Iceland review - 2016, Page 76

74 ICELAND REVIEW
people and livestock in the area. They
have to do this very quickly. Only if the
police deem there to be no risk does the
response group take over the coordina-
tion. However, often the response group
comes in earlier in the process to help
evaluate the reliability of the possible
sighting because we have, for example,
received notifications of polar bears in
the highlands where it is very unlikely
that a polar bear has been spotted.
What is considered to be “in the
area” in this context?
Thirty, forty, fifty kilometers (18, 24, 31
miles). We need to keep in mind that
polar bears can run up to 40 kilometers
an hour (24 mph) and it’s important not
to lose sight of them. Icelandic landscape
is very hilly and the weather changes
quickly, and therefore there are many
things to consider when making a deci-
sion. What is presenting a significant
problem now is that there are a lot of
tourists in Iceland and we don’t necessar-
ily know where they all are. The public
has so-called freedom to roam in Iceland
which means that people can walk or
camp with small tents almost anywhere
in the country where there’s no farming.
What are the risks?
The fact is that polar bears run very
fast and are not afraid of humans. We
are food in their eyes. That is clear. We
saw this on Svalbard where tourists were
recently attacked while they were sleep-
ing in their tent.
There are examples of farmers
shooting polar bears. When is that
permitted?
It’s the police who evaluate the threat
posed by a polar bear and we highlight
the importance of a trained shooter and
multiple shooters to ensure their safety
too. But you always have emergency
rights. If a polar bear is very close to
you and your home, if they pose a direct
threat, then you have that right, but we
stress the importance of the police secur-
ing the site.
What circumstances need to exist in
order to attempt to capture a polar
bear?
There need to be very special circum-
stances in order for us to attempt to
capture them. The most important issue
is that the polar bear is not moving much
and that it’s visible to the police and the
action team the entire time and that the
police have deemed the area secure. The
weather has to be good, there has to be
good visibility and good flying condi-
tions for a mid-sized helicopter. There
can be no traffic, or humans, or livestock.
Then you need a vet to be on site who
prepares the drugs and a tranquilizer
gun to make sure that the right dosage
is given. You also need a trained person
who has a license to shoot from a heli-
copter. That means someone from the
police’s special forces. It’s necessary to
shoot from a helicopter because you have
to be able to get close enough so as to
make sure that the tranquilizer injection
hits the right spot. When the animal is
tranquilized, it needs to be transferred
into the cage we have and the cage needs
to be moved to a secure location. But the
animal can never be in this cage long.
Therefore, a building must be available
so it can move a bit. The building must
be secure and round-the-clock police
surveillance is needed. We have a cage
but not a building. There, a vet would
need to examine the animal and make the
decision as to whether it’s fit for transfer.
Many of the polar bears that have drifted
to Iceland have been in a very poor state.
Before we even consider capturing a
polar bear, I think it’s very important that
we keep in mind that this is not a rescue
mission. It’s a capturing mission. You’re
capturing a wild animal.
If all this worked out, would the
polar bears then be returned to
Greenland, or to a zoo?
The Ministry for the Environment is
in charge of being in contact with the
Greenlanders. We don’t have an answer
as to whether Greenland would receive
them back. If the animal is moved back
to Greenland, it would likely be done by
ship and then by helicopter. If it goes to
a zoo it would likely be taken by plane to
the destination. You also need an export
permit and permission to transfer it,
from either the Greenlandic authorities
or possibly from a zoo, if the decision
to go that way has been made. That is
of course an action which has actually
received more criticism. Transferring an
animal to a zoo is another and very big
ethical question that we need to answer.
We [the Environment Agency and the
response group] have always had the phi-
losophy that it’s better to return the bear
to its natural habitat, not capture it and
put it in a zoo in, for example, California.
These are huge animals and they aren’t
supposed to be in small cages in a dif-
ferent climate than they’re used to. This
is, however, a question that needs more
discussion.
They couldn’t be sent to live in the
wild in a different country, Canada or
Russia, for example?
No, they must be returned to the stock
from which they originate. We would
never move them between regions and I
have not heard of any recommendations
to do so. The countries [such as Canada]
which try to capture polar bears transfer
them elsewhere in the same area. We
have always been concerned that animals
which have traveled so far from their
natural habitat like these could possibly
get infected by diseases which do not
exist in Greenland. By taking them back
to Greenland we might be spreading a
disease which could have a very serious
impact on the polar bear stock there.
That is, however, a question for the sci-
entists.
What is the estimