014 tourist
season to characterize the current experience and quantify how different factors affect the
quality of the visitor experience (see Nelitz and Beardmore 2015). The visitor survey had
two parts. The first part collected some basic information about visits to Churchill and some
details around visitors’ most recent tundra excursion. A second part of the survey presented
respondents with different viewing experiences and asked to choose which from a set was
preferable (termed a discrete choice experiment, Louviere et al 2000). Each experience was
described by several attributes including wildlife viewing outcomes (number of polar bears
seen, proximity to the nearest bear, number of other notable wildlife species seen), intensity
of tundra vehicle use (reflected by the number of other vehicles viewing the bears at the
same time), and trail impacts (soil erosion and vegetation damage). Each experience also
varied in its cost relative to the cost of the package that visitors actually experienced. While
these criteria are by no means a comprehensive set of factors influencing the quality of
visitor experience, each attribute was thought to be both salient to visitors, and directly
impacted by potential changes to the operation and management of the CWMA.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
10 | P a g e
Figure 3: Graphs of the daily average number of bears seen over recent years as reported
by tour operators. A complete data set for 2012 was unavailable.
Calendar Date
Number of
Bears Seen
2013
2014
2011

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
11 | P a g e
During the 2014 season, 72 visitors responded to this survey. Most respondents (64%)
were first-time visitors to Churchill, staying on average about one week and taking two to
three tundra outings to view polar bears. The average trip in the survey saw 12 polar bears
with 78% of respondents coming within 10 meters of a bear. Visitors saw up to 5 other
notable species, dominated by ptarmigan (65% of trips) and gyrfalcon (35% of trips). On
average visitors reported seeing between 4 and 5 vehicles viewing bears at one time, and in
some instances up to 12 vehicles. While most visitors reported soil erosion or visible tread
marks (85%), only a few noticed damaged vegetation (18%).
Analyses of data from the discrete choice experiment identified the statistically significant
factors and degree to which they affect quality of the visitor experience or visitor satisfaction
(reported as part-worth utility, see Figure 4). As expected, visitors who responded to the
survey preferred to see more bears rather than fewer, and this preference had a positive
linear effect (Figure 4A). Visitors also demonstrated a significant and linear preference for
seeing more wildlife species although this effect was smaller than the effect of seeing more
bears (Figure 4B). Distance to the nearest bear was best described by a negative
logarithmic function, meaning that the most valued experience happens when visitors see a
bear up close (Figure 4C). Under 100 m the effect of getting closer is larger and more
positive than at greater distances. For example, viewing bears at 100 meters rather than
300 meters has as similar improvement to the experience as moving from 100 to 50 meters.
All visitors demonstrated a significant preference for seeing fewer vehicles around a group
of bears (Figure 4D). As with proximity to bears, this effect followed a negative logarithmic
curve, indicating that as the number of vehicles increases, the marginal effect of adding one
more diminishes. As presented to respondents, the effects of vehicle use on the landscape
(i.e., apparent soil erosion and damage to vegetation) and the relative cost were not
significant factors influencing the visitor experience. This result may be due to the fact that
the levels assigned to these factors was too narrow when compared to the perceived
changes in trip experience by altering either the wildlife outcomes or the number of vehicles
seen. For some attributes, environmental conditions could also explain this result since
snow and ice tend to hide or lessen the visibility of soil erosion or damage to vegetation.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
12 | P a g e
Figure 4: Visitor preferences for different statistically significant characteristics of the polar
bear viewing experience, presented on a common scale of visitor satisfaction
(called part-worth utility). Results are based on analyses of data from a Churchill
visitor experience survey administered in October and November of the 2014
polar bear season. See Nelitz and Beardmore (2015) for more information.
Community Safety
Given its unique location, the people of Churchill will inevitably have encounters with polar
bears in and around town. Due to their proximity to the community and fasting while waiting
for the ice to form on Hudson Bay, it is also expected that bears may behave in a way that
puts the safety of the community at risk. Research supported by the Manitoba government
in the 1990s identified three main factors that contribute to potentially harmful encounters
between people and polar bears (CWS no date):
Number of Bears Seen
Number of Other Notable
Wildlife Species Seen
Distance to Nearest Bear (m)
Number of Vehicles Viewing Bears at
the Same Time
A
B
C
D
Visitor
Satisfaction
Visitor
Satisfaction

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
13 | P a g e
 Proximity of polar bears to people;
 Presence of attractants (food and garbage); and
 Food-conditioning of polar bears.
Recognizing the potential for harm, the province of Manitoba operates the Polar Bear Alert
Program
1
to help minimize risks to the community and protect bears. The Polar Bear Alert
Program was established in 1985 (previously the Polar Bear Control Program since 1969)
and has the following objectives:
 Protect people and property from the dangers posed by the presence of polar bears;
 Ensure the conservation of polar bears and avoid undue harassment and killing of
bears;
 Prevent polar bears in the Churchill area from becoming conditioned to scavenging
for food or developing other problem behaviours; and
 Protect Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship staff who work in the Polar
Bear Alert Program.
The program is intended to be preventative by minimizing interactions between bears and
people. It includes raising public awareness about how to be safe around bears,
encouraging the public to minimize attractants, as well as hazing bears and using aversive
conditioning. A 24-hour phone line is set up for people to report bears in and around
Churchill. A core part of the program is the use of an exclusion or control zone around town
within which a bear’s presence triggers some action. If a bear is encountered within this
zone a first strategy is to encourage it to move out of the area. If unwilling to move or if it
cannot be located, a live trap may be set. A bear may also be immobilized and moved out of
the area by helicopter or destroyed if it poses a threat to people. Retained bears may be
held during the season within a Polar Bear Holding Facility and are usually released when
bears can migrate out onto the ice for feeding.
Figure 5 illustrates the number of bear occurrences and bears handled from 1969 to 2013.
The number of occurrences generally followed an increasing trend, with a larger increase
since the early 1990s. The number of bear handlings generally increased from 1969 to 2003
though has steadily declined since that time. The available evidence suggests that a few
key events and overarching influences may help explain these trends. In 1985 the strategy
of the Manitoba government shifted from the Polar Bear Control Program, which involved
more destruction of problem bears, to the Polar Bear Alert Program, which involves
preventing problems and capturing-relocating problem bears. One hypothesis is that the
decline in number of bears being destroyed may be related to the increase in the number of
problem bears since 1985 because captured bears tend to be re-encountered (Towns et al.
2009). The closure of the dump in 2005 is also a likely contributing factor since the dump
was known to be a significant attractant and this event is closely associated with recent
1
Polar Bear Alert Program in Churchill, Manitoba. See: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/spmon/pbear/pbear_alert.html

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
14 | P a g e
declines in the number of bears handled, though not related to the number of occurrences.
Underlying these broad patterns of increase is a hypothesis that changing sea ice
conditions related to earlier break-up and/or delays in sea ice formation are leading to
nutritional stress and increased interactions with bears looking for food. Research has
shown a significant, though relatively weak, relationship between number of bears handled
and date of ice break-up and freeze-up (Stirling and Parkinson 2006; Towns et al. 2009).
Based on this evidence, a combination of changes in polar bear management (destructions,
closure of dump) and changing environmental conditions seem likely as a way of explaining
observed patterns of change in bear occurrences and handlings. No data are available to
evaluate the influence of tourism activities on these patterns of interactions.
Public feedback on the Polar Bear Alert Program suggests that the effectiveness of the
program may also be linked to polar bear viewing opportunities around Churchill, outside of
the CWMA (CWS 2014). Multiple comments indicate a desire for the public and other tour
operators to see bears at different locations around Churchill without needing to partake in a
guided tour of the CWMA and that they are unable to do so because of the success of the
program in keeping bears away.
Figure 5: Number of bear occurrences and bears handled from 1969 to 2013 as reported
by the Polar Bear Alert (PBA) Program. Total costs of the program (operating and
salary costs) are also included and referenced in section 3.1.3. Data summarized
from CWS (2004; 2014).
Year
Number of
Bears
Dollars
($)

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
15 | P a g e
3.1.2 Environmental
Stakeholder consultations identified three environmental components that are highly valued
and have the potential to be affected by the management of polar bear tourism and the
CWMA. Most importantly, it was widely acknowledged that maintaining the well-being of
polar bears is critical given its vulnerability as a species and importance to the ecosystem
and broader community. This consideration includes minimizing impacts on distribution and
abundance of bears by minimizing human-bear interactions so they do not become
habituated to people, stressed/harassed due to human activities, and/or destroyed if they
threaten people in the community. The well-being of other wildlife (e.g., arctic foxes,
ptarmigans, snowy owls, arctic hares, gyrfalcons, red/cross foxes) were also identified as
important components of the sub-arctic ecosystem and provide some intrinsic value to
visitors (see Figure 4) and the community itself. Lastly, there was broad recognition and
interest in minimizing human impacts on sub-arctic habitats including the physical
environment and vegetation communities that support wildlife, tourism, resource uses, and
cultural activities in the CWMA.
Overview of Polar Bear Ecology
Polar bears are an integral part of the ecosystem of Western Hudson Bay (WHB). The WHB
population of polar bears is arguably the most famous in the world, in part due to the
tourism industry that has developed around them. They are also probably the most studied
population in the world (Stirling 2011). Like many animals at the top of the food chain, they
are physically impressive and ecologically dominant in some respects. However, they are
also very susceptible to changes in their environment. Impacts on animals lower in the food
web also affect them. As well, they reproduce slowly and need huge areas to thrive.
Generally, large predators with a narrow range of food habits are among the most
susceptible animals to endangerment and extinction (Purvis et al. 2000; Estes et al. 2011).
The Polar Bear Status Group of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the
world’s most recognized scientific group related to polar bear populations, estimates there
are about 20,000 – 25,000 bears in the world.
2
About 60% of the world’s bears live wholly or
partly in Canada. With a population of about 1,000 animals, the WHB population makes up
a significant component of the global population (IUCN 2014).
In general terms, the ecology of the WHB population is relatively well known. Figure 6
summarizes the timing of key movements and events for WHB polar bears over the course
of a year. Bears gather along the shore of Hudson Bay in the fall waiting for the ice on the
Bay to freeze. They congregate near Churchill, and further north, because these locations
are where the ice forms earliest. As soon as they can (generally around mid-November) all
bears except pregnant females, head out onto the ice and spend the next eight months or
so feeding. The primary food of the WHB population is ringed seals, which make up about
70% of their diet; bearded seals, harbour seals, and harp seals make up the majority of the
2
IUCN. Global polar bear population estimates. See: http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/pb-global-estimate.html

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
16 | P a g e
Figure 6: Diagram showing the approximate timing of polar bear activities, snow/ice cover, and tourism operations in Western
Hudson Bay. The dotted line ( ) refers to sub-adults and adult male bears, the thatched line ( ) refers to
pregnant/nursing females and cubs, and the solid line ( ) refers to all bears.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
17 | P a g e
remainder of their diet (Thiemann et al. 2008). Females with young-of-the-year cubs head
out onto the ice between late February and late March, when the young are strong enough
to accompany their mothers (Peacock et al. 2010). The key period for bears to feed on the
ice is during ringed seal pupping, which ranges from March to May on Hudson Bay
(Peacock et al. 2010). Bears mate on the ice between April and June, and don’t return to
land until break-up which usually occurs in July. When bears are on land they are
essentially fasting and feeding only opportunistically (Obbard and Walton 2011; Richardson
2009). The period of very little food intake is especially long for pregnant females, which
come off the ice in July, but don’t return until their cubs are old enough in February or March
– a period of seven or eight months.
Size of Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Population
Although the WHB bears have been intensively studied, the size and status of the WHB
polar bear population is the source of some confusion. This issue has relevance to
management and operations of polar bear tourism and the CWMA since it affects people’s
perception about the current status and outlook of polar bears in the region. A number of
factors contribute to the confusion around population size, including uncertainty about the
size of the historic population, varying scientific estimates of recent population size, and
differences between scientific and anecdotal observations.
As recounted by Stirling (2011), historic Information on the size of the population is largely
absent. The bear population along the west coast of Hudson Bay did not attract much
attention until after a military base was established near Churchill in the early 1940’s. Bears
were likely killed by military personnel for self-defence and other purposes, but no estimates
of the population were made. In the following decades the population size may have
responded to a number of factors, including closure of the Hudson Bay Company post at
York Factory in 1957 leading to a reduction in trapping to supply the post, withdrawal of the
Canadian army from Fort Churchill in 1964, and introduction of hunting quotas for Inuit
settlements in Nunavut in 1968. Although increasing numbers of bears were seen in the
autumn along the coast near Churchill following these events, no population estimates were
made. So there is no accurate historic measure to use as a comparison with current
population estimates.
A scientific publication from 2007 (Regehr et al. 2007) analyzed polar bear captures along
the west coast of Hudson Bay and concluded that the WHB population had declined from
almost 1,200 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004. However, a 2014 publication (Stapleton et al.
2014) reported that the population included 1,030 bears, with 95% confidence intervals of
between 754 and 1,406 animals. This finding was somewhat of a surprise given the
downward population trajectory reported by Regehr et al. (2007). This latter result has been
inferred by some as an indication that the bear population is not declining or has not
declined. A caution around this inference is that these two studies used very different
methods to count and estimate the number of bears. The earlier study (Regehr et al. 2007)
used a mark-recapture approach where the population is estimated based on the proportion
of marked animals found in a sample that includes both marked and unmarked individuals.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
18 | P a g e
The more recent study (Stapleton et al. 2014) was based on an extensive and detailed
aerial survey. Not only are the two approaches different, but the more recent work also
observed large numbers of bears in areas that were not regularly sampled in the earlier
mark-recapture analysis. Since the two approaches are not comparable, caution must be
used in comparing their results. For several reasons the results of Stapleton et al. (2014)
may be more accurate than those reported earlier, but it does not necessarily follow that the
more recent estimate is indicative of an increase in population size. Both studies were
conducted using well-established scientific approaches, which can lead to confusion among
non-technical audiences and a lack of trust in these types of scientific findings.
Another issue that contributes to the confusion around population size relates to the
observations and experience of local residents. Logically, one may suppose that if the polar
bear population is smaller, then fewer interactions or incidents between bears and people
would occur. As noted by an increase in the number of bear occurrences in Figure 5, this
reality may not be the case around Churchill. There have also been an increase in the
number of bear sightings reported along the Hudson Bay coast north of Churchill from
Arviat to Rankin Inlet (Tyrell 2006, P. Ewins World Wildlife Fund, 2015 pers. comm.) and an
increase in the number of bears shot in that area (Stirling 2011). Other evidence suggests
that these interactions may be due to the fact that bears are suffering from hunger. Stirling
and Parkinson (2006) found a significant relationship between the date of sea-ice breakup
and the number of problem bears handled in Churchill. Towns et al. (2009) also reported a
similar relationship between the date of freeze-up and the number of bears handled. Taken
together these considerations suggest that the number of problem bears may not be related
to the total number of bears in the population. If bears are hungry as a result of early ice
break-up or late freeze-up, that change in their environment may well lead to increased
encounters with humans as the bears search for food more intensively while on land.
Human and Environmental Factors Influencing Polar Bears
Given the focus of this review on the interactions among polar bears, their environment
(including climate change) and tourism, it is important to explore the critical pathways of
influence and more detailed aspects that affect the region’s ecology. Figure 7 provides a
detailed box and arrow diagram (a conceptual model) illustrating the relationships among
factors that affect bears and their environment, as well as the other valued components
identified by stakeholders (i.e., other wildlife and sub-arctic habitats). Critical outcomes or
valued components are shown as blue ovals, which include the health, population status
and trends of polar bears, the health and status of other wildlife, and the condition of sub-
arctic habitats. Based on a review of available evidence and peer review, there are two
broad categories of forcings that have the potential to affect these valued components –
human factors, including tourism, (shown in grey) and climate factors (shown in yellow).
These linkages represent a wide range of possible pathways-of-effect that have the
potential for impacts on bears, other wildlife, and sub-arctic habitats. Some pathways have
a strong basis in science or local observation while others are more hypothetical. A
summary of the potential pathways is provided in Table 1. More detail around these
pathways and the supporting evidence is provided in Appendices A and B.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
19 | P a g e
Figure 7: Conceptual model illustrating linkages and pathways-of-effect that influence polar bears, other wildlife, and subarctic
habitats in Western Hudson Bay based on a summary of available scientific evidence and peer review.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
20 | P a g e
Table 1: Overview of the pathways-of-effect illustrated in Figure 7. Pathway numbers (in brackets) refer to the individual
pathways-of-effect described in more detail in Appendix A.
Pathways-of-effect
Description of pathway
Climate change
impacts on Hudson Bay
and sea ice extent
(Pathways 1-12)
Underlying the impacts of climate change on bears is the expected effect on Hudson Bay’s ice cover. A
number of studies have documented either a trend for earlier ice break up and/or a trend for reduced ice
coverage of the Bay (Stirling et al. 1999; Gough et al. 2004; Gagnon and Gough 2005; Stirling and
Parkinson 2006; Stirling and Derocher 2012, etc.). Future projections of the extent of sea ice loss from a
wide variety of computer models all show declining Arctic sea ice (Stroeve et al. 2007). Actual annual
measurements taken from aerial surveys and photographic data over the last several decades confirm
that sea ice loss is consistent with the most pessimistic scenario from computer models (i.e., data from
National Snow and Ice Data Centre). Although these results are for the Arctic Ocean more broadly, it is
reasonable to expect the same trend will apply to WHB as evidenced by the model predictions specifically
for the region (Castro de la Guardia et al. 2013).
Climate change
impacts on availability
of food for polar bears
(Pathways 1-4 and 11)
If the ice does not persist as long on WHB, or if ice coverage is not as extensive, there will be less time
and area available for bears to feed. Given that ringed seal, polar bear’s main food source, is also
dependent on sea ice, it may also be affected by the same climatic influences as polar bears (Ferguson
et al. 2005; Chambellant 2010). There are complex scenarios regarding the possible northward migration
of seal species which are at present rarely used by bears (e.g., harp and hooded seals). Future changes
in alternative food sources complicate projections of food availability (Derocher et al. 2004). There is
some evidence that feeding on land during the ice-free season may increase (Gomezano and Rockwell
2013; Rockwell and Gormenzano 2009). There is little evidence that this increase would be sufficient to
offset negative effect of lost ice-based feeding opportunities (Rode et al. 2015). Adult male polar bears
are known to cannibalize other bears, particularly cubs (Derocher et al. 2004) and there is some evidence
suggesting the frequency of occurrence is increasing in areas where bears fast on land for extended
periods, although the potential population-level effects are not known (Stirling and Derocher 2012)
Climate change
impacts on polar bears
due to displacement
and denning
(Pathways 5 and 6)
With the earlier ice break up, bears may come ashore further south than their traditional areas and may
be forced to travel back on land at a greater energetic costs or through unfamiliar territory (Derocher et al.
2004). Spatial fidelity to terrestrial habitat, including denning locations may be affected by sea ice
movement and break-up (Cherry et al. 2013). A warming climate will affect the stability of permafrost
which may affect integrity of dens (Obbard and Walton 2011). There have been instances in which
permafrost, made unstable by warming, has caused dens to cave in thereby killing the bears inside or
forcing them out and interrupting the denning season (Stirling 2011).

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
21 | P a g e
Pathways-of-effect
Description of pathway
Climate change
impacts related to
increased disease and
pathogen infection
(Pathway 12)
Bears that are food-stressed may have compromised immune systems and therefore be more vulnerable
to disease or parasites (Derocher et al. 2004). Food-stressed bears may eat more of the intestines and
internal organs of seals, increasing exposure to parasites or viruses (Derocher et al. 2004). Harvell et al.
(2002) and Post et al. (2013) note that pathogens may expand ranges northward as the climate warms,
bringing new pathogens and disease vectors into contact with polar bears.
Climate change
impacts on polar bears
related to increased
human contact and
lethal removal of bears
(Pathway 7)
A study of the documented increase in problem bear incidents in Churchill from 1970 to 2004
hypothesized that the increased nutritional stress related to shorter ice-free seasons may be a
contributing factor to this change (Towns et al. 2009). Although fewer bears are being killed around
Churchill, there is speculation that problem bears are now being killed in Nunavut (Tyrell 2006). Inuit and
scientific observations agree that there are now more bears in proximity to communities than in the past
(Tyrell 2006).There is also agreement among scientists that the number and frequency of bear-human
conflicts “will likely increase in the future because the warming Arctic climate restricts bear’s access to
sea ice and forces them to spend more time on land” (Clark et al. 2012).
Climate change
impacts on polar bears
related to increased
industrial development
(Pathways 8-10)
With a longer ice-free season and milder climate, there may be an increase in development of terrestrial
and aquatic environments in the Hudson Bay area, primarily related to shipping and mining (Peacock et
al. 2010). The resulting increase in human population may bring bears into contact with people more
often (Vongraven et al. 2012). Impacts related to oil spills and other pollution will have negative effects on
bears and their food (McKinnon and Abraham 2011, Schliebe et al. 2006).
Tourism impacts on
bears related to human
contact
(Pathway 13 and 15)
Some research has shown that bears show increased vigilance behaviour in the presence of tundra
vehicles, which may cause stress (Dyck and Baydack 2004; 2006, Eckhardt 2005). Others have
suggested that these effects, if they exist, would be minor partly because only a small portion of the WHB
population overlaps with the regulated viewing area (Stirling et al. 2008; Obbard and Walton 2011).
Another concern is that bears may become increasing habituated to tourist activities (Lemelin 2006),
which could lead to more negative interactions and lethal removal of bears (COSEWIC 2008).
Tourism impacts on the
environment
(Pathway 14)
Although there is little evidence, the same concerns regarding polar bear avoidance and vigilance related
to tourism, may exist for other wildlife species which occur in the main tourist area (e.g. arctic foxes,
snowy owls). Damage to the fragile sites within the tourism area can occur as a result of continued or
increased use of tundra vehicles. Figure 8 through Figure 11 provide aerial photographs of the CWMA
across four time periods and show the increasing level of disturbance to the landscape over time (1947,
1974, 1993, and 2006). Figure 12 shows images of the physical changes to the terrain in the CWMA as a
result of vehicle use.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
22 | P a g e
Figure 8: Air photo mosaic from 1947 for a portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area representing the landscape prior to any human development.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
23 | P a g e
Figure 9: Air photo mosaic from 1974 for a portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area representing the landscape following a period of military presence and prior to development of the first tourism operations.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
24 | P a g e
Figure 10: Air photo mosaic from 1993 for a portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area representing the landscape at a mid-point in the timeline of development of tourism operations.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
25 | P a g e
Figure 11: Air photo mosaic from 2006 for a portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area representing the landscape under recent tourism operations.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
26 | P a g e
Figure 12: Images of the physical disturbance to sub-arctic habitats in the Churchill Wildlife
Management Area as a result of vehicle use. Photos from Elliott (2001).

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
27 | P a g e
Expert Judgments on Factors Influencing Polar Bears
We engaged a group of highly knowledgeable technical experts (see Appendix C) to review
the above conceptual model and supporting evidence, as well as to provide supplementary
information to help identify the most important influences on polar bears and related sub-
arctic habitats. In particular this group provided a peer review of the conceptual model and
related pathways to provide feedback on the plausibility, potential for exposure, and
supporting evidence. Feedback was also requested to ensure there were no missing
pathways and/or linkages in the conceptual model (Figure 7, Appendices A and B reflect the
results of this peer review). Structured survey methods (Nelitz and Beardmore in press;
Martin et al. 2011) were also used to elicit and compare judgments of experts regarding the
strength of influence and certainty of evidence underlying the full set of pathways identified
in the conceptual models, as well as actions that have been identified as potential ways for
managing tourism operations in the CWMA (see Section 3.2.1).
Results from the expert survey are presented in Figure 13 through Figure 16. Bars in these
figures represent the average response across experts with error bars showing the variation
in responses across experts (using 95% confidence intervals). The strength of influence of
the fifteen pathways-of-effect (summarized in Table 2) presented in the conceptual model
were rated by experts using a standard 5-point scale ranging from least important to most
important (Figure 13). Two pathways were distinctly rated as the most important when
compared to all others:
 climate induced changes in timing and duration of sea ice leading to effects on marine
feeding opportunities (Pathway 1); and
 climate induced changes in the availability of marine prey (Pathway 2).
There was also low variation in responses across experts for these two pathways as
denoted by the small error bars.
The next group of pathways, rated as being moderately to more important, included:
 climate induced changes leading to displacement of bears from traditional denning
areas (Pathway 5);
 climate induced changes to permafrost leading to changes in denning success
(Pathway 6);
 climate induced changes in timing of sea ice leading to increases in the number of
lethal interactions with people (Pathway 7);
 climate induced changes in availability of marine prey leading to increases in the level
of contamination in the food of polar bears (Pathway 3); and
 increased tourism leading to habituation of bears and increases in lethal removal
(Pathway 14).
With the exception of Pathway 5, there was higher variation across experts in the relative
importance of these pathways.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
28 | P a g e
Table 2: Complete list of all individual pathways-of-effect illustrated in Figure 7 and described in more detail in Appendix A.
Pathway-of-effect
Description of pathway
(1) Climate change and marine
feeding opportunities
Climate change and related changes in duration of ice on Western Hudson Bay lead to polar bear
population declines as a result of fewer feeding opportunities on primary prey species.
(2) Climate change and marine
prey availability
Climate change induced impacts on the Western Hudson Bay thermal regime affects the relative
availability of marine species leading to population level impacts on polar bears
(3) Climate change,
contamination, and marine prey
Climate change induced impacts on the Western Hudson Bay thermal regime affects the relative
availability of marine prey species leading to increased contaminants in the food of polar bears
leading to population level impacts.
(4) Climate change and
terrestrial prey
Climate change induced impacts on the Western Hudson Bay thermal regime and date of ice thaw
lead to changes in relative abundance of alternative (terrestrial) prey affecting polar bear pop’ns.
(5) Climate change and habitat
displacement
Climate change induced changes in the date of ice thaw lead to displacement of bears from
traditional denning areas leading to health impacts and changes in polar bear population levels.
(6) Climate change and denning
success
Climate change induced changes in the condition of permafrost lead to changes in denning
success of bears and changes in polar bear population levels.
(7) Climate change and human
interaction
Climate change induced changes in the dates of freeze-up and thaw lead to increased human
interactions leading to increased lethal removal of polar bears.
(8) Climate change, industrial
activities, & human pop’n growth
Climate change induced increases in ice-free duration increase industrial activities leading to
increased human population and increased lethal removal of polar bears.
(9) Climate change, industrial
activities, and contamination
Climate change induced increases in ice-free duration increase industrial activities leading to
increased contaminants in environment which affects health and population level of polar bears.
(10) Climate change, industry
activities, and disrupted mov’t
Climate change induced increases in ice-free duration increase industrial activities disrupting the
movements of polar bears, increasing their stress and affecting their health and population levels.
(11) Climate change, feeding
opportunities, and cannibalism
Reduced opportunities to feed on seals lead to an increase in cannibalism of hunger-stressed
adult males on cubs.
(12) Climate change and
disease
Through a variety of mechanisms, climate change cause an increase in disease and pathogen
infection leading to decreases in polar bear health with implications on population levels.
(13) Tourism and avoidance
behaviour of bears
Increased tourism elevates stress on polar bears through changes in vigilance and avoidance
behaviours and affects their health and population level.
(14) Tourism & bear habituation
Increased tourism leads to habituation of bears resulting in an increase in lethal removal.
(15) Tourism, site damage, and
wildlife including bears
Increased tourism damages the local ecosystem causing local impacts on habitats for other
wildlife species and polar bears.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
29 | P a g e
Figure 13: Expert ratings on the strength of influence of the various pathways-of-effect
influencing polar bears using a five-point scale from least to most important. Error
bars represent 95% confidence intervals around each mean based on variation in
responses across experts. Pathway numbers are referenced in Table 2 and
described in more detail in Appendix A.
Least
important
Moderately
important
Most
important

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
30 | P a g e
The group of pathways rated as being less to moderately important included:
 climate induced changes leading to an increase in disease and pathogen infection
(Pathway 12);
 climate induced changes in industrial activities leading to increased contaminants in
the environment (Pathway 9);
 climate induced changes in industrial activities leading to increases in human
population and lethal interactions (Pathway 8);
 increased tourism leading to site damage and impacts on habitats (Pathway 15);
 climate induced changes in industrial activities leading to disruption in movement of
bears (Pathway 10);
 reduced opportunities to feed on seals leading to increased cannibalism (Pathway 11);
 increased tourism leading to elevated stress on bears and changes in vigilance and
avoidance behaviour (Pathway 13); and
 climate induced changes in relative abundance of terrestrial prey (Pathway 4).
Noteworthy is that there was a relatively low variation in responses across experts for
Pathways 8 and 10 (denoting general agreement across experts on importance of these
pathways involving industrial activities). All tourism pathways (Pathways 13, 14, and 15)
were associated with a relatively high level of variation in opinion among experts on the
importance of these pathways compared to most other pathways.
The certainty of evidence of these fifteen pathways-of-effect were also rated by experts
using a standard 6-point scale ranging from not applicable, the pathway is not plausible to
theoretically a concern, but no empirical studies yet demonstrate significance of concern to
widespread agreement and strong evidence from multiple sources and/or locations (see
Figure 14). In general, pathways rated as moderately to most important in Figure 13 were
also noted as having a relatively high certainty of evidence (Pathways 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 14).
An exception was Pathway 5 (related to habitat displacement due to climate change) which
was rated as moderately to more important, though denoted as having weaker evidence.
There was also a higher level of variation among experts on the certainty of evidence
related to Pathway 15 (site damage from tourism).
Focusing on tourism related influences, the importance of tourism pathways and
management actions are presented in Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively. Consistent
with the results in Figure 13, the effect of tourism on habituation of polar bears (Pathway 14)
was distinctly and consistently ranked as the most important by experts (Figure 15). Given
the set of potential management actions presented to experts (see Figure 16 and Table 3),
the number of vehicles was rated as having the most important influence on polar bears
with a relatively high level of agreement across experts. Managing the spatial extent of
vehicle access, as well as the nature and type of permit conditions were rated as more
important ways to manage tourism impacts on polar bears. Lodge management was seen
as moderately important, though there was higher variation among experts on its
importance. Compliance/enforcement and managing the timing of vehicle access were seen
as having a less to moderately important influence on polar bears.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
31 | P a g e
Figure 14: Expert ratings on the certainty of evidence underlying various pathways-of-effect
influencing polar bears using a six-point scale from not applicable to theoretically
a concern to widespread agreement. Error bars represent 95% confidence
intervals around each mean based on variation in responses across experts.
Pathway numbers are referenced in Table 2 and described in more detail in
Appendix A.
Evidence is
preliminary
Widespread
agreement
Theoretically
a concern

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
32 | P a g e
Figure 15: Expert ratings on a ranking of importance of the tourism-related pathways-of-
effect influencing polar bears. The tallest vertical bar represents the pathway with
the highest rank of importance. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
around each mean based on variation in responses across experts. Pathway
numbers are referenced in Table 2 and described in more detail in Appendix A.
Figure 16: Expert ratings on a ranking of importance of management actions based on their
potential to have an influence on polar bears using a five-point scale from least to
most important. Management actions are summarized in Table 3 and described
in more detail in Section 3.2.1. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals
around each mean based on variation in responses across experts.
Least
important
Moderately
important
Most
important
Management
actions
Rank
Order
1
(highest)
2
3

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
33 | P a g e
Table 3: Summary of the categories of management actions presented to experts to elicit
their judgments on factors influencing polar bears.
Management actions
Description of actions
Permit conditions
Control over the type and level of restrictions imposed upon tour
operators operating within the relevant portion of the Churchill
Wildlife Management Area (e.g., proximity to bears, safety
procedures, type of allowable vehicles).
Vehicle management
Control over the maximum number of tundra vehicles allowed
within the designated off-road trail network of the Churchill Wildlife
Management Area.
Lodge management
Control over the presence, number, location, and wastewater
management practices of overnight lodges within the relevant
portion of the Churchill Wildlife Management Area.
Access management:
Spatial extent
Control over the size of area and specific locations that tundra
vehicles can access within the relevant portion of the Churchill
Wildlife Management Area.
Access management:
Timing
Control over the seasonal and daily timing of access of tundra
vehicles within the relevant portion of the Churchill Wildlife
Management Area.
Compliance/
enforcement
Level of in-season monitoring of compliance with permit
conditions and enforcement if tour operators are in violation of
conditions.
Implications of Climate Change
Scientists from around the world working together through the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) have evaluated and summarized evidence around climate change
since the Panel was formed in 1988. A recent assessment report from the IPCC indicates
there is no reasonable doubt that the earth’s climate is changing (IPCC 2013). This report
states that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of
the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and
ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen,
and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.” This report adds that “Each
of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the
warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years”.
Concerns related to the impact of climate change on WHB polar bears are consistent with
these overall findings that document warming and changes in precipitation across the
planet. In the Arctic, projections of changes in sea ice extent across 13 different models and
emission scenarios show a consistent pattern of decline in sea ice extent (Figure 17). These
trends are supported by actual observations of decline in sea ice (see inset of Figure 17),
which are consistent with the most pessimistic projection of future changes. Evidence of
local warming and changing environmental conditions is substantiated by observations
around Hudson Bay (see Figure 18, Gagnon and Gough 2005). Data also show that the
timing of ice break-up on Western Hudson Bay has shown a step-like change (as opposed

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
34 | P a g e
to a gradual shift in earlier timing) with the average date being about 13 days later from
1971 to 1988 than more recent years from 1989 to 2008 (Scott and Marshall 2010). The
potential impacts of climate change on polar bears and sub-arctic habitats, such as sea ice
and permafrost, are supported by multiple pathways and many studies that support the
direction of change and plausibility of the underlying mechanisms that are expected to lead
to impacts on polar bears (see Figure 7, Table 1, and summary of evidence in Appendix A).
There is much uncertainty about how the future will unfold, however. Recognizing that we
cannot predict the future with much confidence, scenarios are a useful way of providing a
structured account of the future based on different assumptions about how key drivers may
change (Duinker and Greig 2007). Ultimately the alternative assumptions underlying a set of
scenarios represent different narratives about the future which should be plausible and
based on historic observations, as well as available forecasts. Based on our research, key
drivers of change in Western Hudson Bay relate to future climate conditions, sea ice,
permafrost, marine community, terrestrial community, contaminants, and the adaptive
capacity of polar bears. Different assumptions about how these drivers will unfold form the
basis for developing the range of scenarios presented in Table 4.
Figure 17: Modelled projections of changes in Arctic sea ice extent (in millions of square km)
under different emissions scenarios (from Stroeve et al. 2007). Actual changes in
sea ice extent from 1979 to 2015 are illustrated by the thick solid line and in the
inset (data from National Snow and Ice Data Centre).
Sea Ice
Extent
Year
Actual changes in Arctic sea ice
extent (1979-2015)
Modelled changes in Arctic sea ice extent

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
35 | P a g e
Figure 18: Average temperature deviations from the long term average during the summer
from two climate stations along the Hudson Bay coastline (Churchill, MB and
Moosonee, ON). Data indicate an increase in average summer temperature of
1.9 °C from 1950 to 2007 at these locations. Figure from Abraham et al. (2011).
Below we describe a realistic range of plausible scenarios of change and their potential to
influence local ecosystems over the next several decades. These scenarios were
developed based on a review of available evidence about local ecosystems and studies that
project future conditions for the region (e.g., Stroeve et al. 2007; Amstrup et al. 2010;
Stirling and Derocher 2012). This mix of scenarios is consistent with the balance of
evidence that indicates a unidirectional change in Hudson Bay ecosystems as a result of
warming air temperatures and accompanying changes to sea ice.
Optimistic: Though this scenario may be unlikely, there are some predictions that an
optimistic outcome may be possible (Amstrup et al. 2010). An optimistic scenario is based
on two key assumptions. First, it requires that global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions are aggressive and successful. The implications of such efforts are that climate
warming will be milder than expected, resulting in minimal additional impacts on the timing,
duration, and circulation of sea ice in WHB. Impacts on permafrost and changes to
marine/terrestrial community composition will also be minimized. A second key assumption
is that subarctic habitats and key wildlife, such as polar bears, will express a strong capacity
to adapt and persist in the face of some unavoidable changes through phenological,
behavioural, and/or physiological adjustments. This means, for instance, that polar bears
may increase the proportion of bearded seals in their diet and increase terrestrial prey (e.g.,
snow goose, caribou) to compensate for a lack of access to ringed seals or a more
prolonged fasting period that might result from a mild shift in climate and sea ice conditions.
Such adaptations might also include, for instance, a reduction in body size across the
population given some changes in food availability and fasting requirements.
Average
Temperature
Deviation (°C)
Year

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
36 | P a g e
Table 4: Summary of key drivers/uncertainties that influence wildlife and habitats under different plausible scenarios of future
change in Western Hudson Bay.
Key driver
Description of driver
Alternative scenarios
Optimistic
Surprise-free
Pessimistic
Disastrous
Future
climate
Magnitude of future warming (associated with
actual GHG mitigation) with cascading impacts on
other biophysical drivers (e.g., timing of sea ice,
permafrost, marine and terrestrial species
composition).
Mild warming due
to strong GHG
mitigation
Moderate warming
consistent with
average assumed
GHG mitigation
Moderate warming
consistent with
average assumed
GHG mitigation
Significant warming
associated with
weak GHG
mitigation
Sea ice
Impacts of warming on timing (earlier thaw, later
freeze), duration, and circulation of sea ice in
WHB.
Minor changes
Modest changes
Modest changes
Major changes
Permafrost
Impacts of warming on spring rain and extent of
permafrost, having potential impacts on habitats
and valued species.
Minor changes
Modest changes
Modest changes
Major changes
Marine
community
Species composition and relative abundance of
marine prey species (e.g., changes in abundance
of seals).
Minor changes
Modest changes
Modest changes
Major changes
Terrestrial
community
Species composition and relative abundance of
terrestrial prey species (e.g., changes in snow
geese and caribou populations).
Minor changes
Modest changes
Modest changes
Major changes
Contaminants
Exposure of valued species (polar bears) to
contaminants due to potential changes in food
webs (e.g., abundance of bearded and ringed
seals) and their ability to switch prey.
Moderate exposure
High exposure
Low exposure
Moderate exposure
Adaptive
capacity
Ability of subarctic habitats and valued species
(polar bears) to adapt through phenological
(timing), physiological (adjust size), or behavioural
(switch prey, movement) adaptations.
Strong
Strong
Weak
Weak

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
37 | P a g e
Surprise-free: Given recently observed changes in sub-arctic habitats and population
inferences around polar bears, a scenario where the current situation persists without
surprises would include modest declines in the local polar bear population and alterations in
sub-arctic habitats (through permafrost and species changes). This scenario is based on an
assumed climate warming associated with a model ensemble or average of projected
emissions, leading to a modest global average warming of more than 1°C and substantial
changes in sea ice extent and duration, as well as continued shifts in marine and terrestrial
community composition. Based on these projections, there may also be an increase in the
frequency of extreme conditions/events interspersed among years with more normal
conditions (e.g., more years with an extremely short ice-free period, such as in 1990).
Optimistically, this scenario assumes that climate impacts on local ecosystems will be
moderated due to a strong adaptive capacity to persist in the face of unavoidable changes
(e.g., shifting food sources, adjusting behavior in response to changes in timing/location of
sea ice, changes in body size). As a result of adjustments in their diet, polar bears may also
be more exposed to contaminants, thereby leading to additional physiological stress. Due to
unavoidable changes in the duration of sea ice, there may be observations of a greater
number of polar bears along the coastline and near communities since bears will need to
wait and forage longer on the coast waiting for the ice to freeze up (as has already been
observed along the Hudson Bay coast).
Pessimistic: This scenario assumes modest mitigation efforts that are insufficient to avoid
significant climate warming and climate impacts. The resulting impacts are the same as in
the surprise-free scenario above: (1) significant declines in sea ice duration and extent,
punctuated by an increase in years with extreme conditions alongside changes in sea ice
circulation in WHB; (2) continued deterioration of permafrost due to warming and rain
events; and (3) continued shifts in marine and terrestrial community composition. A key
difference, however, is that the adaptive capacity of the local ecosystem is weak since the
time scale of observed changes is too short and insufficient to allow for currently observed
changes in the ecosystem to result in the persistent population level adaptations that are
typically observed across longer evolutionary time scales. As a result, key outcomes
associated with this scenario include more pronounced declines in key wildlife species,
such as polar bears, and more dramatic alterations in local habitats than in the degraded
scenario. Similar to the degraded scenario, local populations of key wildlife would persist
and would likely include more observations of bears along the coastline and near
communities as a result of changing behavior due to shifting ice conditions, and would not
be indicative of an increase in population size.
Disastrous: This scenario assumes weak mitigation resulting in extreme climate warming
and major climate impacts that are more significant than the above scenarios. A key feature
of this scenario would be a dramatic change in sea ice conditions/permafrost warming that
is incomparable to historic and more recent observations. Such a change may include a
dramatic shortening, nearly complete loss of sea ice season, an occurrence of several
years of extremely short ice-free periods which has significant effects on local ecosystems,
and/or dramatic changes in the circulation of sea ice in WHB. For polar bears this change

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
38 | P a g e
would mean they are unable to get sufficient nutrition from the short ice season, leading to
deteriorating body condition, decreased reproductive rates, and/or a significant decrease in
survival across all life stages – cubs, subadults, females, and adult males. For other
species, this change would result in significant changes in other marine mammals (e.g.,
ringed seals) which rely on ice for breeding habitat and more habitat for open-water species
(e.g., orcas, narwhales). The pace of these climate impacts would be too rapid to allow for
any phenological, behavioural, and/or physiological adaptations, meaning that the
population levels of key wildlife, such as polar bears, would be at critically low levels.
Although these scenarios represent a realistic range of how the future may unfold, we add
that it can be challenging for people to accept them when using history as a reference point.
Hydro-meteorological observations are increasingly showing that the past can no longer be
used as an indication of the future (Milly et al. 2008). Greenhouse gas emissions and
warming trends are following an accelerating trajectory, meaning that we can expect more
intense and irreversible warming along with time lags in changes regardless of how well
greenhouse gas emissions are controlled today (IPCC 2013). In other words, we are not yet
beyond the normal range of conditions that have been observed historically (Mora et al.
2013). The purpose of developing these scenarios is to explore how plausible changes in
the environment, largely driven by climate change, will affect polar bears, other wildlife, and
sub-arctic habitats in the Churchill area, not to speculate which single scenario is most
likely. They are useful context for understanding, evaluating, and planning alternative
management strategies to identify opportunities for how the community, tourism operations,
and the local ecosystem can persist regardless of which of these alternative futures unfolds.
Noteworthy is that these scenarios represent future changes in environmental conditions,
not socio-economic ones (e.g., level and type of development, population size and
demographics).
3.1.3 Economic
Six specific valued economic components were identified through the stakeholder
consultations. These considerations can be divided into two categories: financial benefits
(tourism and non-tourism benefits) and economic welfare (equity, fairness, opportunity, and
certainty of benefits). Financial benefits were described by those interested in seeing the
maximum financial benefits from both polar bear tourism and other resource uses in the
CWMA (e.g., hunting and trapping, research and education), while acknowledging the
realistic constraints of the system (e.g., well-being of polar bears, safety of community).
Based on a recognition that the surrounding landscape and its wildlife (including bears) are
a public resource, considerations were raised which relate to maximizing the community
welfare of these financial benefits. From an equity point of view, there was an interest in
seeing greater local involvement in the opportunities and benefits from polar bear tourism
(jobs and money). From a fairness perspective, there was recognition of a need to protect
past/current investments (jobs, money, marketing, and infrastructure) that honours the
transactions, financial risks, and efforts of current permit holders, as well as other
investments in the community and elsewhere. Related to matters of opportunity, there was

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
39 | P a g e
interest among stakeholders in encouraging ongoing and future investments (jobs, money,
marketing, and infrastructure) for both current permit holders to sustainably continue their
operations and potentially new permit holders who would like to participate in polar bear
viewing in the CWMA. Lastly, there was an interest in seeing greater certainty for
businesses around polar bear viewing opportunities and related management to support
ongoing investments in the industry.
These types of economic considerations were beyond the scope of this review. To provide
some context, however, a preliminary review of publically available information revealed
some estimates on total economic benefits, economic value of polar bears, and investments
of different organizations in polar bears and the related tourism industry. These estimates
include the following:
 Total tourism spending in Manitoba in 2004 was in the range of $1.42 billion based
on 6.9 million visitors (NDMF 2008);
 In the 2000s, the economic benefits of all nature tourism in Churchill were estimated
at over $3 million dollars per year, with polar bear viewing generating around $2
million per season, about 10% of its residents’ total income (Lemelin 2005; 2006;
ÉcoRessources Consultants 2011);
 Other businesses in Churchill (restaurants, bars, grocery store, etc) receive
additional and indirect benefits from tourism spending in the community which has
not been quantified (ÉcoRessources Consultants 2011);
 There is a significant non-market value for Canadian and foreign tourists who view
and photograph polar bears in Churchill, quantified at $4.9 million per year;
 The operating and salary costs of the Polar Bear Alert program from 2009 to 2013
was an average of about $300,000 per year (see Figure 5, CWS 2014);
 Across all jurisdictions, the Canadian government recently invested $5 million over 5
years in polar bear research (ÉcoRessources Consultants 2011); and
 In 2009 the Manitoba government announced an investment of $31 million to create
the International Polar Bear Conservation Centre at the Assiniboine Park Zoo
(Government of Manitoba 2014), which has since been established.
3
Though this information is somewhat useful as context, it appears there are few other data
available that provide more detail on the economic conditions of Churchill. As such, any
inferences about how polar bear tourism and management of the CWMA affect the
economy would rely on local and/or expert knowledge about the industry’s financial benefits
and effect on community welfare. If there was an interest in addressing these gaps, we
anticipate that total financial benefits (from tourism and non-tourism activities) are likely
easier to estimate than measures of economic welfare (equity, fairness, opportunity, and
certainty) given the nature of the underlying information.
3
International Polar Bear Conservation Centre. http://www.assiniboinepark.ca/zoo/home/conserve/international-polar-bear-
conservation-centre

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
40 | P a g e
3.2 Management Strategies
Management strategies represent the range or combination of actions that could be
implemented to help protect the valued components discussed in Section 3.1 and better
achieve the related objectives for managing polar bear tourism and the CWMA. The focus
of this review was to identify strategies or actions that are within the control of the Manitoba
government, though actions within the control of the community or tour operators will also
be useful for achieving the broader objectives of the CWMA.
3.2.1 Perspectives from Churchill Stakeholders
Perspectives on how to manage polar bear tourism and the CWMA will be well informed by
those who are most familiar with the community and tourism industry, regardless of whether
they represent government, business, or public points of view. Moreover, we expect
individuals in the community will have preferences for a particular policy, strategy, or action
and they will be interested in knowing how well their preferences compare to others.
Various modes of engagement with stakeholders were used to identify strategies or actions
that could be pursued to improve polar bear tourism in and around Churchill (i.e., public
open house, public survey, and an informal stakeholder group, see Nelitz and Beardmore
2015). Eighteen additional actions emerged from this engagement, which include:
Permitting process
(2) Clarify rules of permit access/renewal
(3) Implement a performance review/evaluation of permit holders
(4) Change oversight for managing permits
Permit conditions
(6) Clarify performance standards/guidelines for permit holders
(7) Clarify training requirements for staff/guides
Vehicle management
(10) Reduce number of allowable vehicles
(11) Change allocation of vehicles between existing permit holders
(12) Change allocation of vehicles among existing/new permit holders
(13) Ensure minimum seat availability for “special” situations
Lodge management
(15) Improve wastewater management practices of lodges
(16) Do not allow lodges
Access management
(18) Expand areas to access within CWMA
(19) Further restrict timing and locations of access
(20) Improve condition of off-road trail network
Compliance/enforcement
(22) Enhance in-season monitoring of compliance & enforcement of permit conditions
Research and monitoring
(24) Enhance research and monitoring of relevant conditions

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
41 | P a g e
Other actions
(25) Allow other forms of access to CWMA
(26) Improve communication, engagement, and education
These actions tended to be positioned around one or a mix of four distinct perspectives
interested in providing: (A) greater security for current operators, (B) greater local access to
tourism benefits, (C) greater protection of the environment, or (D) greater tourism benefits
with the least adverse environmental and social impact. As part of this review, a
consideration of no change, or maintaining the status quo, was also included regardless of
whether this suggestion was provided by stakeholders (e.g., no change in permitting, no
change in permit conditions, no change in number and allocation of vehicles, no change in
lodges, no change in access).
Feedback during consultations indicated that several of these actions are already being
implemented, in some cases as a condition of existing permits (e.g., seat availability to
support research and education, wastewater management at lodges, restrictions around
timing and locations of access). The comments underlying these proposed actions
suggested a need to go beyond what is currently being done and this list should be
considered with that emphasis in mind. It is also worth noting that some actions may be
logically or necessarily coupled with others. For instance, it would be sensible to implement
a performance review (#3) after clarifying performance standards for permit holders (#6).
These actions may also be tied to stronger in-season compliance monitoring and
enforcement (#22). We elaborate on the categories of actions and individual actions below
though recognize that many details still need to be clarified if any were implemented.
Permitting Process
Suggestions were made to improve clarity and transparency of the permitting process for
deciding on the number and allocation of tundra vehicles accessing the polar bear viewing
experience in the designated off-road trail network of the CWMA. Such clarity is important
regardless of who operates polar bear viewing opportunities today and into the future; it can
improve certainty for current operators to plan their operations and investments, as well as
other operators who want to know how they might be able to gain permitted access in the
future. Concerns were also expressed that: more regulation may restrict tourism access; the
process needs to acknowledge the legitimate historic market transactions and transfer of
permits among operators; and current vehicle capacity may not be fully utilized. As such,
three alternative actions emerged as potential improvements to the permitting process to
address these comments/concerns.
(2) Clarify rules of permit access/renewal to elaborate upon currently ambiguous elements
of the permitting process, such as explaining who can apply and under what conditions,
ways of transferring/accessing permits, changing the time limits on permits, and clarifying
the transaction cost for access/transfer of a permit, among other potential considerations.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
42 | P a g e
(3) Implement a performance review/evaluation of permit holders which involves adopting a
formal and regular review or evaluation for checking how well a permit holder is achieving
intended management objectives for the industry and CWMA, which may or may not be a
part of compliance with permit conditions.
(4) Change oversight for managing permits by changing the agency and/or individuals
involved in decisions around permitting to broaden the consideration of stakeholder
perspectives in the process. This action could be implemented in different ways (e.g.,
change Churchill municipal boundary, develop a diverse committee of decision makers).
Permit Conditions
A variety of comments were expressed that related to the desired performance of the
tourism industry, regardless of whether these expectations are applied to current or
potentially new operators (e.g., level of environmental protection, safety requirements, local
distribution of benefits, level of operator experience/knowledge/ training, quality of the visitor
experience). The motivation behind these comments is to ensure that Churchill provides a
world class standard of safety, level of environmental protection, and a high quality viewing
experience. One of the primary mechanisms for ensuring that these desired outcomes are
achieved would be through permit conditions issued by the Manitoba government. Hence,
two alternative actions emerged that relate to permit conditions.
(6) Clarify performance standards/guidelines for permit holders, which would require
describing the different performance expectations (a results-based approach) or specifying
guidelines (a prescriptive approach) for how permit holders are expected to undertake their
operations and achieve multiple objectives (e.g., safety, environmental, community
benefits).
(7) Clarify training requirements for staff/guides, which would involve specifying the training
requirements for staff/guides to maintain a high standard of environmental protection,
safety, and quality of the visitor experience across the industry.
Vehicle Management
Concerns around vehicle management represent some of the most challenging and
contentious issues to address since they relate most strongly to the way in which financial
benefits are distributed within the industry and community, as well as being related to the
quality of the visitor experience and effects on the environment (see Section 3.1).
Comments about vehicle management were mostly related to the number of allowable
vehicles and allocation of vehicles across existing permit holders and others with an interest
in gaining access to the CWMA. Beyond those actions that represent no changes in the
number and allocation of vehicles across existing permit holders, four additional alternatives
emerged that relate to vehicle management.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
43 | P a g e
(10) Reduce number of allowable vehicles from the current number for the purpose of
reducing congestion, minimizing impacts on bears, and improving quality of the visitor
experience.
(11) Change allocation of vehicles between existing permit holders to shift the distribution of
capacity between existing operators to maximize total visitor trips to the CWMA if additional
tourism demand exists and existing seating capacity is not being fully utilized.
(12) Change allocation of vehicles among existing/new permit holders to shift the
distribution of capacity between existing operators and/or to accommodate potentially new
operators, which would also result in changes to the distribution of benefits within the
tourism industry.
(13) Ensure minimum seat availability for “special” situations would require provisions by
existing permit holders to reserve a minimum number of seats that could be available for
“special” situations (e.g., lower income, youth, research, locals).
It is worth noting that any actions around vehicle management would likely also require
implementation of other actions (e.g., actions related to the permitting process and permit
conditions). Although there was some interest among the community in reducing the
number of vehicles, there were no proposals for the allowance of more vehicles in the
CWMA. The majority of comments expressed that the current number of vehicles is likely
sufficient. With more vehicles there were concerns about vehicle crowding and the related
impacts on the environment (bears and sub-arctic habitats) and quality of the visitor
experience (as evidence by Figure 4).
Lodge Management
Comments pertaining to the presence and management of lodges in the CWMA were
largely due to concerns that lodges are associated with attractants, thereby increasing the
potential for habituation of bears to people and risks to the community of Churchill. Two
actions were proposed that relate to lodge management.
(15) Improve wastewater management practices of lodges through better treatment or
containment of all waste water from showers and kitchens.
(16) Do not allow lodges which would require shutting down lodges based on concerns
related to habituation that could not be addressed through improved wastewater
management.
Access Management
Comments related to access management were seen as providing options for distributing
tundra vehicle traffic throughout the CWMA, reducing vehicle congestion/crowding around
bears, and improving the quality of access for vehicles all of which could support existing
permit holders and potentially other permit holders with different modes of access. There is

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
44 | P a g e
a wide body of scientific evidence, however, that indicates that improved road access can
enable greater human development and activities that ultimately leads to greater impacts on
the environment. This outcome has been confirmed by local observations that indicate
upgrades to the roads make it easier for 4x4 vehicles to gain access to the CWMA. In some
years of quick freeze-up and adequate snowfall, non-permitted vehicles have been able to
access the area leading to increased congestion, damage to vegetation, and risks to safety
if vehicles get stuck. Three actions relate to changes in access management.
(18) Expand areas to access within CWMA by opening up more off-road areas for polar
bear viewing to better distribute tundra vehicle traffic.
(19) Further restrict timing and locations of access including more careful control of the
timing (e.g., shoulder seasons, within season, time of day for other potential operators) and
locations of vehicle access (i.e., to address crowding). This action might include allowing
other operators in the shoulder season or controlling access to other locations as might be
required if new areas were accessible (as per #18).
(20) Improve condition of off-road trail network by improving maintenance and/or
rehabilitation of the designated off-road network for the purpose of supporting off-road
tundra vehicle traffic only.
Compliance/Enforcement
Several comments were expressed that more could be done around compliance and
enforcement to ensure the industry is meeting a high standard of safety, environmental
protection (e.g., staying on designated off-road trail network, maintaining minimum distance
to bears), and visitor experience. One action emerges as a result of these comments.
(22) Enhance in-season monitoring of compliance and enforcement by Manitoba
Conservation and Water Stewardship of permit conditions for permit holders.
This action relates closely to permit conditions. Based on good practice in compliance and
enforcement, this action would ideally require permit conditions that are clear, measureable,
and enforceable, measures that encourage compliance promotion among tour operators,
and non-trivial consequences that pose a deterrent to non-compliance.
Research and Monitoring
There was an acknowledgement that there is an imperfect understanding of the area and
more data could be collected to better understand interactions among the environment,
polar bears, tourism, and the community of Churchill. As data are gathered, there are also
opportunities to share these data and the resulting knowledge with others in the community
and around the world. As such, one action emerges from these comments.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
45 | P a g e
(24) Enhance research and monitoring of relevant conditions, particularly social,
environmental, and economic conditions to better understand consequence of operations
and management of tourism industry.
Other Actions
Additional comments were expressed that relate to a variety of aspects of tourism
management and the CWMA. Although a meeting between Manitoba Conservation and
Water Stewardship and tour operators typically occurs prior to and during the tourist
season, stakeholders noted that there are some remaining challenges in communication
and coordination. It was seen as a benefit to convene additional discussions around issues
that need to be monitored and to encourage a productive dialogue that supports all
operators working together. Since conflicts can arise and different parties ask questions
pertaining to operations and management of the CWMA, it was also seen as advantageous
for the government to provide a representative stationed in Churchill that is empowered to
provide information to and educate the public, operators, visitors, and the media during the
tourism season. As well, comments were made that suggested allowing other forms of
access and development of other tourism products. Collectively these comments imply a
need to consider two additional actions.
(25) Improve communication, engagement, and education with Manitoba Conservation and
Water Stewardship having a more active role with operators, visitors, and the public to
support operations and management of the CWMA, both pre-season and in-season.
(26) Allow other forms of access to the CWMA using some type of permitting process so
that other tourism operators can provide polar bear viewing opportunities (e.g., smaller
vehicles, walking tours with safe viewing towers and interpretive displays, drone related
activity).
3.2.2 Perspectives from Other Polar Bear Tourism Opportunities
Although the geographic and social context varies, perspectives and potential insights on
tourism management in Churchill will also be well informed by examining polar bear tourism
(PBT) opportunities from elsewhere. This section provides a brief overview of eight
locations offering PBT in varied jurisdictions around the world. In alphabetical order, these
sites include: Arviat, Nunavut; Barrow and Kaktovik, Alaska, USA; Polar Bear Provincial
Park and the First Nations of Weenusk and Fort Severn, Ontario; Svalbard, Norway;
Torngat Mountains National Park (TMNP), Newfoundland and Labrador and Kuururjuaq
Parc National (KPN), Quebec, Twin Islands and the Wemindji First Nation, Québec;
Ukkusiksalik National Park (UNP), Nunavut; and Wrangel Island, Russia.
Arviat, Nunavut, Canada
Like Churchill, Arviat features the opportunity to view polar bears from the Western Hudson
Bay population migrating up the “polar bear alley” located along the Hudson Bay coastline
between Manitoba and Nunavut. Guided by Inuit bear monitors and tourism guides, visitors
have the opportunity to view polar bears in the safety of a compound (accessible by plane)

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
46 | P a g e
featuring fortified polar bear cabins and an electric fence. Guided treks outside of the
compound are also offered.
Although the product is quite small, catering to less than 100 visitors a year, this particular
offering is interesting because of the substantial investments in the Arviat Community
Ecotourism (ACE) Initiative. The goal of the ACE program is to develop a community-based
approach to tourism with substantial control and involvement by the local community in
training and product development, with benefits largely remaining in the community
(Robbins 2013). Despite various discussions on the ACE program and positive media
coverage of these tourism developments, little information is available that describes visitor
management strategies for PBT at this site.
Barrow and Kaktovik, Alaska, USA
The small, remote Inupiat communities of Barrow and Kaktovik in Alaska offer limited
opportunities to view polar bears. For example, The Top of the World Hotel in Barrow offers
tours to view polar bears by van or by all-terrain vehicle (ATV). According to locals, the
optimal bear-viewing times are in the spring and fall whaling seasons where whale
carcasses may attract polar bears (George et al. 2004; Norton and Gaylord 2004;
Gearheard et al. 2006). The Northern Alaska Tour Company offers day trips during the
months of August and September to Kaktovik to view polar bears. In addition to these tours,
visitors can also travel to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to see polar bears. Requiring
insurance coverage, US Coast Guard licensing, training and special use permits, PBT
offered in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the most regulated in the state (USFW
2015). Despite being protected through the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act in the United States, information related to viewing polar bears in
the state of Alaska is limited. Although official figures are not available, there are an
estimated 100 tourists per year visiting Barrow, with no estimates available for Kaktovik
(Lemelin and Dyck 2007).
Polar Bear Provincial Park and the Weenusk and Fort Severn First Nations, Ontario,
Canada
Viewing of the world’s most southerly population of polar bears in Polar Bear Provincial
Park (PBPP) (estimated at about 1,000 animals, see Calvert et al. 1995) is limited to a few
entrepreneurs in Weenusk (Canoe Frontiers and Wild Wind Tours). Canoe Frontiers offers
both canoe and kayak expeditions up the Winisk River and eco-cultural tours in PBPP
through Wild Wind Tours (Lemelin and Dyck 2007). Polar Bear Park Expeditions (formerly
known as Ice Bear Tours) no longer offers any tours to the Sutton River. Polar bear viewing
opportunities in Fort Severn are offered by local operators who take visitors west of the park
to see polar bears with ATVs along the Hudson Bay coastline. There are an estimated 100
annual visitors visiting PBPP and the Fort Severn First Nation, which includes canoers and
wildlife tourists.
Recreational and tourism opportunities were addressed in the original park planning
proposal (OMNR 1977a; 1977b) and subsequently reviewed in the 1980 Master Plan

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
47 | P a g e
(OMNR 1980), the Polar Bear Provincial Park Tourism Development Study (1988), the
Goose Camp Action Plan (1990), and the Management Plan Review (OMNR 1994). The
park management plan identifies five access zones where aircraft landing is permitted
(Ontario Parks 2005).
Outdated management plans and restrictive policies in PBPP (discouraging development of
tourism infrastructure) combined with sporadic permitting systems (required for aircraft
landings but not for water-based vehicles like canoes or kayaks) have resulted in a park that
largely discourages PBT. Polar bear-human interactions outside of the park and throughout
the rest of Northern Ontario are mentioned in the 2011 Recovery Strategy for Polar Bear
(Tonge and Pulfer 2011). However, no specific recommendations pertaining to polar bear
tourism have been implemented to-date.
Svalbard, Norway
Over 66,000 visitors travel to Svalbard, Norway. The vast majority of these visitors are
cruise tourists visiting the area to see the Arctic landscape and spot polar bears (Kaltenborn
2000; Humlum 2005). Although managers and the Governor discourage polar bear-human
interactions in Svalbard, the tourism industry does promote the viewing of these animals,
typically from the safety of ships or zodiacs. In other instances, polar bears can be viewed
from snowmobiles, dog-sled, and while cross-country skiing. Tourists visiting Svalbard pay
an environment fee to the Svalbard Environmental Protection Fund which supports
preservation of the cultural and natural heritage of the area (Governor of Svalbard 2010, as
cited in Hagen et al. 2012).
Tourism in Svalbard in its modern form was initiated by the government of Norway in 1990
and by 1995 an official goal was set to make Svalbard one of the best-managed wilderness
areas in the world (Det kongelige miljødepartment 1994-1995, as cited in Hagen et al.
2012). A management plan was prepared with a view to safeguard the unique environment
and important habitats for polar bears (with an estimated population of 2,000) and keeping
tourism development within environmentally sustainable and commercially acceptable
boundaries (Kalternborn 2000). Approved by the Ministry of Environment in 1995, the
management plan uses a zoning system, adapted from the Recreational Opportunity
Spectrum planning model that includes four categories (Kaltenborn and Emmelin 1993):
nature reserve, national park, recreation area, and tourism area. Today 65% of Svalbard’s
land area and 87% of its territorial waters are protected by law and protected area
designation including seven national parks, six nature reserves, fifteen bird sanctuaries and
one geological protected area. The primary tourism area, called Management Area 10,
encompasses central parts of Spitsbergen, including Isfjorden and its settlements.
Independent travelers and commercial companies use these areas extensively (Kaltenborn
2000).
The Svalbard Environmental Protection Act (which passed into law in 2001 and went into
effect in 2002) is a collection of environmental legislation addressing protected areas,
species management for flora and fauna, cultural heritage, land-use planning, pollution,

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
48 | P a g e
waste disposal, traffic and private cabins. The purpose of the act is to safeguard pristine
areas in Svalbard while ensuring the sustainability of commercial activities in the region
(Governor of Svalbard 2010, as cited in Hagen et al. 2012). In 2003, expedition cruise
operators established the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO) to
coordinate their activities and improve their operations. In 2005, the Governor of Svalbard
published the Strategy Plan for tourism and outdoor activity on Svalbard. The strategy
outlines the framework for present and future tourism developments (Hagen et al. 2012).
Currently all recreational ships coming to Svalbard, whether commercial or private, are
required to notify the Governor of Svalbard and obtain approval for their travel plans in
advance of their trip. In addition, tourism operators are responsible for the safety of their
clientele and for ensuring that visitors are informed of and comply with rules and regulations
(e.g., that attracting, pursuing or otherwise actively seeking out polar bears is punishable by
law). Guides must have the necessary knowledge of weapons and appropriate techniques
for addressing potential confrontations with polar bears. In addition, a tour operator must
have sufficient insurance, or ensure there are equivalent guarantees, to cover any
expenses incurred by the authorities or others in connection with search or rescue
operations (Lemelin and Dyck 2007).
According to the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act, it is prohibited to lure, pursue or
otherwise seek out polar bears in such a way as to disturb them or expose either bears or
humans to danger. Necessary measures shall be taken to avoid the danger of polar bear
attacks and to ward off an attack without injuring or killing the animal. Appropriate means of
frightening and chasing off polar bears shall be available in the camp, which may include
trip-wires with flares, guard dogs, or a polar bear guide. Apart from instances of self-
defence, the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act permits the police to shoot bears as a
precautionary measure or as an act of mercy (Hagen et al. 2012). Between the period from
1998 to 2006, 25 polar bears were killed and two were injured. Almost half of these cases
were in self-defence (Lemelin and Dyck 2007).
At present, the degree of disturbance to polar bears caused by cruise ships or tourist
groups ashore is assumed to be limited and happens unintentionally. However, unfortunate
incidents such as the aggressive encounters between tourist groups and polar bears in
2011 and 2015 (both of which occurred on land) have endangered human lives and resulted
in the destruction of polar bears. As such, there have been calls to revise current
management and implement new monitoring practices by the Auditor General of Norway,
the Ministry of Justice, and the Police. One particularly contentious recommendation is to
reduce public landing access along the east coast of the archipelago. Local residents and
tourist operators strongly oppose the proposal stating that it is based on perceptions of too
many visitors and not based on actual monitoring of the impacts on flora and fauna
(Aarskog 2008, as cited in Hagen et al. 2012).

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
49 | P a g e
Torngat Mountains National Park (TMNP), Newfoundland and Labrador, and Kuururjuaq
Parc National (KPN), Québec, Canada
The Nunatsiavut Government and the Torngat Mountains National Park (TMNP) were
established in 2005 (Park Canada 2010) with the Kuururjuaq Parc National (KPN) being
established three years later (ARK 2005; MDDEP 2007). The establishment of these two
parks created a large trans-boundary protected area (TPA) along the Labrador Peninsula of
Northern Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador (Lemelin 2012). The management of
this TPA is guided by the 2010 Torngat Mountains National Park, Management Plan, and
the 2007 plan directeur provisoire du parc national de la Kuururjuaq. These plans are
implemented through the Co-operative Management Board for the TMNP and a
harmonization committee overseeing management of the KPN (Lemelin 2012). Each park
committee is mandated to provide advice and guidance for the management of each
respective park while also promoting regional tourism strategies. A regional management
approach stimulates innovation and fosters collaborative decision-making, as well as
conflict resolution (Moore and Weiler 2009).
Polar bears from the Davis Straight population can be viewed in a variety of ways in TMNP:
from the decks of cruise ships to the security of a base camp (behind an electric fence) to
guided back-country hikes and excursions (cross-skiing, snowmobile). No matter how the
park is accessed, all visits to the park are coordinated through Parks Canada and the
Torngat Mountains Base Camp, which is the main point of access for all visitors to the park.
Located in TMNP, a base camp offers a number of accommodations and services to
researchers and visitors. Upon arrival at this base camp, each visitor is briefed on polar
bear safety. The session includes receiving a brochure, watching a video, followed by a
short discussion. Visitors to National Parks in Canada are not permitted to carry firearms.
Furthermore, since the transportation of bear sprays by planes can be problematic, visitors
are encouraged to use appropriately licensed Inuit guide who are authorized to carry a
firearm in the National Park and have experience in polar bear territory (Lemelin et al.
2012).
Visitor numbers are only available for TMNP. Despite the park’s distance from major
population centres, 461 tourists have visited the park in each season from 2009 to 2012
(Lemelin et al. in press). Though these numbers appear low, they are considerably higher
than a number of other remote national parks located in Northern Canada (Brackley et al.
2011). While backcountry use is minimal, the opportunities provided by the newly
established KPNQ to the west will increase access for canoeists, kayakers, hikers and
wildlife tourists along the Koroc River corridor (Lemelin 2012).
Relatively low levels of bear-human interactions suggest that current polar bear
management strategies are somewhat effective. These strategies include the daily removal
of potential attractants, an electric fence around base camp, portable electric fences for field
camps, bear guides, and education strategies promoting polar bear awareness in TMNP
and KPN. That said, in 2013, there was an incident where a polar bear broke through the

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
50 | P a g e
electric fence established by a hiking group in the back-country of TMNP and one member
of the group was mauled and required medical attention.
Twin Islands and the Wemindji First Nation, Québec, Canada
Wemindji is a Cree community, with a 2001 population of 1,267, located at the mouth of the
Maquatua River near the Twin Islands in James Bay, Northern Québec (Lemelin and
Dickson 2012). Featuring an important staging area and denning area for polar bears, Twin
Islands was first designated as a wildlife sanctuary in 1939, incorporated in the James Bay
Preserve in the late 1940s, and later defined as an Important Bird Area in Canada (Lemelin
and Dickson 2012). The site is also part of the 1975 James Bay and Northern Québec
Agreement, the 2002 “La Paix des Braves” agreement (Agreement Respecting a New
Relationship Between the Cree Nation and the Government of Québec), and the 2012
Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement Act (Lemelin and Dickson 2012). Polar
bears in Québec are also considered as vulnerable under the “Loi sur les espèces
menacées ou vulnerable” (Ressources naturelles et Faune Quebec 2010).
A site assessment conducted by Lemelin and Dickson in the winter of 2011 found that
Wemindji’s proximity to Twin Islands combined with existing infrastructure (hotel and
restaurants) and trained local outfitters could be used to develop small-scale polar bear
viewing opportunities from zodiacs or boats in the summer and fall seasons. However, no
further development regarding PBT opportunities in this area has occurred (or is available)
since the Lemelin and Dickson (2012) assessment.
Ukkusiksalik National Park, Nunavut, Canada
Established in 2003 and located just south of the community of Repulse Bay, Ukkusiksalik
National Park (UNP) surrounds Wager Bay, a 100 km long saltwater inlet on the north-
western coast of Hudson Bay (Lemelin and Dyck 2007). According to Portman (2004), each
year about 300 people travel to Sila Lodge, a small eco-lodge, constructed on the shores of
the Sila River in UNP to view wildlife, and more specifically swimming polar bears.
Discussions with officials from Parks Canada could not corroborate these numbers since
official visitation figures for UNP are not, as of yet, available (Lemelin and Dyck 2007). The
challenge with these visitation figures is further compounded by the fact that Sila Lodge has
not been in operation for about 5 to 8 years. Since the UNP management plan is still under
review, it is recommended that all visitors register with the park, attend an orientation
session, travel with licensed outfitters, and use portable electric fencing.
Wrangel Island State Reserve, Russia
Protection of Wrangel Island, an important denning and staging area for polar bears located
in the Chukchi Sea first occurred when Wrangel Island was designated a nature reserve by
the former Soviet Government in the 1970s (Razzhivin 2005). In 1976 the area was
designated an international biosphere, and in 2004 it was proclaimed the northernmost
World Heritage Site (Razzhivin 2005). Although some cruise ships operating in the area
offer the opportunity (at extra cost) to visit Wrangel Island on guided excursions, the site is
quite difficult to access and can only be visited with permission from various Russian

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
51 | P a g e
agencies (UNESCO 2006). Although it is an important staging and denning area for polar
bears with conservation officers located on-site, tourism opportunities on Wrangel Island are
limited due to challenges with accessing the site, rudimentary infrastructure, high costs, and
permitting issues (UNESCO 2006). Estimates of annual visitation range anywhere from 8 to
50 people (Lemelin and Dyck 2007, note that caution is advised regarding these numbers
since none has been confirmed by official sources). As such, Wrangel Island remains one of
the worlds least frequented and most restricted nature reserves (Sides 2013).
Summary
As demonstrated above, the opportunities pertaining to and information describing PBT
around the world is quite variable. Extensive details are available for some destinations and
virtually no data for others. Apart from Svalbard, most of these locations offer small-scale
opportunities. In some instances, like Arviat and TMNP, the size of the tourism industry is
deliberate since these destinations believe that by offering smaller-scale viewing
opportunities they can provide something different by focusing more on the experiential and
cultural dimensions of the experience than what is currently being offered in Svalbard and
Churchill. In all cases (even in Arviat, Barrow and Kaktovik, and Twin Islands where little
information is available), providing PBT is typically determined by accessibility to some
gateway community and then to the viewing site itself. In many instances, the cost of
accessing these communities and viewing sites can be exorbitant. Some of the unique
aspects of these locations that are worth highlighting include:
 In the case of Arviat, it was an entrepreneur working closely with the ACE project
that was able to develop polar bear tours. The growth of this product is currently
limited by the availability of infrastructure (i.e., the polar bear viewing compound).
 Although members of the Fort Severn First Nation and the Wemindji First Nation
have expressed interest in developing PBT, current policies and legislations make
development of PBT in Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec unlikely at this time.
 Although numerous strategies have been implemented in Svalbard, human-polar
bear conflicts continue. It should be noted that most of these encounters are on land
suggesting that viewing from cruise ships is much safer for tourists and bears alike.
 PBT products in UNP and TMNP are managed by Parks Canada. At present
management strategies in TMNP have ensured that a quality product is delivered
(i.e., legislation, policies, management plans). In the case of UNP, it is still too early
to tell how these strategies will influence future PBT in the park.
 Development of PBT in Wrangel is limited by a number of issues, including
accessibility, transportation, bureaucratic hurdles, and limited infrastructure.
While it can be useful to know what is being offered in other places, these offerings are
quite different. For Churchill, the most comparable tourism industry appears to be Svalbard.
Polar bear tourists are attracted to Svalbard and Churchill because they are both rather
inexpensive (when compared to more remote PBT destinations) and have well-developed
tourism infrastructure, including ports, airports, accommodations, restaurants and local
services. Both destinations also feature various conservation strategies to protect and

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
52 | P a g e
manage these areas and their wildlife. Discussions with managers and Norwegian tourism
experts suggest that some managers and operators have deliberately attempted to
distinguish Svalbard from Churchill. For example, Travel Wild suggested that Svalbard with
its comprehensive management strategies is the “new polar bear capital of the world.” While
examining the validity of this assertion is beyond the scope of this review, it should be noted
that despite the legislation and policies, research continues to highlight concerns with high
visitor numbers at certain sites, and various aggressive, and in some instances lethal
encounters among locals, visitors (in 2011, 2015) and polar bears in Svalbard. Although it
should be noted that aggressive interactions between humans and polar bears have also
been reported in Torngat Mountains National Park, Polar Bear Provincial Park, and Arviat.
3.2.3 Effect of Management Actions on Valued Components
An activity-impact matrix (US EPA 1998) is used to examine the potential interaction
between alternative management actions and the valued components of interest to
stakeholders to explore the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative solutions for
improving management of polar bear viewing and the CWMA. Table 5 provides an
alignment of the identified management actions with social, environmental, and economic
components relative to the current management situation. These interactions were identified
based on a review of the available evidence, results from the expert and visitor experience
surveys as summarized in Section 3.1, as well as results from the stakeholder consultation
and perspectives on management strategies as summarized in Section 3.2. Actions are
rated as having positive (+), negative (-), or both positive and negative (+/-) interactions
relative to the status quo. An action can have both a positive and negative interaction when
it has the potential to affect different components in opposite ways. Alternatively, the same
action could have opposite effects on different stakeholders – favouring one and not
another. For some actions there are also expectations of no change from the current
situation, which should not be interpreted as though there are no positive or negative effects
with the current situation. In other cases the effect of an action on valued components is
uncertain due to a lack of information (e.g., most economic components since these
considerations were beyond the scope of this review). These ratings are intentionally not
specific to the individual components within a grouping and are not intended to imply
anything about the anticipated magnitude or significance of interaction. Footnotes below
Table 5 elaborate on the rationale for why specific ratings are provided.
As evidenced through this information, each strategy has unique advantages and
disadvantages in terms of how they may affect particular valued components. The choice
among actions will depend in part on these advantages/disadvantages and how a decision
maker weights these different factors. We acknowledge that there may be other factors that
need to be considered which are not presented here, such as administrative burden on
government officials, regulatory burden on tour operators, and implementation cost for
government agencies and the tourism industry.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
53 | P a g e
Table 5: Rating of management actions and potential interaction with valued components indicated as positive (+), negative (-),
both positive and negative (+/-), no change, or uncertain relative to the current situation. Table footnotes follow.
Social Components
Environment’l
Components
Economic Components
Management Actions
Quality of the visitor
experience
Safety of community
Reputation of
community
Community cohesion
Cultural values &
connect’n to nat’l res
Well-being of polar
bears
Well-being of other
wildlife
Condition of sub-arctic
habitats
Financial benefits from
PBT
Benefits from other
resource uses
Local distribution of
benefits from PBT
Protection of current
investments in PBT
Future business
opportunities in PBT
Certainty of conditions
for investments
Permitting process
(1) No change to permitting process
+/- a
No change
No change
(2) Clarify rules of permit access/renewal
+/- b
No change
Uncertain
(3) Implement performance review of permit hold’rs
+ c
+ c
Uncertain
(4) Change oversight for managing permits
+/- d
No change
Uncertain
Permit conditions
(5) No change to permit conditions
No change
No change
No change
(6) Clarify performance standards for permit hold’rs
+ e
+ e
Uncertain
(7) Clarify training requirements for staff/guides
+ f
+ f
Uncertain
Vehicle management
(8) Maintain current number of allowable vehicles
+ g
No change
No change
(9) Maintain current allocation of vehicles across
permit holders
+/- h
No change
No change
(10) Reduce number of allowable vehicles
+/- i
+ j
Uncertain
(11) Change allocation of vehicles between existing
permit holders
+/- k
Uncertain
Uncertain
(12) Change allocation of vehicles among
existing/new permit holders
+/- k
Uncertain
Uncertain
(13) Ensure min seat avail for “special” situations
+ l
No change
Uncertain

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
54 | P a g e
Social Components
Environment’l
Components
Economic Components
Management Actions
Quality of the visitor
experience
Safety of community
Reputation of
community
Community cohesion
Cultural values &
connect’n to nat’l res
Well-being of polar
bears
Well-being of other
wildlife
Condition of sub-arctic
habitats
Financial benefits from
PBT
Benefits from other
resource uses
Local distribution of
benefits from PBT
Protection of current
investments in PBT
Future business
opportunities in PBT
Certainty of conditions
for investments
Lodge management
(14) No change in lodges and wastewater
management practices
No change
No change
No change
(15) Improve wastewater mgmt practices of lodges
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
(16) Do not allow lodges
- m
Uncertain
Uncertain
Access management
(17) No change in access and trail maintenance
No change
No change
No change
(18) Expand areas to access
+/- n
- o
Uncertain
(19) Further restrict timing and locations of access
Uncertain
+ p
Uncertain
(20) Improve condition of off-road trail network
+/- q
- r
Uncertain
Compliance/enforcement
(21) Maintain current levels
No change
No change
No change
(22) Enhance in-season monitoring of compliance
and enforcement
+ s
+ s
Uncertain
Research and monitoring
(23) None
No change
No change
No change
(24) Enhance research and monitoring of relevant
variables
+ t
+ t
+ t
Other actions
(25) Allow other forms of access to CWMA
+/- u
Uncertain
Uncertain
(26) Improve communication, engagement, and
education
+ v
Uncertain
Uncertain

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
55 | P a g e
Table Footnotes
a:
Stakeholder consultations indicated that some stakeholders would prefer to see no changes (+), while others
would not be satisfied with maintaining the status quo (-).
b:
Stakeholder consultations indicated that some stakeholders would prefer to see clarifying the rules of permit
access/renewal (+), while others are satisfied with maintaining the status quo (-).
c:
Stakeholders were generally supportive of implementing a performance review/evaluation of permits to help
achieve a variety of social and environmental objectives (+).
d:
Stakeholder consultations indicated that some stakeholders would prefer to see changes in oversight for
managing permits (+), while others are satisfied with the current situation (-).
e:
Stakeholders were generally supportive (+) of clarifying performance standards to positively address a variety
of social and environmental objectives (e.g., quality of the visitor experience, safety of the community,
reputation of Churchill, well-being of bears and other wildlife). Technical experts also identified permit
conditions as one of the more important tourism management measures for protecting polar bears.
f:
Stakeholders were generally supportive (+) of clarifying training requirements to positively address a variety of
social and environmental objectives (e.g., quality of the visitor experience, safety of the community, reputation
of Churchill, well-being of bears and other wildlife).
g:
Stakeholder consultations indicated that most stakeholders were generally supportive (+) of maintaining the
current number to achieve a variety of social and environmental objectives (quality of the visitor experience,
safety, protecting bears, other wildlife, and sub-arctic habitats).
h:
Stakeholder consultations indicated that some stakeholders would prefer to maintain the current allocation of
vehicles across permit holders (+), while others would not satisfied with current allocation (-).
i:
Although fewer vehicles may be related to a higher quality visitor experience (+) (see Figure 4), stakeholders
had mostly negative views on a reduction in the number of permitted vehicles (-).
j:
Technical experts identified the number of vehicles as being the most important tourism management measure
that can have an influence on polar bears (+).
k:
Stakeholder consultations indicated that changes in allocation of vehicles among existing and/or new permit
holders would be viewed positively by some (+) and negatively by others (-).
l:
Consultations indicated that ensuring minimum seat availability for special situations would be viewed
favourably by most stakeholders (+).
m:
Disallowing lodges was viewed as largely negative (-) by stakeholders since it has the potential to deteriorate
the visitor experience and adversely affect economic benefits while having uncertain environmental benefits.
Technical experts rated lodge management as only moderately important with relatively wide variation in
opinion across experts.
n:
Stakeholder indicated contradictory support on expanding areas to access within the CWMA (+/-), even though
there is the potential for a reducing vehicle crowding and improving the quality of the visitor experience (+).
o:
Managing spatial access was also one of the measures rated by technical experts as being more important for
influencing polar bears, hence expansion into new areas has the potential to negatively influence bears (-).
p:
Based on ratings by technical experts managing spatial extent of access is one of the more important
measures for positively influencing bears (+), while managing timing of access is less important.
q:
Improving the condition of the off-road trail network may be viewed favourably by some interested in access the
CWMA for a variety of purposes (+), but stakeholder consultations indicated that there were broad concerns
associated with this action since it has the potential to decrease the quality of the visitor experience and safety
of others operating in the CWMA (-).
r:
Scientific evidence and anecdotal accounts from the community indicate that improving road conditions can
enable a variety of other impacts on the environment (-).
s:
Enhancements to compliance and enforcement were viewed favourably by a range of stakeholders to help
achieve a variety of social and environment objectives (+).
t:
Based on some disagreement around cause and effect among stakeholder, addressing knowledge gaps has
the potential to improve the effectiveness of management actions and ability to meet a variety of social,
environmental, and economic objectives.
u:
Stakeholders have contrasting views on whether to formally allow other modes of access into the CWMA (+/-).
It is uncertain how other modes of access might affect safety and the quality of the visitor experience, and how
these other modes might affect the environment.
v:
Stakeholders were broadly supportive of improving communication, engagement and education (+), yet it
unknown how such actions might directly benefit environmental or economic objectives.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
56 | P a g e
4. Key Findings
Below we present a summary of key findings pertaining to different aspects of this review.
Social Components
 The quality of the visitor experience, safety of the community, reputation of the
community, community cohesion, and cultural connections to the CWMA are core
values that stakeholders are most concerned about regarding management and
operations of polar bear viewing opportunities in the CWMA;
 After economic considerations, these social components were the next most
contentious based on the divergence of opinion and range of stakeholder
perspectives being represented;
 There are few quantitative data that describe the level of tourism activity since the
industry began in the 1970s, and in particular no commonly available and
standardized data describing the number of vehicles being used over the course of
the season;
 There may be some relatively small discrepancies between the mapped off-road trail
network and actual pattern of vehicle use across the landscape as noted through
stakeholder consultations and through comparison to air photos;
 The number of bears and wildlife species seen have positive effects on the visitor
experience, while the distance to nearest bear and number of vehicles viewing bears
at the same time has a negative influence on the visitor experience; relative cost of
the trip and visible impacts on soil/vegetation did not have significant effects on
visitor experience;
 A high proportion of visitors (>75%) reported getting less than 10 m away from the
closest bear which has a positive effect on the quality of the visitor experience (see
Figure 4C) and is less than the 100 m specified in permit conditions;
 The main factors that contribute to potentially harmful encounters between people
and bears include proximity of bears to people, presence of attractants, and food-
conditioning of bears;
 The number of bear occurrences around Churchill has steadily been increasing over
the last several decades likely due to a combination of human interventions and
changing environmental conditions;
 The success and effectiveness of the Polar Bear Alert Program may be limiting
opportunities for polar bear viewing by other tour operators/the public outside of the
CWMA;
 Although there is evidence that human activities can increase potential for
encounters with bears, due to a lack of data it is unknown whether tourism since the
1970s has had any influence on the pattern of bear occurrences around Churchill
since that time; and
 Community cohesion was noted by various sources as having an effect on the
functioning of the tourism industry (i.e., management, operations, and delivery of
supporting amenities).

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
57 | P a g e
Environmental Components
 The well-being of polar bears, well-being of other wildlife, and condition of sub-arctic
habitats represent the core environmental values that stakeholders are most
concerned about regarding management and operations of polar bear tourism
around Churchill, which are also core principles of best practice in ecotourism;
 These environmental components are likely the least contentious since they were
consistently and strongly supported by a diverse range of stakeholder perspectives;
 The general ecology of the Western Hudson Bay population of polar bears (~1,000
individuals) is relatively well understood and is one of the most well studied
populations;
 There is some unresolved confusion/uncertainty around the true status and
abundance of the Western Hudson Bay population, though it is generally believed to
be in decline;
 Air photo evidence from 1947 to 2006 shows an increasing footprint/disturbance of
the CWMA trail network due to military activity (initially) and tourism activity (more
recently) and this area represents a relatively limited portion compared to the extent
of coastline along which bears can migrate onto the ice;
 Of the pathways identified in Figure 7 and Table 1, knowledgeable experts rated
pathways involving climate change as being the most important, in particular
changes to the timing and duration of se ice leading to impacts on marine feeding
opportunities (Pathway 1), and changes in the availability of marine prey (Pathway
2); there was general agreement among experts on the importance of these
pathways and agreement that there is a strong basis of scientific evidence
supporting these judgments;
 Climate-related pathways involving habitat displacement (Pathway 5) and impacts on
denning success (Pathway 6) were also rated as being more important than most
other pathways;
 The three pathways related to tourism (Pathways 13, 14, and 15) were rated by
experts as less important than the above climate related pathways with responses
ranging from less important to moderately important, though there was also relatively
higher variation in opinions across experts; the influence of tourism on bear
habituation (Pathway 14) was consistently ranked as the most important among the
three tourism related pathways; the certainty of evidence for all tourism pathways
was generally rated as being preliminary;
 Local and global evidence related to climate impacts suggests that climate change
will lead to negative impacts on polar bears with an optimistic scenario having a
neutral or modestly negative outcome and a disastrous scenario leading to a
remnant population of bears in Western Hudson Bay; the timeframe over which
these changes will occur is uncertain; and
 The scientific evidence (confirmed by expert ratings) suggests that major drivers
related to climate change are more significant than tourism influences since the
industry has been in existence for some time and there have been no obvious
detrimental impacts to polar bears; furthermore there is little evidence or concern

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
58 | P a g e
about effects of tourism on other animals; thus the potential impacts related to the
tourism industry are best considered from a short-term perspective, compared to the
medium – long term perspective of the potential impacts associated with climate
change.
Economic Components
 Financial benefits from polar bear tourism and other resource uses, as well as the
economic welfare of the community (e.g., concerns about the local distribution of
benefits, protection of historic/current investments in tourism, encouraging future
investments, and creating an environment that provides certainty for business) were
the important economic considerations expressed during stakeholders consultations;
 These issues are likely the most contentious (vs. social or environmental
components) since they were expressed most passionately and represented by the
most divergent opinions across stakeholders;
 Although these components were not within scope of this review a preliminary review
of available information revealed that few data are available to describe the current
economic situation in Churchill; and
 It is expected that understanding factors that contribute to total financial benefits of
tourism and non-tourism activities are likely easier to address than aspects related to
economic welfare.
Management Strategies
 Beyond maintaining the status quo, stakeholders identified 18 additional
management actions that could be used to address the varying valued components
and management objectives around polar bear tourism and the CWMA;
 Although the specific details around these actions have yet to be described, they
related to the permitting process, permit conditions, vehicle management, lodge
management, access management, compliance/enforcement, research and
monitoring, as well as other actions;
 Actions tended to be positioned around one or a mix of four distinct stakeholder
perspectives, specifically in providing: (A) greater security for current operators, (B)
greater local access/benefits, (C) greater protection of the environment, or (D)
greater tourism benefits with the least environmental and social impact;
 Each action was seen as addressing a different combination of valued components;
the solution to improved management likely lies in some combination of these
actions and in some cases several actions likely need to be implemented jointly to be
fully effective;
 An informal stakeholder group was generally supportive around the following actions:
o #3: implementing a performance review/evaluation of permits
o #6: clarifying performance standards/guidelines for permit holders
o #7: clarifying training requirements for permit holders
o #8: maintaining current number of allowable vehicles
o #13: ensuring minimum seat availability for “special” situations

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
59 | P a g e
o #22: enhancing in-season monitoring of compliance and enforcement of permit
conditions
o #24: enhancing research and monitoring of social, environmental, and
economic conditions
o #26: improving communication, engagement, and education
 An informal stakeholder group was generally not supportive and had some concerns
around the following actions:
o #10: reducing the number of allowable vehicles
o #11: changing allocation of vehicles between existing permit holders
o #16: disallowing lodges
o #20: improving condition of off-road trail network
 The greatest level of disagreement/contention among an informal stakeholder group
emerged around the following actions:
o #2: clarifying rules of permit access/renewal
o #4: changing oversight for managing permits
o #12: changing allocation of vehicles among existing/new permit holders
o #18: expanding areas to access
o #25: allowing other forms of access to CWMA
 Actions related to training, performance, compliance, and research (#3, #6, #7, #22,
and #24 in Table 5) were seen as benefiting many components with few negative
effects;
 There were no suggestions to increase the number of tundra vehicles in the CWMA
from an informal stakeholder group or the Churchill public; a diversity of perspectives
thought that the current level of vehicle traffic was sufficient;
 Changes in allocation of vehicles among existing/new operators and expanding the
areas to access within the CWMA were seen as ways of potentially improving
tourism benefits and changing the distribution of benefits within the community,
though would also be some of the most contentious/challenging changes to
implement;
 Experts consistently rated the number of tundra vehicles as the tourism management
action having the most important influence on polar bears; spatial extent of access
and permit conditions were rated as the next important measures, while managing
the timing of access, lodges, and compliance/enforcement were rated as being less
to moderately important;
 Changes in the current spatial extent of access are likely limited given various
limitations in expanding tourism opportunities to the south (fewer congregations of
bears), east (Wapusk National Park), and west (access already allowed on built up
roads);
 Best practice in environmental management suggests that strengthening permit
conditions should be accompanied by improved compliance/enforcement to ensure
they are effective;
 A review of eight other locations providing PBT opportunities from around the world
revealed that Churchill and Svalbard, Norway are the most comparable with each

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
60 | P a g e
supporting significant numbers of visitors; most other locations provide smaller scale
viewing opportunities;
 Most other PBT opportunities provide more varied modes of guided access for polar
bear viewing than Churchill and more open access to viewing areas;
 Most locations offering PBT opportunities allow for lodges or camps to be used as
part of the viewing experience;
 A few of these PBT locations have been associated with aggressive interactions
between tourists and bears;
 Experience with ecotourism and other PBT locations suggests that too few
restrictions can overwhelm the resource (habituation, food conditioning), degrade the
tourism product, increase risk and stress on wildlife and polar bear viewers (in some
instances leading to loss of life), and potentially result in displacement of the tourism
product (i.e., visitors seeking alternative destinations to view polar bears); too many
restrictions can curtail innovations or hinder development of new complimentary
products to PBT; and
 Recently developed destinations tend to employ a high standard of safety and
environmental protection alongside collaborative approaches to managing tourism
opportunities.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
61 | P a g e
5. Recommendations
Below we present a set of recommendations based on the information summarized through
this review and our understanding about the social, environmental, and economic context of
the community, Churchill Wildlife Management Area, and polar bear tourism. Three
fundamental recommendations that can help improve upon the current situation:
 Address knowledge gaps to improve understanding about the current context and how
different management actions might affect values that stakeholders care about;
 Resolve disagreements in stakeholder preferences to reduce conflict/improve
community cohesion; and
 Prepare the community for unavoidable changes in the environment to strengthen the
community, tourism industry, and local environment in the longer-term.
In no order of importance, we present and elaborate on the details underlying these issues,
why they are important to consider, and more specifically what could be done to implement
these recommendations.
Recommendation #1: Address knowledge gaps
Based on this review we identified the following knowledge gaps that should be
strengthened:
 Data describing the level of tourism activity since the industry began in the 1970s and
ongoing monitoring of the number of daily vehicle trips and proximity of vehicles to
bears over the course of each polar bear viewing season;
 Studies examining the effect of number and proximity of tundra vehicles on bear
habituation and if appropriate identifying measures to mitigate impacts on habituation;
 Correcting relatively minor discrepancies in the digitally mapped location of the
designated off-road trail network and actual patterns of tundra vehicle use in the
relevant portion of the CWMA;
 More detailed spatial information on the condition of the designated off-road trail
network and impacts on sub-arctic habitats;
 Repeated (over time) and standardized measures of visitor satisfaction with the
tourism experience and community satisfaction with the way in which polar bear
tourism operations are being managed;
 Repeated estimates of population size of Western Hudson Bay polar bears using a
consistent methodology;
 Status and trends of other wildlife species that provide value to eco-tourism;
 Consistent monitoring of local changes in duration and timing of sea ice extent and
timing of polar bear migration onto the sea ice;
 Economic information on the financial benefits of major tourism opportunities in
Churchill and distribution of those benefits, alongside an improved understanding
about the factors that influence the generation and distribution of benefits (e.g.,

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
62 | P a g e
number, timing, and type of tourism offerings, visitor demand, tundra vehicle seating
capacity, hotel capacity).
These knowledge gaps are important to address for a variety of reasons. Foremost,
conflicts over tourism management exist, in part, due to a lack of information about cause
and effect which leads to disagreement about how potential changes in tourism
management will affect the social, economic, and environmental components that
stakeholders care about. This is true for any potential changes to management in the future,
and also for understanding the effectiveness of current management actions (e.g., Is 100m
an appropriate permit condition for mitigating impacts on bear habituation?). Hence, an
improved information base upon which to make decisions should help reduce some of the
conflict among stakeholders.
Moreover, these gaps relate to some of the most pressing information needs today. The
intent of this review was not to collect new data, but it is clear that there are critical pieces of
information that would be useful to best inform decision-making moving forward. In
particular, addressing these gaps can help improve understanding around some of the key
drivers of change (e.g., polar bear population status, climate change), stakeholder values
(e.g., economic information, visitor and community satisfaction), and effectiveness of
different management actions (e.g., trail conditions, number of daily vehicle trips, proximity
of vehicles to bears).
It will be important to design and implement data collection in a way that ensures these
critical knowledge gaps are sufficiently addressed. Otherwise if data collection is poorly
designed and implemented, conflicts due to knowledge gaps may remain. As such it will be
important to collect data in a way that ensures they meet an agreed upon standard of data
quality. In general it is advisable that high quality data meet the following criteria (adapted
from US EPA 2006):
 Soundness: Scientific and technical procedures, measures, methods to generate the
information are reasonable for the intended use.
 Applicability and Utility: The information is relevant for its intended use.
 Clarity and Completeness: The data, assumptions, methods, and analyses used to
generate the information are documented clearly and completely.
 Uncertainty and Variability: Variability and uncertainty (quantitative and qualitative) in
the information or the procedures, measures, methods or models are described.
 Evaluation and Review: The information is independently verifiable, validated, and/or
peer reviewed.
Best practices in the planning, design, and implementation of effective data collection
suggest that the following components should also be considered (from US EPA 2006;
Paige et al. 2014):

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
63 | P a g e
 Data Governance: What source of funding will be used to collect these data? What is
the duration of funding? Who will collect the data? How will the data be
managed/stored? How will data be used to inform decision making?
 Prioritization: What are the priority issues/questions that need to be answered? What’s
the sequencing of data collection? What’s the necessary level of reliability/precision
given the value of information being provided?
 Evaluation Design: What specific variables will be measured? How will data be
analyzed to answer the priority questions?
 Sampling Design: What are the spatial/temporal boundaries for sampling? What are
the sampling units? What is the appropriate sample size? Where will sampling occur?
How frequently will data be collected?
 Sampling Protocol: What specific methods will be used to collect data at those places
and times?
Recommendation #2: Resolve disagreements in stakeholder preferences
Separately from a lack of information leading to disagreements around cause and effect, a
second source of conflict exists due to disagreements around stakeholder preferences.
Consultations revealed two types of disagreements around preferences, specifically: (1)
differing beliefs about what components of the CWMA and polar bear tourism are most
valued, and (2) differing beliefs about what actions could be implemented to best manage
the CWMA. Based on this understanding, the following issues were identified as being the
most contentious to resolve moving forward:
 A lack of common alignment of stakeholders with the six different economic
components, since these values align most closely with the desired outcomes for
different stakeholder interests, which include maximizing:
o Financial benefits from polar bear tourism
o Benefits from other resource uses
o Local distribution of benefits from polar bear tourism
o Protection of current business investments in polar bear tourism
o Future business opportunities in polar bear tourism
o Certainty of conditions for business investments
 Disagreement in support among stakeholders for the following actions:
o clarifying rules of permit access/renewal
o changing oversight for managing permits
o changing allocation of vehicles among existing/new permit holders
o expanding areas to access
o allowing other forms of access to CWMA.
There was general interest and broad support among stakeholders for many other
management objectives, including those related to environmental components (e.g., well-
being of polar bears, other wildlife and sub-arctic habitats), and social components (e.g.,
quality of the visitor experience, safety and reputation of the community). There was also an
agreement of support for some management actions (e.g., implementing a performance

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
64 | P a g e
review/evaluation of permits, clarifying training requirements, maintaining current number of
vehicles) and an agreed lack of support for others (e.g., disallowing lodges, improving
condition of off-road trail network).
This review was helpful in clarifying the types of unresolved issues, yet it was beyond scope
to assess the validity of different perspectives and/or engage in a process to resolve
disagreements. At the core of stakeholder disagreement around preferences is the
permitting process and the number of vehicles that are allocated to different operators
based on varying perspectives of fairness. One perspective is that access and allocation of
vehicles across operators is based on historic precedent and a series of financial
transactions that led to the current consolidation of vehicles between operators. A second
perspective is that access and allocation should be based on conditions of use (i.e., use it
or lose it). While a third perspective recognizes that polar bear viewing is a common
property (public) resource and as such there is a role for government intervention in
deciding future access and allocation since the tourism industry does not currently operate
as a true free and open private market.
Given the current context for polar bear tourism in Churchill, it seems important to embark
on a process to resolve stakeholder disagreements to the extent possible. The current
situation creates some uncertainty for multi-year planning of visitor bookings and
investments by the tourism industry which has the potential to impact the economy of
Churchill. If disagreements are unresolved, there is also the potential for impacts on the
quality of the visitor experience and more broadly on Churchill’s reputation. Improvements
to community cohesion have also been noted by stakeholders as important to the
successful functioning of polar bear tourism in the small town of Churchill.
A voluntary or negotiation process is advisable as a starting point. A voluntary process
would involve tourism operators meeting on their own to see if a resolution can be reached.
A negotiated process could be used in which a third party and neutral facilitator would be
supported by the Manitoba government to help build cooperation and trust among
stakeholders to help resolve disputes that result from existing knowledge gaps and
disagreement in preferences about what to do. The experience of others involved in
resolving disputes in natural resource management (Lee 1993) and applying principled
negotiation techniques (Fisher et al. 2011) recommend the following elements for guiding
successful negotiation, which could also be applied here:
 People: Separate the people from the problem. People will inevitably and naturally be
emotional during negotiations. Emotions can become entangled in the problem
making it harder to resolve, especially when emotions are directed at others.
Respecting individuals and jointly focusing on the problem can enable success.
 Interests: Focus on interests, not positions. Negotiation based on positions obscures
what a person truly wants and makes it difficult to find common ground. Negotiation
based on interests allows for identifying possible solutions for mutual gain.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
65 | P a g e
 Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do.
Finding solutions that seek to address the interests of multiple parties encourages
creativity and avoids parties becoming entrenched in their individual positions.
 Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard. Agreement around
how to define fairness shifts discussion and decisions away from what individual
parties are willing or unwilling to do towards solutions that are judged against an
objective measure of fairness.
Recommendation #3: Prepare the community for unavoidable changes in the environment
This review highlights the important inter-relationships among the environment, bears,
tourism/visitors, and community of Churchill. It is clear from the evidence that changes in
one of these aspects have the potential to significantly affect others. Important interactions
include the following:
 The number of bears and wildlife species seen have positive effects on the visitor
experience;
 The number of bear occurrences around Churchill has been increasing over the last
several decades likely due to a combination of human interventions (e.g., shift in the
focus of the Alert Program from destruction to prevention) and changing
environmental conditions (e.g., changes in the timing of sea ice formation);
 Knowledgeable experts rated pathways involving climate change as being the most
important to polar bears, in particular changes related to: timing and duration of sea
ice leading to impacts on marine feeding opportunities (Pathway 1); availability of
marine prey (Pathway 2); habitat displacement (Pathway 5); and denning success
(Pathway 6);
 Evidence suggests that major drivers related to climate change are more important
than tourism influences; potential impacts related to the tourism industry are best
considered from a short-term perspective, compared to the medium-long term
perspective of the potential impacts associated with climate change; and
 Evidence suggests that climate change will lead to negative impacts on polar bears
with an optimistic scenario having a neutral or modestly negative outcome and a
disastrous scenario leading to a remnant population of bears in Western Hudson Bay;
the timeframe over which these changes will occur is uncertain.
What these findings confidently suggest is that Churchill has undergone and will continue to
undergo unavoidable changes in the environment over the coming decades, largely as a
result of climate change. Although there is some uncertainty around the timing of these
changes, future scenarios consistently suggest that climate impacts will lead to negative
outcomes for bears. Climate induced changes in sea ice and habitats for bears have
implications on Churchill since there is the potential for further increases in the number of
bear occurrences in the near term as bears congregate for longer times along the coast
waiting for the sea ice to form. An eventual decrease in polar bears whether due to a
decrease in abundance of the Western Hudson Bay population or habitat displacement as a
result of changing sea ice, overland migration, and denning locations can be expected to

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
66 | P a g e
have a negative impact on tourism since the number of bears is clearly related to the quality
of the visitor experience.
The ability of stakeholders and decision makers to do anything about these changes will
become increasingly limited given their consequences and the importance of polar bear
tourism to the community. Hence, there is a need to need to plan for the future and
implement management strategies that are robust to the forthcoming changes in the
environment. It is important to consider ways to begin acting upon these strategies today
since they require a long lead time to fully implement.
These longer-term actions can be viewed as operating at three scales. A first scale of
actions was identified through this review and relate to the way in which tourism operations
are managed today. Although there is an administrative burden to implement these actions,
they were broadly supported by stakeholders and have the potential to provide multiple
benefits to the environment and community (see Section 3.2.1). Furthermore, they would
help strengthen the information base for decision making and understanding of the way in
which polar bear tourism is being managed. These actions include:
 Implementing a performance review/evaluation of permits;
 Clarifying performance standards/guidelines for permit holders;
 Clarifying training requirements for permit holders;
 Maintaining current number of allowable vehicles;
 Ensuring minimum seat availability for “special” situations;
 Enhancing in-season monitoring of compliance and enforcement of permit conditions;
 Enhancing research and monitoring of social, environmental, and economic
conditions; and
 Improving communication, engagement, and education.
Despite the level of stakeholder support, implementation of these actions would likely need
to be considered in the context of resolving disagreements in stakeholder preferences as
discussed above.
A second scale of actions relate to ensuring the current polar bear tourism product is as
robust as possible to be competitive in the global market for polar bear viewing (see Section
3.2.2). Such actions will be particularly relevant for Churchill if there are changes in
perceptions of destination impacts and increases in travel costs for tourists as a result of
transitioning towards a low carbon economy (e.g., WTO and UNEP 2008). Research
indicates that polar bear viewers, like most eco-tourists, are often affluent, well-educated,
and well-travelled (Dawson et al. 2010; Lemelin et al. 2008). This characterization was
confirmed through the visitor experience survey conducted during this review. To continue
attracting and maintaining these types of visitors, best practice from The International
Ecotourism Society (TIES 2014) suggests that ecotourism products implement the following
principles:

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
67 | P a g e
 Minimize impact;
 Build environmental and cultural awareness and respect;
 Provide positive experiences for both visitors and hosts;
 Provide direct financial benefits for conservation;
 Provide financial benefits and empowerment for local people; and
 Raise sensitivity to host countries' political, environmental, and social climate.
For instance, by discussing these principles and providing information like maps depicting
the protected areas (i.e., Churchill Wildlife Management Area, Wapusk National Park) and
educational materials (both in paper and digital format) that are more contextually relevant
(i.e., applicable to Churchill), visitors can form more realistic expectations of their polar bear
viewing experience today and under changing environmental conditions. The use of similar
information strategies has been used by fishing and hunting guides and other wildlife
viewing destinations (e.g., viewing of killer whales in Victoria, BC) (Hammit and Wells
1993). Operators could also consider showcasing the various awards and certification that
the industry has received throughout the years, and highlighting the safety record of the
industry.
A last scale of actions relate to longer-term planning and adaptation of the tourism industry
in a way that takes advantage of the insights from others about how to best adjust tourism
to the impacts of climate change. In general, climate change adaptation refers to “an
adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or
their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities” (IPCC 2014).
Importantly, the intent of adaptation is to minimize the risks to human development and take
advantage of any opportunities associated with climate change.
The experience of others suggests that a diversity of technological, managerial, policy and
behavioural measures can be used by tourism stakeholders to deal with climate impacts
(WTO and UNEP 2008). Typically such measures are implemented jointly. As well, they
need to be tailored to the specific climate of the tourism destination and unique tourism
product being affected. Others also highlight that tourism infrastructure and market
transitions can take decades to shift, so longer lead times are required to implement these
measures successfully. Proactive and no-regrets
4
measures are seen as the most cost
effective actions to implement (as opposed to reactive measures after changes have
occurred). For the tourism sector these actions can include the following (adapted from
WTO and UNEP 2008):
 Raising awareness and educating tourists and operators of potential hazards and
what to do in the case of extreme events or incidents, rather than dealing with
stranded passengers, damage control and negative media coverage (a strategy which
4
No-regrets measures are actions for which the benefits outweigh the costs.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
68 | P a g e
can also directly benefit operators through positive perceptions and potential
reductions in liability);
 Diversifying tourism products and markets (rather than waiting for arrival numbers to
decline);
 Strengthening the support for adaptation in the tourism industry (e.g., provide
incentives for investments in adaptation or facilitate administration);
 ‘Climate-proofing’ tourism policies and regulations (e.g., siting of infrastructure relative
to hazards, infrastructure standards, staff training);
 Integrating the tourism sector into other government policies, for example in
environmental impact assessment, disaster management or land use planning (to
ensure best fit of these policies with tourism’s needs);
 Including disaster, incident, and adaptation responses in tourism training curricula;
 Locating (or translocating) tourist facilities/operations in low-risk areas to avoid
negative impacts and minimize the risk of poor investment decisions;
 Promoting environmental management practices that protect natural ecosystems,
reduce external stresses, and use scarce natural resources efficiently; and
 Strengthening relations between tourism facilities, operators and local communities, to
collaborate in preventing, mitigating, and responding to climate impacts and extreme
events.
Despite the risk that climate change poses to polar bear tourism in the long term, these
actions represent a broad range of positive measures that can be taken to moderate climate
impacts on Churchill. Obviously further work would be required to prioritize, describe, and
eventually implement them. Churchill is likely in a better position to adapt than some other
tourism destinations around the world since they can more easily respond to changes in
client demands and provide information to influence clients’ travel choices. As well,
operators do not operate and maintain a large amount of immobile infrastructure, which can
be more costly to adapt.
The purpose of these three recommendations is to provide guidance to decision makers
and stakeholders on what options are available to best support the multiple objectives for
managing the designated off-road trail network of the CWMA, specifically economic benefits
and welfare, community well-being and livelihoods, as well as environmental protection.
Since the choice among alternative paths forward requires a consideration of the pros and
cons of different options, the intention has been to not be overly prescriptive in how the
CWMA and polar bear tourism should be managed. Those decisions are left to the
appropriate decision makers who need to evaluate the trade-offs across the different things
that matter to interested and affected parties.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
69 | P a g e
6. Literature Cited
Abraham, K.F., L.M. McKinnon, Z. Jumean, S.M. Tully, L.R. Walton, and H.M. Stewart.
(lead coordinating authors and compilers). 2011. Hudson Plains Ecozone + Status and
Trends Assessment. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010,
Technical Ecozone+Report. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON.
Amstrup, S.C., E.T. DeWeaver, D.C. Douglas, B.G. Marcot, G.M. Durner, C.M. Bitz, and
D.A. Bailey. 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea ice loss and increase
polar bear persistence. Nature 468: 955-960.
ARK - Administration régionale Kativik. 2005. Projet de parc de la Kuururjuaq (Monts
Torngat-et-Rivière-Koroc). État des connaissances, Kuujjuaq, Québec : Administration
régionale Kativik, Service des ressources renouvelables, de l’environnement et de
l’aménagement du territoire, Section des parcs. 217 p.
Beanlands, G.E., and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental
impact assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies,
Dalhousie University and Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.
Brackley, C., S. Fick, and K. Greig. 2011. À la carte: Alternative dimensions: Resizing
Canada’s national parks by numbers of visitors. Canadian Geographic Magazine, 34-35.
Calvert, W., M. Taylor, I. Stirling, G.B. Kolenosky, S. Kearney, M. Crete, and S. Luttich.
1995. Polar bear management in Canada 1988–1992. In: Oystein, W., Born, E.W. and
Garner, G.W. (editors) Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 13th Working Meeting of the
IUCN/ SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, 23–28 June 2001, Nuuk, Greenland.
Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 10, Gland, Switzerland,
pp. 61–79.
Castro de la Guardia, L., A.E. Derocher, P.G. Myers, A.D. Terwisscha Van Scheltinga, and
N.J. Lunn. 2013. Future sea ice conditions in Western Hudson Bay and consequences
for polar bears in the 21st century. Global Change Biology 19: 2675-2687,
doi:10.1111/gcb.12272.
Chambellant, M. 2010. Hudson Bay ringed seal: ecology in a warming climate. pp 137-158
115 In Ferguson, S.H. et al. (eds.) A Little Less Arctic: Top Predators in the World’s
Largest Northern Inland Sea, Hudson Bay. Springer Science+Business Media.
Clark, D.A., F.M. van Beest, and R.K. Brook. 2012. Polar bear-human conflicts: state of
knowledge and research needs. Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management.
2012(1):21-29.
Clemen, R.T. 1996. Making hard decisions: An introduction to decision analysis. Belmont,
Ca, Duxbury Press.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2008. COSEWIC
assessment and update status report on the polar bear Ursus maritimus in Canada.
Ottawa. vii + 75 pp.
Dawson, J., E.J. Stewart, R.H. Lemelin, and D. Scott. 2010. The carbon cost of polar bear
viewing tourism in Churchill, Canada, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 319-336.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
70 | P a g e
Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn, and I. Stirling. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate.
Integrative and Comparative Biology. 44: 163-176.
Duinker, P.N., and L.A. Greig. 2007. Scenario analysis in environmental impact
assessment: Improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review. 27:206-219.
Dyck, M.G., and R.K. Baydack. 2004. Vigilance behaviour of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)
in the context of wildlife-viewing activities at Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Biological
Conservation 116: 343-350.
Dyck, M.G., and R.K. Baydack. 2006. Human activities associated with polar bear viewing
near Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11: 143-145.
ÉcoRessources Consultants. 2011. Evidence of the Socio-economic Important of Polar
Bears in Canada. Report prepared for Environment Canada. 88 pp.
Elliott, C. 2001. Power point presentation on Managing Tourism in the Cape Churchill
Wildlife Management Area. Available online: http://wwf.panda.org/?11932/Managing-
Tourism-in-the-Cape-Churchill-Wildlife-Management-Area-by-Cam-Elliott.
Esters, J.A., J. Terborgh, J.S. Brashares, M.E. Power, J. Berger, W.J. Bond, S.R.
Carpenter, T.E. Essington, R.D. Holt, J.B.C. Jackson, R.J. Marquis, L. Oksanen, T.
Oksanen, R.T. Pain, E.K. Pikitch, W.J. Ripole, S.A. Sandin, M.Sheffer, T.W. Schoener,
J.B. Shurin, A.R.E. Sinclair, M.E. Soulé, R. Virtanen, and D.A. Wardle. 2011. Trophic
downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333: 301-306. DOI: 10.1126/science.1205106.
Ferguson, S.H., I. Stirling, and P. McLoughlin. 2005. Climate change and ringed seal
(Phoca hispida) recruitment in Western Hudson Bay. Marine Mammal Science 21(1):
121-135.
Fisher, R., W. Ury, and B. Patton. 2011. Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without
giving in. Third edition. Penguin Books. New York, NY.
Gagnon, A.S., and W.A. Gough. 2005. Trends in dates of ice freeze-up and breakup over
Hudson Bay, Canada. Arctic 58(4): 370-382.
Gearheard, S., W. Matumeak, I. Angutikjuaq, J. Maslanik, H.P. Huntington, J. Leavitt, M.
Kagak, G. Tigullaraqm, and R.G. Barry. 2006. It’s not that simple: a collaborative
comparison of sea ice environments, their uses, observed changes, and adaptations in
Barrow, Alaska, USA, and Clyde River, Nunavut, Canada. Ambio, 35(4), 203–211.
George, J.C., H.P. Huntington, K. Brewster, H. Eicken, D.W. Norton, and R. Glenn. 2004.
Observations on shorefast ice failures in Arctic Alaska and the responses of the Inupiat
hunting community. Arctic, 57, 363–374.
Gomezano, L.J., and R.F. Rockwell. 2013. What to eat now? Shifts in polar bear diet during
the ice-free season in Western Hudson Bay. Ecology and Evolution.
doi:10.1002/ece3.740.
Gough, W.A., A.R. Cornwell, and L.J.S. Tsuji. 2004. Trends in seasonal sea ice duration in
Southwestern Hudson Bay. Arctic. 57(3): 299-305.
Government of Manitoba. 2014. Species Monitoring – Polar Bears in Manitoba. Available
online: http://gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/spmon/pbear/index.html.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
71 | P a g e
Gregory, R., L. Failing, M. Harstone, G. Long, T. McDaniels, and D. Ohlson. 2012.
Structured Decision Making: A practical guide to environmental management choices.
Wiley Blackwell.
Hagen, D., O.I. Vistad, N.E. Eide, A.C. Flyens, and K. Fangel. 2012. Managing visitor sites
in Svalbard: from a precautionary approach towards knowledge-based management.
Polar Research, 31, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/polar.v31i0.18432.
Hammitt, W.E., and G.R. Wells. 1993. Determinants of quality wildlife viewing in Great
Smoky Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21, 21-30.
Humlum, O. 2005. Svalbard. In: Nuttall, M. (editor) Encyclopedia of the Arctic. Routledge,
New York, pp. 1975–1982.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner,
M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (editors).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535
pp. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J.
Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada,
R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and
L.L. White (editors). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, 1132 pp. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
IUCN Polar Bear Status Group. 2014. Polar Bear Population Status Table. Available online:
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html.
Kaltenborn, B.P. 2000. Arctic-alpine environments and tourism: can sustainability be
planned? Lessons learned on Svalbard. Mountain Research and Development, 20(1):
28–31.
Kaltenborn, B.P. and L. Emmelin. 1993. Tourism in the high north: management challenges
and recreation opportunity spectrum planning in Svalbard, Norway. Environmental
Management, 17, 41–50.
Krebs, C.J. 1994. Ecology: The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. 4th
Edition. Harper Collins.
Lackey, R.T. 2001. Values, Policy, and Ecosystem Health. BioScience. 51(6): 437-443.
Lee, K. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment.
Island Press. Washington, D.C.
Lemelin, R. H. 2005. Wildlife Tourism At The Edge of Chaos: Complex Interactions
Between Humans and Polar Bears In Churchill, Manitoba. In F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H.
Fast, M. Manseau, & A. Diduck. (editors). Breaking Ice: Renewable Resource and Ocean
Management in the Canadian North. (pp. 183-202) Calgary, AB: University of Calgary
Press.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
72 | P a g e
Lemelin, R.H. 2006. The Gawk, The Glance, and The Gaze: Occular Consumption and
Polar Bear Tourism in Churchill, Manitoba Canada. Current Issues in Tourism 9(6), 516-
534.
Lemelin, R.H. 2012. L’aire protégée transfrontalière Torngat-Koroc: Gouvernance et
retombé économique potentielles dans les territoires du Nunatsiavut (Labrador) et
Nunavik (Québec). Téoros, 31(1), 29-38.
Lemelin, R.H., and B.J.A. Smale. 2006. Effects of Environmental Context on the Experience
of Polar Bear Viewers in Churchill, Manitoba. Journal of Ecotourism 5(3), 176-191.
Lemelin, R.H., and G. Dickson. 2012. Provide Great and Unique Experiences and they Will
Come: Examining the Potentials of Polar Bear Tourism in Eeyou Istchee, Northern
Quebec, Canada. The Northern Review, 35, 176-192.
Lemelin, R.H., and M. Dyck. 2007. New Frontiers in Marine Wildlife Tourism II: An
International Overview of Polar Bear Tourism. In J. Higham and M. Lück (Eds.). (pp. 361-
379). Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management. Oxford: CABI Publishing.
Lemelin, R.H., B. Smale, and D. Fennell. 2008. Polar Bear Viewers As Deep Ecotourists:
How Specialized Are They? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(1), 42-62.
Lemelin, R.H., J. Dawson, M. Johnston, E. Stewart, and C. Mattina. 2012. Résilience,
appartenance et tourisme au Nunatsiavut. Études Inuits/Inuit Studies, 36(2), 35-58.
Lemelin, R.H., M. Johnson, D. Lough, J. Rowell, W. Broomfield, G. Baikie, and K.
Sheppard. In press. “Collaborative Management Approaches to Transboundary
Protected Areas in Northern Canada: Tongait KakKasuangita SilakKijapvinga/Torngat
Mountains National Park, Nunatsiavut and le Parc national Kuururjuaq Nunavik”, in T
Herrmann and T. Martin (Eds.), Indigenous Peoples Governance and Protected Areas in
the Circumpolar Arctic, Springer.
Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher, and J.D. Swait. 2000. Stated choice methods: analysis and
applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
http://isbndb.com/d/book/stated_choice_methods_analysis_and_applications.
Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (CWS). 2004. 2003 Polar Bear Alert
Program Annual Report.
Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (CWS). 2014. 2013 Polar Bear Alert
Program Annual Report.
Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (CWS). No date. Management Plan:
Churchill Wildlife Management Area.
Martin T.G., M.A. Burgman, F. Fidler, P.M. Kuhnert, S. Low-Choy, M. McBride, and K.
Mengersen. 2011. Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conservation
Biology 26(1): 29-38.
McKinnon, L.M., and K.F. Abraham. 2011. Summary of Stressors. p. 363-380 in Abraham,
K.F., McKinnon, L.M., Jumean, Z., Tully, S.M., Walton, L.R. and Stewart, H.M. (lead
coordinating authors and compilers). 2011. Hudson Plains Ecozone+ Status and Trends
Assessment. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, Technical
Ecozone+ Report. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. xxi + 445 pp.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
73 | P a g e
Milly, P.C.D., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark, R.M. Hirsch, Z.W. Kundzewicz, D.P.
Lettenmaier, and R.J. Stouffer. 2008. Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management?
Science. Climate Change: Policy Forum. Vol. 319.
Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP). 2007.
Plan directeur provisoire du parc national de la Kuururjuaq. Direction du Patrimoine
écologique et des Parcs Service des Parcs, Québec : Québec, 48.
Moore, S., and B. Weiler. 2009. Tourism-Protected Area Partnerships: Stoking the Fires of
Innovation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 129-132.
Mora, C., A.G. Frazier, R.J. Longman, R.S. Dacks, M.M. Walton, E.J. Tong, J.J. Sanchez,
L.R. Kaiser, Y.O. Stender, J.M. Anderson, C.M. Ambrosino, I. Fernandez-Silva, L.M.
Giuseffi, and T.W. Giambelluca. 2013. The projected timing of climate departure from
recent variability. Nature. 502: 183–187 doi:10.1038/nature12540
Morgan, M.G., and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty: A guide to dealing with uncertainty in
quantitative risk and policy analysis. New York, NY, Cambridge University Press.
National Snow and Ice Data Centre. 2014. Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis. Available
online: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/. Accessed April 2015.
Nelitz, M., and B. Beardmore. 2015. Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill
Wildlife Management Area: Stakeholder Consultation Summary Report. Prepared for
Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship, Winnipeg, MB. Prepared by ESSA
Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC.
Nelitz, M.A., and B. Beardmore. In press. Eliciting judgments, priorities, and values using
structured survey methods. In S.A. Gray, M.J. Paolisso, S.R.J. Gray, and R.C. Jordan
(editors). Environmental Modeling with Stakeholders: Theory, Methods and Applications.
Springer Publishing.
Northern Development Ministers Forum (NDMF). 2008. Tourism Potential in Canada’s
North – Report on Survey Results. Northern Development Ministers Forum. Available at:
http://www.focusnorth.ca/documents/english/library/2008/tourism_potential_in_canadas_
north.pdf.
Norton, D.W., and A.G. Gaylord. 2004. Drift velocities of ice floes in Alaska’s Chukchi sea
flaw zone: determinants of success by spring subsistence whalers in 2000 and 2001.
Arctic, 57, 347–362.
Obbard, M.E. and L.R. Walton. 2011. Polar bear. p. 163-174 In: Abraham, K.F., McKinnon,
L.M., Jumean, Z., Tully, S.M., Walton, L.R. and Stewart, H.M. (lead coordinating authors
and compilers). 2011. Hudson Plains Ecozone+ Status and Trends Assessment.
Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, Technical Ecozone+ Report.
Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. xxi + 445 pp.
Olar, M., J. Louvel, M. Hernandez, C. Sauvé, S. Zussy, and J. Messier. 2011. Evidence of
the Socio-Economic Importance of Polar Bears for Canada. Prepared by ÉcoRessources
Consultants.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1977a. Background Information: Polar Bear
Provincial Park. Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
74 | P a g e
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1977b. Planning Proposal: Polar Bear
Provincial Park. Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1980. Polar bear provincial park: master
plan. Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1994. Polar Bear Provincial Park
Management Plan Review: Public Comments and Co-planning Team Responses
Concerning the Summary of Issues and Options Discussion Paper.
Ontario Parks. 2005. Polar Bear Provincial Park. Master Plan – Proposed Amendment –
November 2005. Available online:
http://www.ontarioparks.ca/english/planning_pdf/pola_plan_ammend.
Paige, K., L.M. Darling, and D. Pickard. 2014. A guide to wildlife resource value
effectiveness evaluations. Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forests, Lands and
Natural Resource Operations. Victoria, BC. FREP Report 37. Available online:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/hfp/external/!publish/FREP/reports/FREP_Report_37.pdf
Parks Canada. 2010. Tongait KakKasuangita SilakKijapvinga, Torngat Mountains National
Park. Management Plan. Ottawa, Gouvernement du Canada. Available online:
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/pc/R64-105-81-2010-fra.pdf.
Peacock, E., A.E. Derocher, N.J. Lunn, and M.E. Obbard. 2010. Polar bear ecology and
management in Hudson Bay in the face of climate change. p. 93-115 In Ferguson, S.H.
et al. (eds.) A Little Less Arctic: Top Predators in the World’s Largest Northern Inland
Sea, Hudson Bay. Springer Science+Business Media.
Portman, T. 2004. Tundra struck: exploring Ontario’s polar bear provincial park. Available
online: http://www.cnf.ca/magazine/fall04/tundra.html.
Purvis, A., J.L. Gittleman, G. Cowlishaw, and G.M. Mace. 2000. Predicting extinction risk in
declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society 267: 1947-1952.
Razzhivin, V. 2005. Wrangel Island. In: Nuttall, M (editor) Encyclopedia of the Arctic.
Routledge, New York, pp. 2196–2197.
Regehr, E.V., N.J. Lunn, S.C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling. 2007. Effects of earlier sea ice
breakup on survival and population size of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay. Journal
of Wildlife Management 71(8): 2673-2683. DOI: 10.2193/2006-180.
Ressources naturelles et Faune Quebec. 2010. Ours blanc, fiche descriptive. Available
online: http://www3.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca/faune/especes/menacees/fiche.asp?noEsp=87.
Richardson, E. 2009. Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) life history and population dynamics in a
changing climate. Arctic 62(4)491-494.
Robbins, M. 2013. The Arviat Community Ecotourism Initiative: Creating a Local Tourism
Economy and Pride in Culture in a Remote Inuit Community. In R. H. Lemelin, P. Maher,
and D. Liggett (Eds.), From Talk to Action: How Tourism Is Changing The Polar Regions.
(pp. 201-223). Centre for Northern Studies, Lakehead University: Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Rockwell, R.F., and L.J. Gormezano. 2009. The early bear gets the goose: climate change,
polar bears and lesser snow geese in western Hudson Bay. Polar Biology 32: 539-547.

Tourism Carrying Capacity Review of the Churchill WMA
Summary, Key Findings, & Recommendations
75 | P a g e
Rode, K.D., C.T. Robbins, L. Nelson, and S.C Amstrup 2015. Can polar bears use
terrestrial foods to offset lost ice-based hunting opportunities? Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment 13: 138–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/140202.
Schliebe, S., T. Evans, K. Johnson, M. Roy, S. Miller, C. Hamilton, R. Meehan, and S.
Jahrsdoerfer. 2006. Range-Wide Status Review of the Polar Bear Ursus maritimus.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 262 pp.
Scott, J.B.T. and G.J. Marshall. 2010. A Step-Change in the Date of Sea-Ice Breakup in
Western Hudson Bay. Arctic. 63 (2): 155-164.
Shaw, G., and A.M. Williams. 2002. Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective.
2nd Edition. Wiley-Blackwell
Sides, H. 2013. Russian Refuge: Wrangel Island is a haven for wildlife, frozen in space and
time. National Geographic. Available online:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/wrangel-island/sides-text.
Stapleton, S., S. Atkinson, D. Hedman, and D. Garshelis. 2014. Revisiting Western Hudson
Bay: Using aerial surveys to update polar bear abundance in a sentinel population.
Biological Conservation 170:38-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.040.
Stirling, I. 2011. Polar Bears. The Natural History of a Threatened Species. Fitzhenry and
Whiteside, Markham, ON Canada. 330 p.
Stirling, I. and A.E. Derocher. 2012. Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of
the evidence. Global Change Biology 18: 2674-2706.
Stirling, I., A.E. Derocher, W.A. Gough, and K. Rode. 2008. Response to Dyck et al. (2007)
on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecological Complexity 5:
193-201.
Stirling, I., and C.L. Parkinson. 2006. Possible effects of climate warming on selected
populations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian arctic. Arctic 59: 261-275.
Stirling, I., N.J. Lunn, and J. Iacozza. 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of
polar bears in Western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change. Arctic 52(3): 294-306.
Stroeve, J., M.M. Holland, W. Meier, T. Scambos, and M. Serreze. 2007. Arctic sea ice
decline: Faster than forecast. Geophysical Research Letters. 34:L09501, doi:
10.1029/2007GL029703.
Struzik, E. 2014. Arctic icons: How the town of Churchill learned to love its polar bears.
Fitzhenry & Whiteside, Markham, ON.
The International Ecotourism Society (TIES). 2014. Member code of conduct. Available
online: https://www.ecotourism.org/code-of-conduct.
Thiemann, G.W., S.J. Iverson, and I. Stirling. 2008. Polar bear diets and arctic marine food
webs: insights from fatty acid analysis. Ecological Monographs 78: 591–613.
Tonge, M.B., and T.L. Pulfer. 2011. Recovery Strategy for Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) in
Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. vii + 54 pp.
Towns, L., A.E. Derocher, I. Stirling, N.J. Lunn, and D. Hedman. 2009. Spatial and temporal
patterns of problem polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba. Polar Biology 32: 1529-1537.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
76 | P a g e
Tyrell, M. 2006. More bears, less bears: Inuit and scientific perceptions of polar bear
populations on the west coast of Hudson Bay. Études/Inuit/Studies, vol. 30, no 2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1998. Principles of Environmental Impact
Assessment. Prepared by the Office of Federal Activities.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006. Guidance on systematic planning
using the data quality objectives process. Office of Environmental Information.
Washington, DC. EPA/240/B-06/001. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-
docs/g4-final.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW). 2015. Polar Bear Viewing Guides and Water Taxi
Transporters. Available online: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/arctic/pbguide.html
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2006. World
Heritage Sites: Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve. Available online:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1023.
Vongraven, D., J. Ars, S. Amstrup, S.N. Atkinson, S. Belikov, E.W. Born, T.D. DeBruyn,
A.E. Derocher, G. Durner, M. Gill, N. Lunn, M.E. Obbard, J. Omelak, N. Ovsyanikov, E.
Peacock, E. Richardson, V. Sahanatien, I. Stirling, and Ø. Wiig. 2012. A circumpolar
monitoring framework for polar bears. Ursus Mongograph Series 5: 1-66.
World Tourism Organization (WTO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
2008. Climate Change and Tourism – Responding to Global Challenges. Available
online: http://sdt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/climate2008.pdf

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-1
Appendix A: Pathways-of-Effect and Supporting Evidence
Figure A1: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 1: Climate change and related changes in duration of ice on
Western Hudson Bay lead to polar bear population declines as a result of fewer feeding opportunities on
primary prey species. See Table A1 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-2
Table A1: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 1: Climate change and related changes in duration of ice on
Western Hudson Bay lead to polar bear population declines as a result of fewer feeding opportunities on
primary prey species. See Figure A1 for an illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change
will affect the
thermal regime of
WHB, generally
causing warming
temperatures.
 Stirling et al. 1999 describe that in Hudson Bay, runoff has increased by 52% during winter (November to
April) and decreased by 6% during summer (May to October) (Prinsenberg, 1980). This represents an
additional 3 cm layer of freshwater over the entire Bay. The modification of the pattern of runoff, especially
during May through July, might also affect the timing of breakup and freeze up.
 Gough (2011) states that “As sea ice disappears, the winterization effect along the southwestern Hudson
Bay coast also will disappear. An amplified warming over the bays of up to ~10°C in winter is projected
(Gagnon and Gough 2005), which will threaten permafrost throughout the ecozone. Frost penetration will
abate, and the thawing depth will increase and soon exceed the freezing depth.... Geomorphic features such
as palsas will degrade and eventually disappear, which could substantially impact polar bear habitat (Stirling
and Derocher 1993; Derocher et al. 2004; Obbard et al. 2006).
 Dredge (2011) states that the area around HB...”has a maritime boreal climate, influenced significantly by
Hudson Bay. Mean annual air temperatures vary from –7°C at Churchill to –1°C at Moosonee, and
precipitation ranges from 430 mm to 680 mm correspondingly (Environment Canada 2010). The seasonal
presence of sea ice in Hudson and James bays has an important effect on climate and contributes to the
occurrence in the Hudson Plains Ecozone of the most southern continuous permafrost in North America
(Gough and Leung 2002; Zhang et al. 2008)”.
 McKinnon and Abraham (2011) summarize stresses in the HB area including that : “increases in
temperature in the broader Hudson Bay ecosystem are associated with significant changes in sea ice regime
which, given continued warming, will strongly affect the ecozone’s defining climatic and edaphic conditions,
with implications for all biomes and protected areas”.
 In summarizing the results of a number of climate change models, Gagnon and Gough (2005) found that “...
a relationship is identified between the retreat of the sea-ice cover and an enhancement of precipitation over
both land and oceanic surfaces. The response of the sea-ice cover and permafrost layer to global warming
varies considerably among models and thus large differences are observed in the projected regional
increase in temperature and precipitation.
2
The ice-free
season on
Western Hudson
Bay (WHB) will
increase as the
thermal regime
 Stirling et al. (1999) analyzed the timing of breakup in western HB for the period 1979-1998 and found an
overall trend of earlier break-up that approached statistical significance (p=0.07). There was no trend in the
time of freeze-up.
 Parkinson et al. (1999), analyzed the sea-ice extent of Hudson Bay and found that during 1978 – 96, the
spatial extent of sea ice over HB decreased at a rate of 1.4 × 103 km2/yr, with negative trends in all seasons
but winter.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-3
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
changes affecting
the dates of
freeze-up & thaw.
 Parkinson (2000) notes that the sea ice season has shortened by 0.5 days/year in a large part of the coastal
annual ice preferred by polar bears in recent years.
 Gough et al. (2004) examined historical ice records for HB and found significant trends for earlier break-up
for southwestern HB.
 Gagnon and Gough (2005) found a trend for earlier break-up in James Bay, southern HB and western HB,
with magnitudes from 0.49 – 1.25 days earlier per year. These rates are similar to temperature trends in
these areas.
 Stirling et al. (2004) reported a statistically significant trend toward earlier breakup off the Manitoba coast
(but not off the Ontario coast) during 1971 – 2001.
 Parkinson and Cavalieri (2008) analyzed Arctic sea ice extents derived from satellite passive-microwave
data for the 28 years 1979–2006 and found an overall negative trend of -45,100 ± 4,600 km2 /yr (-3.7 ±
0.4%/decade) in the yearly averages, with negative ice extent trends also for each of the four seasons and
each of the 12 months. This trend included HB, for which there was a decline of-4500 ± 900 km2/yr (-5.3 ±
1.1%/decade).
 Stirling et al. (2004) and Stirling & Parkinson (2006) documented a significant relationship between time and
breakup date indicating that the mean date of breakup in western Hudson Bay was already about 3 weeks
earlier than only 30 years prior.
 Figure 3 (to the right) from Stirling and
Derocher (2012): Date of breakup of the sea
ice used by the western HB polar bear
population from 1979 to 2007.
 Stirling and Derocher (2012) summarized
previous studies: “The link to climate
warming was evident in the mean annual
temperature increase at six of seven weather
stations throughout Hudson Bay and,
specifically, by 0.5 °C/decade at Churchill, on
the western coast, between 1971 and 2001
(Gagnon and Gough 2005). Two additional
studies analyzed surface air temperatures
recorded by satellite and reported increases
of 1.2–1.6 °C/decade in offshore areas of
western Hudson Bay between 1981 and
2005 (Comiso 2006; Serreze & Francis
2006). These latter studies also show that in the spring, the warming graded from about 1.2 °C/decade

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-4
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
offshore to about 0.4 °C/decade along the coast (close to the 0.5 °C/decade reported by Gagnon and Gough
2005). A statistically significant trend toward earlier breakup is observed in western Hudson Bay, with a trend
of more than 0.8 days per year (df = 31, P < 0.05). This means that by 2003, breakup was occurring
approximately 26 ± 7 days earlier than in 1971 (Gagnon and Gough 2005).”
3
The longer period
of ice-free
conditions will
limit polar bears’
opportunities to
feed on marine
mammals
affecting the bear
population
carrying capacity.
 In HB, ringed seal makes up the majority of the polar bear diet, with smaller amounts of other marine
mammals (Abraham et al. 2011).
 Increased amounts of open water may reduce the hunting efficiency of polar bears because seals may
become less restricted in their need to maintain breathing holes and haul-out sites and thus become less
predictable for foraging polar bears (Derocher et al. 2004).
 However, there are complex scenarios regarding possible migration north of presently rarely used species
(e.g. harp seal, hooded seal) that could provide additional food for polar bears (Derocher et al. 2004).
 Thiemann et al. 2008 used fatty acid signature analysis to conclude that diets in every Canadian arctic
population of polar bears were dominated by ringed seals. They conclude that in areas where polar bears
are dependent on availability of ringed and bearded seals that their specialized diets may make them most
vulnerable to climate-related changes in ice conditions.
 Ringed seal is also dependent on the sea ice, and it might be affected by the same climatic influences as
polar bears patterns (Ferguson et al. 2005; Chambellant 2010).
 Ferguson et al. (2005) found high inter-annual variation in ringed seal survival in Western HB, but described
a relationship between seal density and recruitment and snow depth and timing of spring break-up which
they hypothesize is linked to climate change.
 Chambellant (2010) reviewed ringed seal ecology in HB in the 1990’s and 2000s. Citing climate change
impacts on snow cover and ice stability they express concern regarding the long term population of ringed
seals, however they do not present definitive findings of population declines.
 A considerable debate took place in the literature between two groups of ecologists about the extent of
scientific evidence in support of the role of climate change in the fate of polar bear populations which
included the effects of changes in food on polar bears (Dyck et al. 2007, 2008; Stirling et al. 2008).
4
Altered feeding
opportunities in
influence the
health of
individual polar
bears as indicated
through body
condition, age of
 Stirling et al. (1999) reported on monitoring the condition of adult male and female polar bears and found a
significant relationship between the timing of breakup and the condition (as indicated by weight and length)
of adults of both sexes which was related to the date of break-up (but not freeze-up). There was also a
statistically significant relationship between the date of breakup and the condition of adult female bears when
they came ashore. They also found variances in cub survival and proportion of lone yearlings, but these did
not correlate with break-up dates.
 Stirling and Parkinson (2006) found a relationship between the dates of sea ice breakup in HB and the mean
weights of suspected pregnant female bears before maternity denning.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-5
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
first reproduction,
litter size and
survival.
 Tully and Walton (2011) state that: “Polar bear body condition, reproductive rates, and survival have been
declining in the Hudson Bay area over the past 15-20 years. These trends in polar bear are correlated with
the declining extent and duration of sea ice in Hudson and James bays, implying that the effect is due to
polar bears having less total time available on the sea ice to hunt seals and a longer period on land during
the ice-free season, when they eat only opportunistically (Stirling et al. 1999; Parks et al. 2006; Obbard et al.
2006, 2007; Regehr et al. 2007).”
 Regher et al. 2007 found a relationship between the dates of sea ice and the survival of juvenile, subadult,
and senescent adult bears in Western HB.
 Regher et al. 2007 propose the following explanation for the concurrent observations of an increasing
number of polar bears coming into Churchill and a declining WH population. Sea ice breakup in western
Hudson Bay has been occurring progressively earlier due to rising air temperatures (Gagnon and Gough
2005). This shortens the time that polar bears can hunt seals on the sea ice, thereby forcing them ashore in
poorer nutritional condition (Stirling et al. 1999) and increasing their risk of starvation.
 Molnár et al (2014) corrected earlier estimates of Molnár et al. (2010) and using an individual-based dynamic
energy budget model, they estimated that 2- 3 of adult males in Western Hudson Bay would die of starvation
before the end of a 120 day summer fasting period but 9-21% would die if climate warming increases the
fasting period to 180 days.
 Robbins et al. (2012) estimated that 16%
of adult males would die if fasting lasted
for 5.4 months and that the average
adult male would be able to fast for 8.0
±2.6 months before dying due to
starvation.
 Excerpt from Figure 6 (to the right) from
Stirling et al. 1999. Trends in condition of
adult male and female polar bears
expressed as three-year running means.
And the proportion of yearlings that were
along when captured in the fall.
5
Altered health of
individuals will
lead to changes in
the polar bear
population.
 It is axiomatic that the health of individuals as defined by age of first reproduction, litter size, and survival will
affect population status and trend.
 Changes in body condition of bears were first identified for the period 1981-1998 (Stirling et al. 1999), the
trend continued and estimates of the population change from 1,194 in 1987 to 935 in 2004.
 This link recurs in most pathways, but for efficiency, is only shown here.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-6
Figure A2: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 2: Climate change induced impacts on the Western Hudson
Bay thermal regime affects the relative availability of marine species leading to population level impacts on
polar bears. See Table A2 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-7
Table A2: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 2: Climate change induced impacts on the Western Hudson Bay
thermal regime affects the relative availability of marine species leading to population level impacts on polar
bears. See Figure A2 for an illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change will affect the thermal regime of WHB, generally causing warming temperatures.
See evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
6
The altered
thermal regime
will change the
relative
abundance of
marine mammals,
and alter the polar
bears’ feeding
opportunities.
 Ferguson et al. (2005) cite shifts in the availability of prey of thick-billed murres at Coats Island in HB as an
example of climate-induced changes in prey with implications for a predator species.
 Ringed seal is also dependent on the sea ice, and it might be affected by the same climatic influences as
polar bears patterns (Ferguson et al. 2005; Chambellant 2010).
 In western Hudson Bay from 1991 to 2007, a dietary shift of polar bear away from ice-associated bearded
seal towards more open-water seal species (such as harp and harbour seals) could be related to changes in
sea ice conditions associated with climatic warming (Thiemann et al. 2008; McKinney et al. 2009).
 Derocher et al. (2004) note that: “In western Hudson Bay, preliminary data from the Inuit harvest data and
fatty acid signatures in polar bears suggest that harbour seals may already be increasing (I.S. and S.
Iverson, unpublished data) and becoming more important prey items for the bears there.”
 Peacock et al. (2010) note “There are early indications of change in the Hudson Bay predator-prey
relationship. Iverson et al. (2006) and McKinney et al. (2009) have indicated there has been an increase of
harbour seals and bearded seals and a decrease in ringed seals in polar bear diets in Western Hudson Bay
(but see Thiemann et al. 2008). It is likely that harp seals will continue to advance into Hudson Bay and this
species may become an important prey source for polar bears. The expansion of killer whales into the area
is an early indication of a possible regime shift with a new top predator (Higdon and Ferguson 2009...).
4
Altered feeding opportunities influence health of polar bears: body condition, age of 1st reprod’n, litter size & survival.
See evidence for this Link in Pathway 1

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-8
Figure A3: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 3: Climate change induced impacts on the Western Hudson
Bay thermal regime affects the relative availability of marine prey species leading to increased contaminants
in the food of polar bears leading to population level impacts. See Table A3 for a summary of evidence related to
linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-9
Table A3: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 3: Climate change induced impacts on the Western Hudson Bay
thermal regime affects the relative availability of marine prey species leading to increased contaminants in the
food of polar bears leading to population level impacts. See Figure A3 for an illustration of the linkages within this
pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change will affect the thermal regime of WHB, generally causing warming temperatures.
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
6
The altered thermal regime will change the relative abundance of marine mammals, and alter the polar bears’ feeding opportunities.
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 2
7
Changes in the
feeding habits of
bears, as a result
of the changes in
relative
abundance of
marine prey
species, will alter
polar bears’
exposure to
contaminants
 McKinney et al. (2009) used stable carbon isotope values from polar bear tissue samples to determine a shift
in food away from benthic foraging to pelagic foraging prey. This is interpreted as a lower consumption of
bearded seals (which are benthic foragers). They found higher contaminant levels in polar bears compared
to previously which is consistent with studies demonstrating lower contaminant levels in bearded seals
relative to the other prey species.
 In years with earlier ice break-up there was a decrease in the consumption of ice-associated bearded seals
and a subsequent increase in the consumption of one or more open-water associated seal species (harbour
and/or harp seals) that are known to contain higher levels of some of these contaminants (Obbard and
Walton 2011).
 Dietary shift of bears away from ice-associated bearded seal towards more open-water seal species (such
as harp and harbour seals) is believed to have altered contaminant levels in bears (Abraham et al. 2011).
8
Contaminants
have a
detrimental
impact on the
health of polar
bears
 As part of a comprehensive review of organohalogen contaminants in arctic fish and wildlife Letcher et al.
(2010) conclude that “polar bears may be at higher risk for infections and reproductive effects that could
lead to decreased survival and a chronic stress on population health (although not yet studied) due to
immune, endocrine and reproductive effects”
 Letcher et al. (2010) describe several potential health and reproductive concerns associated with
contaminants in east Greenland and Norwegian polar bears and McKinney et al. (2010) contends that similar
concerns may exist for HB bears given high concentrations of PCBs, DDE metabolites and Organohalogen
compounds and that HB polar bear population is a ‘hotspot’ of concern.
 McKinney et al. (2009) examined changes in a number of contaminants in polar bear tissue samples
between 1991 and 2007. Some contaminants increased and others decreases. No clear consistent
dynamics across contaminant groups were evident.
 Impacts of increases in contaminants unclear, but impaired endocrine and immune function and reproductive
effects have been suggested (Obbard and Walton 2011)

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-10
Figure A4: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 4: Climate change induced impacts on the Western Hudson
Bay thermal regime and date of ice thaw on the Bay lead to changes in the relative abundance of alternative
(terrestrial) prey affecting polar bear population levels. See Table A4 for a summary of evidence related to
linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-11
Table A4: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 4: Climate change induced impacts on the Western Hudson Bay
thermal regime and date of ice thaw on the Bay lead to changes in the relative abundance of alternative
(terrestrial) prey affecting polar bear population levels. See Figure A4 for an illustration of the linkages within this
pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change will affect the thermal regime of WHB, generally causing warming temperatures
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
2
The ice-free season on Western Hudson Bay (WHB) will increase as the thermal regime changes affecting the dates of freeze-up &
thaw
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
9
Polar bears will
come into greater
contact with
alternative prey
as a result of
bears moving off
the ice sooner
and bears will
consume greater
amounts of
alternative prey
 There is speculation that of snow geese and their eggs may become more important to make up for loss of
seals in diet due to early break up (Rockwell et al. 2010).
 From Rockwell et al. 2010, Rockwell and Gormenzano 2009. Break up of sea ice is making polar bears
advent on to land at a rate of 0.5 – 0.72 days/year this is putting polar bears on shore at the time when lesser
snow geese are incubating eggs.
 Gormezano and Rockwell (2013) compared the on-shore diets of western HB polar bears from 1968-69 to
those of 2006-2008 based on scat analysis and noted considerably more caribou in their recent diet that that
of the 1960’s. Bears are also eating fewer small mammals and more snow geese, lyme grass and
mushrooms. Caribou are much more abundant in the region (30-50) as are snow geese (5-20 fold) –fold
now and bears seem to adapted to take advantage. They suggest that polar bears may have an inherent
dietary plasticity. They conclude that shifts in diet composition, even for what may comprise a small fraction
of the annual nutritional and energy budget may become increasingly important for some individuals in the
population as ice conditions worsen.
 Snow geese are not more abundant because of climate change per se, but due to changes in agricultural
practices and land use in temperate areas of North America (Abraham et al. 2005).
 The potential significance of this pathway is disputed by some (e.g. Stirling and Derocher 2012)
10
The use of
alternative prey
will affect bear’s
health
 Gormezano and Rockwelll (2013) discuss the possibility that the increasing breadth of foods eaten by bears
during the ice-free season may be of increasing importance as the ice-free season is lengthening, but do not
provide an indication of implications for health and survival.
 Rode (2015) assessed potential of terrestrial food to have a meaningful impact on polar bear health in
offsetting loss of ice-based hunting opportunities and concluded that “observed consumption of terrestrial
food by polar bears has been insufficient to offset lost ice-based hunting opportunities....Warming-induced
loss of sea ice remains the primary threat for polar bears

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-12
Figure A5: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages Pathway 5: Climate change induced changes in the date of ice thaw
lead to displacement of bears from traditional denning areas leading to health impacts and changes in polar
bear population levels. See Table A5 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-13
Table A5: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 5: Climate change induced changes in the date of ice thaw lead to
displacement of bears from traditional denning areas leading to health impacts and changes in polar bear
population levels. See Figure A5 for an illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change will affect the thermal regime of WHB, generally causing warming temperatures.
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
2
The ice-free season on Western Hudson Bay (WHB) will increase as the thermal regime changes affecting the dates of freeze-up and
thaw
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
11
Bears will come
off the ice at
different places
than ‘normal’ as a
result of earlier
thaws, leading to
greater energetic
demands to travel
back to traditional
denning and
summering areas
 In a discussion of den site fidelity and population boundaries, Derocher et al. (2004) predicted that population
boundaries could change with altered ice patterns and the resulting disruptions to habitat connectivity.
Should polar bears attempt to extend their time on ice in the face of earlier seasonal melt, they may drift
further south of traditional areas and be forced to travel back on land at a greater energetic cost or use
unfamiliar territory.
 Cherry et al (2013) note that spatial fidelity to terrestrial habitat, including denning locations may be affected
by sea ice and cite Wang et al. 1994 to note that as southerly currents along western Hudson Bay carry the
last remaining sea ice during break up to coast regions of Manitoba and Ontario.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-14
Figure A6: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 6: Climate change induced changes in the condition of
permafrost lead to changes in denning success of bears and changes in polar bear population levels. See
Table A6 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-15
Table A6: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 6: Climate change induced changes in the condition of permafrost
lead to changes in denning success of bears and changes in polar bear population levels. See Figure A6 for an
illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change will affect thermal regime of WHB, causing warming temperatures.
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
12
Changes in the
thermal regime of
the WHB
environment
degrade
permafrost
condition,
affecting bears’
denning
opportunities.
 From Abraham et al. (2011): “As sea ice disappears, the winterization effect along the sw HB coast will also
disappear. An amplified warming over the bays of up to ~10 degrees C in winter is projected (Gagnon and
Gough 2005) which will threaten permafrost throughout the ecozone.”
 From Abraham et al. (2011): ”The complete ice cover nullifies the moderating effects of the Hudson Bay
waters in the winter; while the presence of sea ice until late July in the southern and western approaches of
Hudson Bay is suggested as contributing to the presence of permafrost in that region, the furthest south
permafrost extends in North America (Gough and Leung 2002). The presence of this permafrost layer also
plays a role on the regional climate, as it maintains the ground temperature below 0 ◦C and impedes water
penetration from rain and snow melting so that the energy that would otherwise be used to warm the surface
is consumed for evaporating the surface water that accumulates on frozen layer (Maxwell 1986).”
 McKinnon and Abraham (2011) state that “Permafrost degradation, which is known to be occurring just
outside of western and eastern ecozone boundaries, is also suspected, but it likewise cannot be confirmed
due to insufficient monitoring data. Collapse and erosion features and aggrading features are visible in the
permafrost tension zone... Partial degradation and conversion of frozen peat plateaus to fens is suggested in
an area from the Nelson River north to Churchill, as is the enlargement of some associated lakes from
eroding shorelines. The air temperature warming at Churchill could have resulted in permafrost warming of
~0.5 °C there, since the mid-1970s.
 Obbard and Walton (2011) note the importance of permafrost to the stability of earth dens in the HB area
and their vulnerability to degradation caused by changes in permafrost.
 From Derocher et al. (2004): “Gough and Leung (2002) predicted that the permafrost along the coast of
western Manitoba may be reduced by 50% due to climatic warming by 2100. Also, as temperatures warm,
the vegetation within the denning area is likely to become drier & more combustible, thus increasing risk of
fire, after which such areas are unused & unsuitable for polar bear maternity denning for several decades”
13
The quality of
dens may affect
bear’s health.
 Unusual weather conditions associated with climate change may cause instability/slumping of dens while
occupied forcing premature abandonment by the female and cubs leading to cub mortality (Stirling (2011)
 Instances of den collapse have been reported which kill the female and cubs in the den (Stirling 2011)

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-16
Figure A7: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 7: Climate change induced changes in the dates of freeze-
up and thaw lead to increased human interactions leading to increased lethal removal of polar bears. See
Table A7 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-17
Table A7: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 7: Climate change induced changes in the dates of freeze-up and
thaw lead to increased human interactions leading to increased lethal removal of polar bears. See Figure A7 for
an illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change will affect the thermal regime of WHB, generally causing warming temperatures.
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
2
The ice-free season on Western Hudson Bay (WHB) will increase as the thermal regime changes affecting the dates of freeze-up and
thaw
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
14
Later freeze-ups
and earlier thaws
of WBH may
increase bears
exposure to
people and the
frequency of
negative
interactions,
leading to lethal
removal of bears.
 From COSEWIC (2008): “communities along the Hudson Bay and James Bay coasts in Ontario report an
increase in bear encounters and property damage caused by polar bears (personal communications of
Carpenter [2006]; Solomon [2006]; Kapashesit [2006]).”, although attribution to climate change is unclear.
 Towns et al. (2009) studied temporal and spatial patterns of ~ 1,500 problem bear incidents in Churchill from
1970 to 2004 and noted a significant increase over time, coincident with the progressively later date of freeze
up of HB. They discount increasing population of bears as a factor and hypothesize that increased
nutritional stress related to shorter ice-free seasons is a factor. They also speculate that the northward shift
in distribution of polar bears toward Churchill related to shorter ice-free seasons may be a contributing factor.
Although few problem bears are killed in Churchill, they hypothesize that the relatively low number of
recaptures could indicate the influence of the annual harvest in Nunavut, which has removed many bears
that had been problem bears near Churchill.
 Tyrell (2006) notes that for many Nunavumiut the increased numbers of bears in and around Churchill and
Arviat is seen as an adaptation to climate change by intelligent polar bears, and that “bear numbers would
appear to be on the increase and Inuit feel threatened by the increasing number of skinny, hungry bears in
their communities.”
 Tyrell (2006) concludes that Inuit and scientists are in agreement that there are now more bears in proximity
to communities than there were in the past. However, their perceptions as to why this is the case differ
widely, and from these differences emerge the current conflicts over hunting quotas, the continued viability of
polar bear populations, and human safety.
 Stirling (2011) discusses increase in killing of problem bears in Canada and attributes it largely to climate
change causing bears to be more aggressive/desperate in the search for food “The overall total [of bears
killed] is likely much higher today because many more hungry bears are being short in areas affected by
climate warming such as Western Hudson Bay, Baffin Bay, Davis Strait and the northern coast of Russia”
He also notes a lack of accurate review of the problem likely results in an underestimate of the totals killed.
 Clark et al. (2012) note that: “The number and frequency of Polar Bear-human conflicts will likely increase in
the future because the warming Arctic climate restricts bears’ access to sea ice, forces them to spend more

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-18
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
time on land, reduces their feeding opportunities, and thus causes nutritional stress”
 The Polar Bear Alert Program (MCWS 2014) has been very effective in negative managing polar bear
encounters in Churchill and minimizing the number of bears killed.
15
Increased
manage killing will
affect the WBH
bear population.
 COSEWIC (2008) cite the potential increase in killing of bears in defence of life and property as a potential
“other limiting factor” for bears in Canada.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-19
Figure A8: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 8: Climate change induced increases in ice-free duration
increase industrial activities leading to increased human population and increased lethal removal of polar
bears. See Table A8 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-20
Table A8: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 8: Climate change induced increases in ice-free duration increase
industrial activities leading to increased human population and increased lethal removal of polar bears. See
Figure A8 for an illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change will affect the thermal regime of WHB, generally causing warming temperatures.
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
2
The ice-free season on Western Hudson Bay (WHB) will increase as the thermal regime changes affecting the dates of freeze-up and
thaw
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
16
Longer ice-free
seasons on WBH
will provide more
opportunities for
industrial activity.
 Peacock et al. (2010) assert that increased terrestrial and aquatic development in Hudson Bay and the arctic
in general [in response to climate change] will be associated with increased commercial shipping during both
ice free and ice seasons, oil, gas, and mineral exploration, and concomitantly newly navigable waterways will
increase human development. Peacock et al. (2010) also describe an increase in shipping as a possible
outcome of climate change in HB.
 Kerr (2002) as cited in Derocher et al. 2004 notes that” another potential source of long term impact [on polar
bears] may result from increased shipping in the arctic as sea ice retreats northward.
 Parkinson et al. (1999) discuss greater shipping season throughout arctic due to longer open-water season.
 Gagnon and Gough (2005) note that a ‘benefit’ of climate change for the HB region could be the increased
viability of the Port of Churchill as a longer ice-free season would increase the capacity of the port and
lessen ice-hazards.
 CWS (no date) notes that little mineral exploration and mining has occurred in the Churchill Wildlife
Management Area in recent years, with the exception of gravel mining in Pit 7b in Legal Subdivision.
 Tully (2011) notes “Although relatively little resource extraction is occurring in the Hudson Plains Ecozone,
mining and, to a lesser extent, forestry do exist, and have potential to increase in the future. One mine (an
open-pit diamond mine) is currently operating in the Ontario portion of the ecozone, but a high potential
exists there for more (OMEI and OMNDMF 2009; Golder Associates 2010; Micon International 2010).
17
As industrial
activity increases,
so will the human
population.
 The polar bear monitoring framework of Von Graven et al. (2012) describes population growth in the Arctic in
response to resource development with direct negative impacts on polar bears, including the potential for
increased mortality of problem bears from defence killing
 COSEWIC (2008) cite the potential increase in killing of bears in defence of life and property as a potential
“other limiting factor” for bears in Canada.
 Schliebe et al. (2006) noted that the mining of diamonds, oil exploration and development in the Arctic pose
a wide array of threats to polar bears (although this is not a specific observation related to HB) ranging from
oil spills to increased human–bear interactions)

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-21
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
18
A higher human
population will
lead to more
negative
interactions with
bears and more
lethal removal
 Polar Bear Alert Program keeps kills to a minimum, during 2004-2009 only one bear was intentionally killed
(Pierce Roberts pers. comm.)
 The number of problem bears may rise because of increased nutritional stress associated with climate
change, and increases in human population may exacerbate this (Towns et al. 2009). The number of
problem bears is not related to the size of the bear population.
15
Increased lethal removal will affect the WBH bear population.
See evidence for this Link in Pathway 7

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-22
Figure A9: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 9: Climate change induced increases in ice-free duration
increase industrial activities leading to increased contaminants in the environment which affects the health
and population level of polar bears. See Table A9 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-23
Table A9: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 9: Climate change induced increases in ice-free duration increase
industrial activities leading to increased contaminants in the environment which affects the health and
population level of polar bears. See Figure A9 for an illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change will affect the thermal regime of WHB, generally causing warming temperatures.
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
2
The ice-free season on Western Hudson Bay (WHB) will increase as the thermal regime changes affecting the dates of freeze-up &
thaw
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
16
Longer ice-free seasons on WBH will provide more opportunities for industrial activity.
See evidence for this Link in Pathway 8
19
Industrial
development will
increase
contamination of
WBH and the
environment used
by polar bears
 The polar bear monitoring framework of Von Graven et al. (2012)) describes population growth in the Arctic
in response to resource development with possible negative impacts on polar bears from pollution.
 Schliebe et al. (2006) noted that the mining of diamonds, oil exploration and development in the Arctic pose
a wide array of threats to polar bears (although this is not a specific observation related to HB) ranging from
oil spills to increased human–bear interactions)
20
Exposure to
contaminants will
affect the health
of polar bears.
 McKinnon and Abraham (2011) note that there may be “some contamination of ecosystems from mining
operations, but any impacts on biota may be relatively limited in scale. Published impacts-monitoring data
are not yet available.”
 Peacock et al. (2010) cite Øristland et al. (1981) and Hurst and Øristland (1982) in documenting sensitivity
of polar bears to oil pollution and impacts on insulative properties of their fur, ingestion of chemicals by self
grooming and in tainted food.
 Sonne et al. (2015) analyzed penile bone marrow density as indicator of endocrine disruption/industrial-
chemical contamination in samples of polar bears across arctic populations. Bears in western Hudson bay
and low levels of contamination. The role of long-range transportation of pollutants complicates conclusions
based on local conditions, but the authors note a potential link between climate change and endocrine
distruptors.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-24
Figure A10: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 10: Climate change induced increases in ice-free duration
increase industrial activities disrupting the movements of polar bears, increasing their stress and affecting
their health and population levels. See Table A10 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-25
Table A10: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 10: Climate change induced increases in ice-free duration increase
industrial activities disrupting the movements of polar bears, increasing their stress and affecting their health
and population levels. See Figure A10 for an illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change will affect the thermal regime of WHB, generally causing warming temperatures.
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
2
The ice-free season on Western Hudson Bay (WHB) will increase as the thermal regime changes affecting the dates of freeze-up &
thaw
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
16
Longer ice-free seasons on WBH will provide more opportunities for industrial activity.
See evidence for this Link in Pathway 8
21
Industrial
activities will
impede the ability
of polar bears to
move freely in the
environment
 Stirling (2011) discusses potential of large-scale industrial operations to affect movement of bears
 Molnár et al. (2010) note that increased industrial development associated with climate change has the
potential to increase movement needs.
22
Impeded ability to
move freely will
increase stress
and energy
demands on
bears, affecting
their health.
 Derocher et al. (2004) noted that polar bears have higher energetic costs for movement than is normal for
mammals and implied; increase stress and movement cause ‘unnecessary’ energy expenditure
 Molnár et al. (2010) note that increased industrial development associated with climate change has the
potential to increase movement needs and that changes in energy availability through increased movement
would negatively affect individual body condition, and thereby survival, reproduction and growth

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-26
Figure A11: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 11: Reduced opportunities to feed on seals lead to an
increase in cannibalism of hunger-stressed adult males on cubs. See Table A11 for a summary of evidence
related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-27
Table A11: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 11: Reduced opportunities to feed on seals lead to an increase in
cannibalism of hunger-stressed adult males on cubs. See Figure A11 for an illustration of the linkages within this
pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
1
Climate change will affect the thermal regime of WHB, generally causing warming temperatures.
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
2
The ice-free season on Western Hudson Bay (WHB) will increase as the thermal regime changes affecting the dates of freeze-up &
thaw
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
3
The longer period of ice-free conditions will limit polar bears’ opportunities to feed on marine mammals affecting the bear population
carrying capacity
Same evidence for this Link in Pathway 1
23
Cannibalism of
adult males on
cubs will increase
as they are not
able to feed
sufficiently on
marine mammals
 Derocher et al. (2004) identified an increase in cannibalism as a hypothetical result of climate change
 Stirling and Derocher (2012) noted that observations of “cannibalism by thin adult males on land during the
open water period have been documented (e.g., Lunn & Stenhouse, 1985; Derocher & Wiig, 1999; Amstrup
et al., 2006; Stone & Derocher, 2007).” implying that hunger is the cause of cannibalism
 Stirling and Derocher (2012) also note that: Such events have been known to occur for many years and,
although their significance is unclear, there is some evidence suggesting the frequency of occurrence is
increasing in areas where bears fast on land for extended periods. For example, in late summer and autumn
2010, there were eight observations of cannibalism on the western coast of Hudson Bay compared to one or
two in the previous 5 years (I. Stirling, unpublished data)”.
24
Increases in
cannibalism will
affect the polar
bear population
 There is no direct evidence that an increase in hunger-caused cannibalism will have population-level effects,
however given the suggested increase in frequency in these events associated with climate change
(Derocher et al. 2004, Stirling and Derocher 2012) the link is logical.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-28
Figure A12: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 12: Through a variety of mechanisms, climate change
cause an increase in disease and pathogen infection leading to decreases in polar bear health with
implications on polar bear population levels. See Table A12 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this
pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-29
Table A12: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 12: Through a variety of mechanisms, climate change cause an
increase in disease and pathogen infection leading to decreases in polar bear health with implications on
polar bear population levels. See Figure A12 for an illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
25
Through a variety
of mechanisms,
climate change
will lead to an
increase in
disease and
pathogen
infection.
 Derocher et al. (2004) notes that bears that have compromised immune systems and are food stressed may
become more vulnerable to disease or parasites. Food stressed bears may begin to eat more of the
intestines and internal organs of seals making them more vulnerable to encountering parasites or viruses.
 Harvell et al. (2002) and Post et al. (2013) note that new pathogens may expand their way northward as the
climate warms; new pathogen hosts and disease vectors may expand their ranges too.
 Stirling and Derocher (2012) cite an example of increased polar bear pathogen load: exposure of polar bears
to Toxoplasma gondii, a protozoan parasite, in the Svalbard area doubled in recent years (Oksanen et al.,
2009; Jensen et al., 2010). The increase was postulated to be linked to an influx of temperate marine
invertebrates acting as vectors, or an influx of warmer waters (Jensen et al., 2010)....
26
Increased
pathogen loads
and diseases will
affect the health
of polar bears.
 While it is logical that diseases will affect polar bear health there is no specific evidence of this in relation to
climate-change induced illnesses. Molnár et al. (2010) state that “potential future effects of emerging
diseases on vital rates remain currently unquantifiable in polar bears due to unclear causal chains and a lack
of empirical data.”

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-30
Figure A13: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 13: Increased tourism elevates stress on polar bears
through changes in vigilance and avoidance behaviours and affects their health and population level. See
Table A13 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-31
Table A13: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 13: Increased tourism elevates stress on polar bears through
changes in vigilance and avoidance behaviours and affects their health and population level. See Figure A13
for an illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
27
Increased tourism
and exposure to
tundra vehicles
will disturb bears,
causing an
increase in
avoidance and
vigilance
behaviours.
 Dyck and Baydack (2004; 2006) report that viewing of bears from tundra vehicles increases vigilance
behaviour in male bears,
 Eckhardt (2005) found that some (25%) of bears studied responded to approach by tundra vehicles.
However, the significance of the impact if any was not investigated.
28
Increased
avoidance and
vigilance
behaviours will
increase stress
and have
energetic costs,
ultimately
affecting bears
health
 Obbard and Walton (2011) note that although vigilance behaviour does increase in some animals, the
biological or physiological consequences of such changes in behaviour have not been quantified, and only a
small proportion of the subpopulation occurs in the regulated polar bear viewing area.
 Stirling et al. (2008) note that, as polar bears are in a fasting state during the tourist season and only a small
portion of the population is in the viewing area, there is no negative trade-off (i.e., decreased foraging
activity) associated with increased vigilance at the population level.
 Polar bear tourism has increased markedly in recent years; there are now an estimated 10,000+ tourist that
come to Churchill to visit polar bears

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-32
Figure A14: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 14: Increased tourism leads to habituation of bears
resulting in an increase in lethal removal. See Table A14 for a summary of evidence related to linkages for this
pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-33
Table A14: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 14: Increased tourism leads to habituation of bears resulting in an
increase in lethal removal. See Figure A14 for an illustration of the linkages within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
29
Tourism
contributes to
habituation of
bears to human
presence.
 Sterling (2011) discusses capacity of bears to learn under what circumstances humans are not a danger and
that this can lead to habituation
 Lemelin (2006) states that “The viewing of polar bears in [Churchill], however, is further facilitated by the
habituation and tolerance of these animals to human presence, their curiosity, and their propensity to
entertain wildlife viewers.
 Inuit communities near WHB attribute greater habituation and aggressiveness of bears to long exposure of
Polar Bears to people and anthropogenic foods in the Churchill region (Nirlungayuk and Lee 2009 in Clark et
al. 2012)
 The Polar Bear Alert program, identifies habituation of bears as one of the reasons for its existence (MCWS
2014)
 Eckhardt (2005) found that some (25%) of bears studied responded to approach by tundra vehicles.
However, the significance of the impact if any was not investigated.
30
Increased
habituation will
lead to more
negative
encounters and
lethal removal
 Lunn and Stenhouse (1985) found that tagged Polar Bears that had fed in the Churchill garbage dump were
significantly more likely to be destroyed as problem bears than tagged bears which had not fed there; their
habituation to humans had led them to circumstances prone to conflict.
 Peacock et al. (2010) report that “Examining trends of the number of problem bears in Churchill can also be
difficult, due to variable effort (Towns et al. 2009). With the beginning of the deterrence-based Polar Bear
Alert Program in 1984, the number of defence kills has decreased while the number of problem bears
captured has increased (Towns et al. 2009).”
 Peacock et al. (2010) predict that the number of defence killings will increase as bears spend more time on
land.
 COSEWIC 2008 notes that “The curiosity of polar bears makes them particularly vulnerable to human-
caused mortality in defence of life or property”
15
Increased manage killing will affect the WBH bear population.
See evidence for this Link in Pathway 7

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-34
Figure A15: Conceptual model illustrating the linkages in Pathway 15: Increased tourism damages the local ecosystem
causing local impacts on habitats for other wildlife species and polar bears. See Table A15 for a summary of
evidence related to linkages for this pathway.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
A-35
Table A15: Summary of evidence by linkage in Pathway 15: Increased tourism damages the local ecosystem causing local
impacts on habitats for other wildlife species and polar bears. See Figure A15 for an illustration of the linkages
within this pathway.
Linkage
Number
Linkage
Description
Notes about Evidence
29
Increased tourism
and use of tundra
vehicles will lead
to higher levels of
site damage.
 Smith et al. (1998) describe the susceptibility of the fragile sites of the Hudson Plains Ecozone to impacts of
vehicles
 Kevan et al. (1995) report that even slight use of vehicles on arctic tundra can significantly affect local
microsites and drainage
 The Management Plan for the Churchill Wildlife Management Area (CWS no date) describes the vegetation:
“The vegetation of the coastal area is sensitive to disturbance and if damaged, recovers very slowly. Tracks
made by armoured personnel carriers during military exercises in the 1950s can still be seen today. Plants
have shallow root systems because of the thin layer of soil, which thaws for a brief period in summer. ....”
 Newton et al. (2002) reported that a very high number of respondents from Churchill to a survey of
environmental concerns identified tundra vehicle damage as their main environmental concern in Churchill.
 Issues related to vehicle use on the tundra include: damage to beach ridges and sedge meadows,
proliferation of braided trails, creation of new trails as others become temporarily impassable, exposure of
bedrock (Manitoba CWS staff pers. comm.)
 Site damage could be exacerbated by thawing permafrost (Linkage 5)
30
Tourism and use
of tundra vehicles
affects other
wildlife through
direct impacts
 Other wildlife species (e.g. foxes, caribou ptarmigan, owls) may be affected either by their sensitivity to
human presence or their habituation which may bring them into negative contact with tourists
31
Site damage will
lead to negative
impacts on other
wildlife via habitat
deterioration
 Main impacts related to local habitat degradation and reduction in local capacity to support wildlife.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
B-1
Appendix B: Literature Cited in Conceptual Models
Abraham, K.F., L.M. McKinnon, Z. Jumean, S.M. Tully, L.R. Walton, and H.M. Stewart (lead
coordinating authors and compilers). 2011. Hudson Plains Ecozone+ Status and Trends
Assessment. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, Technical
Ecozone+ Report. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. xxi + 445 pp.
Abraham, K.F., R.L. Jefferies, and R.T. Alisauskas. 2005. The dynamics of landscape
change and snow geese in mid continent North America. Global Change Biology 11 (6)
841-855.
Chambellant, M. 2010. Hudson Bay ringed seal: ecology in a warming climate. In:
Ferguson, S.H., L.L. Loseto, and M.L. Mallory (eds) A little less arctic: top predators in
the world’s largest Northern Inland Sea, Hudson Bay. Springer, New York, pp 137–158.
Cherry, S.G., A.E. Derocher, G.W. Thiemanne, and N.J. Lunn. 2013. Migration phenology
and seasonal fidelity of an Arctic marine predator in relation to sea ice dynamics. Journal
of Animal Ecology. 2013, 82, 912-921.
Clark, D.C., F.M. van Beest, and R.K. Brook. 2012. Polar bear-human conflicts: state of
knowledge and research needs. Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management. 2012 (1):
21-29.
Comiso, J.C. 2006. Arctic warming signals from satellite observations. Weather 61, 70–76.
COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the polar bear Ursus
maritimus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada,
Ottawa. vii + 75 pp.
Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn, and I. Stirling. 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate.
Integrated Comparative Biology 44: 163-176.
Dredge, L.A. Geology, topography and climate. p. 1-6 In Abraham, K.F., McKinnon, L.M.,
Jumean, Z., Tully, S.M., Walton, L.R. and Stewart, H.M. (lead coordinating authors and
compilers). 2011. Hudson Plains Ecozone+ Status and Trends Assessment. Canadian
Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, Technical Ecozone+ Report. Canadian
Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. xxi + 445 pp.
Dyck, M.G., and R.K. Baydack. 2004. Vigilance behaviour of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)
in the context of wildlife-viewing activities at Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Biological
Conservation 116: 343-350.
Dyck, M.G., and R.K. Baydack. 2006. Human activities associated with polar bear viewing
near Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11: 143-145.
Dyck, M.G., W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, and L. O.
Hancock. 2007. Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: are warming
spring air temperatures the ‘‘ultimate’’ survival control factor? Ecological Complexity 4,
73–84, doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002.
Dyck, M.G., W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, and L. O.
Hancock. 2008. Reply to response to Dyck et al. 2007 on polar bears and climate

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
B-2
change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. 2008. Ecological Complexity 5. 289-302
doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2008.05.004.
Eckhardt, G. 2005. The effects of ecotourism on polar bear behaviour. M.Sc. thesis. Dept.
of Biology, Univ. of Central Florida. 46 p.
Environment Canada. 2010. Canadian Climate Normals or Averages, 1971-2000. Available
online: http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html
Ferguson, S.H., I. Stirling, and P. Mcloughlin. 2005. Climate change and ringed seal (Phoca
hispida) recruitment in western Hudson Bay. Marine Mammal Science 21(1) 121-135.
Gagnon, A.S. and W.A. Gough. 2005. Climate change scenarios for the Hudson Bay
Region: An intermodal comparison. Climatic Change. 69: 269–297.
Golder Associates. 2010. McFaulds Lake Project James Bay Lowlands Ontario, Canada.
Technical Report and Resource Estimate. Report No. 10-1117-0001. Golder Associates
Ltd, Mississauga, ON. 241 pp.
Gormezano, L.J. and R.F. Rockwell. 2013. What to eat now? Shifts in polar bear diet
during the ice free season in western Hudson Bay. Ecology and Evolution. doi:
10.1002/ece3.740.
Gough, W.A. 2011. Nature and fate of permafrost in the Hudson Plains Ecozone. Inset 2 In
Abraham, K.F., L.M. McKinnon, Z. Jumean, S.M. Tully, L.R. Walton, and H.M. Stewart
(lead coordinating authors and compilers). 2011. Hudson Plains Ecozone+ Status and
Trends Assessment. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010,
Technical Ecozone+ Report. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. xxi
+ 445 pp.
Gough, W.A., A.R. Cornwell, and L.J.S. Tsuji. 2004. Trends in seasonal sea ice duration in
Southwestern Hudson Bay. Arctic 57, 298–304.
Gough, W.A., and A. Leung. 2002. Nature and fate of Hudson Bay permafrost. Regional
Environmental Change 2: 177-184.
Harvell, C.D., C.E. Mitchell, J.R. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. Dobson, R.S. Ostfeld, and M.D.
Samuel. 2002. Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota.
Science 296:2158– 2162.
Higdon, J.W. and S.H. Ferguson. 2009. Loss of Arctic sea ice causing punctuated change
in sightings of killer whales (Orcinus orca) over the past century. Ecological Applications
19:1365–1375.
Hurst, R.J., and N.A. Øritsland. 1982. Polar bear thermoregulation: Effect of oil on the
insulative properties of fur. Journal of Thermal Biology 7: 201–208.
Iverson, S.J., I. Stirling, and S.L.C. Lang. 2006. Spatial and temporal variation in the diets of
polar bears across the Canadian arctic: indicators of changes in prey populations and
environment. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London, pp. 98–117.
Kevan, P.G., B.C. Forbes, S.M. Kevan, and V. Behan-Pelletier. 1995. Vehicle tracks on high
Arctic tundra: their effects on the soil, vegetation, and soil arthropods. Journal of applied
ecology. Vol.32, No.3, 655-667.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
B-3
Lemelin, R.H. 2006. The Gawk, The Glance, and The Gaze: Occular Consumption and
Polar Bear Tourism in Churchill, Manitoba Canada. Current Issues in Tourism 9(6), 516-
534.
Letcher, R.J.K., J.O. Bustnes, R. Dietz, B.M. Jenssen, E.H. Jorgensen, C. Sonne, J.
Verreault, M. M. Vijayan, and G.W. Gabrielsen. 2010. Exposure and effects assessment
of persistent organohalogen contaminants in arctic wildlife and fish. Science of the Total
Environment. 408: 2996- 02043.
Lunn N.J., and G.B. Stenhouse. 1985. An observation of possible cannibalism by polar
bears (Ursus maritimus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 63: 1516–1517.
Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (CWS), Northeast Region. 2014. Polar Bear
Alert Program. Operational Guidelines. 113 p.
Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship (CWS). No date. Management Plan:
Churchill Wildlife Management Area.
Maxwell, J.B. 1986. ‘A climate overview of the Canadian inland seas’, in Martini, I. P. (ed.),
Canadian Inland Seas, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
McKinney, M.A., E. Peacock, and R.J. Letcher. 2009. Sea ice-associated diet change
increases the levels of chlorinated and probminated contaminants in polar bears.
Environmental Science and Technology 43: 4334-4339.
McKinnon, L.M., and K.F. Abraham. 2011. Summary of Stressors. pages 363-379 In
Abraham, K.F., McKinnon, L.M., Jumean, Z., Tully, S.M., Walton, L.R. and Stewart, H.M.
(lead coordinating authors and compilers). Hudson Plains Ecozone+ Status and Trends
Assessment. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, Technical
Ecozone+ Report. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. xxi + 445 pp.
Micon International. 2010. Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Big
Daddy Chromite Deposit McFaulds Lake Area, James Bay Lowlands, Northern Ontario,
Canada. Prepared for Spider Resources Inc and KWG resources Inc. Micon International
Ltd, Toronto, ON. 170 pp.
Molnár, P.K., A.E. Derocher, G. W. Thiemann, and M.A. Lewis. 2010. Predicting survival,
reproduction and abundance of polar bears under climate change. Biological
Conservation. 143: 1612-1622.
Molnár, P.K., A.E. Derocher, G.W. Thiemann, and M.A. Lewis. 2014. Corrigendum to
“Predicting survival, reproduction and abundance of polar bears under climate change.
[Biological Conservation. 143: 1612-1622]. Biological Conservation 177:230-231.
Monnett, C. and J.S. Gleason. 2006. Observations of mortality associated with extended
swimming by polar bears in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Polar Biology DOI
10.1007/s00300-005-0105-2.
Newton, S.T., H. Fast, and T. Henley. 2002. Sustainable development for Canada’s arctic
and subarctic communities: A backcasting approach to Churchill, Manitoba. Arctic.
Vol.55, No.3, 281-290.
Obbard, M., and L. Walton 2011. Polar Bears. p. 163-174. In Abraham, K.F., L.M.
McKinnon, Z. Jumean, S.M. Tully, L.R. Walton, and H.M. Stewart (lead coordinating

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
B-4
authors and compilers). 2011. Hudson Plains Ecozone+ Status and Trends Assessment.
Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, Technical Ecozone+ Report.
Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. xxi + 445 pp.
Obbard, M.E., M.R.L. Cattet, T. Moody, L.R. Walton, D. Potter, J. Inglis, and C. Chenier.
2006. Temporal Trends in the Body Condition of Southern Hudson Bay Polar Bears.
Climate Change Research Information Note No. 3. Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Applied Research and Development Branch, Sault Ste. Marie, ON. 8 pp.
Obbard, M.E., T.L. McDonald, E.J. Howe, E.V. Regehr, and E.S. Richardson. 2007. Polar
bear population status in southern Hudson Bay, Canada. U.S department of the interior,
and US geological survey.
OMEI and OMNDMF (Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure and Ontario Ministry of
Northern Development, Mines and Forestry). 2009. Proposed Growth Plan for Northern
Ontario. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, ON. 61 pp.
Øritsland, N.A., F.R. Englehardt, F.A. Juck, R.J. Hurst, and P.D. Watts. 1981. Effect of
crude oil on polar bears. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Ottawa, ON.
Environmental Studies, No. 24, p. 268.
Parkinson, C. L. 2000. Recent trend reversals in Arctic sea ice extents: Possible
connections to the North Atlantic Oscillation, Polar Geography 24(1), 1 – 12.
Parkinson, C. L., D. J. Cavalieri, P. Gloersen, H. J. Zwally, and J. C. Comiso. 1999. Arctic
sea ice extents, areas, and trends, 1978– 1996, J. Geophys. Res., 104(C9), 20,837–
20,856, doi:10.1029/1999JC900082.
Parkinson, C.L., and D.J. Cavalieri, 2008. Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979-2006.
Journal of Geophysical Research 112 C07003, doi:10.1029/2007JC004558.
Parks, E.K., A.E. Derocher, and N.J. Lunn. 2006. Seasonal and annual movement patterns
of polar bears on the sea ice of Hudson Bay. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84: 1281-
1294.
Peacock, E., A.E. Derocher, J.J. Lunn, and M.E. Obbard. 2010. Polar Bear Ecology and
Mangement in Hudson Bay in the Face of Climate Change. p. 93-115 In S.H. Ferguson
et al. (eds.), A Little Less Arctic: Top Predators in the World’s Largest Northern Inland
Sea, Hudson Bay. Springer Science+ Business Media DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-9121-
5_5.
Post, E., U.S. Bhatt, C.M. Bitz, J.F. Brodie, T.L. Fulton, M. Hebblewhite, J. Kerby, S.J. Kutz,
I. Stirling, and D.A. Walker. 2013. Ecological consequences of sea-Ice decline. Science.
Vol 341. August, 519-524.
Prinsenberg, S.J. 1980. Man-made changes in the freshwater input rates of Hudson and
James Bays. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37 (7): 1101–1110.
Regehr, E.V., N.J. Lunn, S.C. Amstrup, and I. Stirling. 2007. Effects of earlier sea ice
breakup on survival and population size of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. The
Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2673-2683.
Robbins, C.T, C. Lopez-Alfaro, K.D. Rode, Ø Tøien, and O.L. Nelson. 2012. A body
composition model to estimate mammalian energy stores and metabolic rates from body

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
B-5
mass and body length, with application to polar bears. Journal of Experimental Biology
2012: 2313-2323
Rockwell, R.F. and L.J. Gormezano. 2009. The early bear gets the goose: climate change,
polar bears and lesser snow geese in western Hudson Bay. Polar Biology 32: 539-547.
Rockwell, R.F., L.J. Gormezano, and D.N. Koons. 2010. Trophic matches and mismatches:
can polar bears reduce the abundance of nesting snow geese in western Hudson Bay?
Oikos. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600–0706.2010.18837.x. 14 pp.
Rode, K.D., C.T. Robbins, L. Nelson, and S.C. Amstrup. 2015. Can polar bears use
terrestrial foods to offset lost ice-based hunting opportunities? Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment 13: 138-145 http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/140202
Schliebe, S., O. Wiig, A. Derocher, and N. Lunn. 2006. Ursus maritimus. 2006 IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org.
Serreze, M.C., J. A. Francis. 2006. The Arctic on the fast track of change. Weather 61, 65–
69.
Smith, R.E., H. Veldhuis, G.F. Mills, R.G. Eilers, W.R. Fraser, and G.W. Lelyk. 1998.
Terrestrial ecozones, ecoregions, and ecodistricts of Manitoba – An ecological
stratification of Manitoba’s natural landscapes. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.
Research branch technical bulletin 1998-9E.
Sonne, C., M. Dyck, F.F. Rigét, J-E. B. Jensen, L. Hyldstrup, R.J. Letcher, K. Gustavson,
M.T.P. Gilbert, and R.Dietz. 2015. Penile density and globally used chemicals in
Canadian and Greenland polar bears. Environmental Research 137: 287-291.
doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.12.026
Stirling, I. 2011. Polar Bears. The Natural History of a Threatened Species. Fitzhenry and
Whiteside. Markham, ON. 330 p.
Stirling, I., A.E. Derocher, W.A. Gough, and K. Rode. 2008. Response to Dyck et al. 2007.
on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecological Complexity 5.
193–201.
Stirling, I., and A.E. Derocher. 1993. Possible impacts of climatic warming on polar bears.
Arctic 46:240–245.
Stirling, I., and A.E. Derocher. 2012. Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of
the evidence. Global Change Biology 18: 2674-2706. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2012.02753.x.
Stirling, I., and C.L. Parkinson. 2006. Possible effects of climate warming on selected
populations of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic, 59.
Stirling, I., N.J. Lunn, and J. Iacozza. 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of
polar bears in Western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change. Arctic 52(3): 294-306.
Stirling, I., N.J. Lunn, J. Iacozza, C. Elliott, and M. Obbard. 2004. Polar bear distribution and
abundance on the southwestern Hudson Bay coast during open water season, in relation
to population trends and annual ice patterns. Arctic 57(1) 15-26.
Thiemann, G.W., S.J. Iverson, and I. Stirling. 2008. Polar bear diets and arctic marine food
webs: insights from fatty acid analysis. Ecological Monographs 78(4): 591-613.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
B-6
Towns, L., A.E. Derocher, I. Stirling, N.J. Lunn, and D. Hedman. 2009. Spatial and temporal
patterns of problem bears in Churchill, Manitoba. Polar Biology. 32: 1529-1537.
Tully, S.M. 2011. Human History. p. 5-12 In Abraham, K.F., McKinnon, L.M., Jumean, Z.,
Tully, S.M., Walton, L.R. and Stewart, H.M. (lead coordinating authors and compilers).
2011. Hudson Plains Ecozone+ Status and Trends Assessment. Canadian Biodiversity:
Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010, Technical Ecozone+ Report. Canadian Councils of
Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. xxi + 445 pp.
Tully, S.M. and L.R. Walton. 2011. Predator-prey relationships and cycles. p. 287-292 In
Abraham, K.F., L.M. McKinnon, Z. Jumean, S.M. Tully, L.R. Walton, and H.M. Stewart
(lead coordinating authors and compilers). 2011. Hudson Plains Ecozone+ Status and
Trends Assessment. Canadian Biodiversity: Ecosystem Status and Trends 2010,
Technical Ecozone+ Report. Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers, Ottawa, ON. xxi
+ 445 pp.
Tyrell, M. 2006. More bears, less bears: Inuit and scientific perceptions of polar bear
populations on the west coast of Hudson Bay. Études/Inuit/Studies 30(2): 191-208.
Von Graven, D., J. Aars, S. Amstrup, S.N. Atkinson, S. Belikov, E.W. Born, T.D. Debruyn,
A.E. Derocher, G. Dumer, M. Gill, N. Lunn, M.E. Obbard, J. Omelak, N. Ovsyanikov, D.
Peacock, E. Richardson, V. Sahanatien, I. Stirling, and Ø. Wiig. 2012. A circumpolar
monitoring framework for polar bears. Ursus Mongraph Series 5.
Zhang, T., R.G. Barry, K. Knowles, J.A. Heginbottom, and J. Brown. 2008. Statistics and
characteristics of permafrost and ground-ice distribution in the Northern Hemisphere.
Polar Geography 31: 47-68.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.
C-1
Appendix C: Individuals Involved in Technical Review
and Stakeholder Consultations
Technical Experts
Name
Title/Position
Organization
Catherine Evans
Associate Faculty, Tourism
Management
Royal Roads University
and Tours of Exploration
Geoff York (with support
from Steve Amstrup and
Alysa McCall)
Senior Director of
Conservation
Polar Bears International
Jane Waterman
Professor, Department of
Biological Sciences
University of Manitoba
Nick Lunn
Research Scientist, Polar
Bear Ecology and Arctic
Marine Ecosystems
Canadian Wildlife Service,
Environment Canada
Pierce Roberts
Director, Northeast Region,
Thompson
Manitoba Conservation and
Water Stewardship
Informal Stakeholder Group
Name
Organization
Alysa McCall
Polar Bears International
Colin Ferguson
Travel Manitoba
Cory Young
Town of Churchill
Daryll Hedman
Manitoba Conservation & Water Stewardship
Glen Suggett
Manitoba Conservation & Water Stewardship
Grant MacNeil
Churchill Northern Studies Centre
John Gunter
Frontiers North Adventures/ Tundra Buggy Adventures
Lorraine Brandson
Eskimo Museum
Marilyn Walkoski
Great White Bear Tours
Michelle Wallace
Manitoba Tourism Secretariat
Morris Spence
Wat'chee Lodge
Pierce Roberts
Manitoba Conservation & Water Stewardship
Robert Loken
Parks Canada
Walter Daudrich
Lazy Bear Lodge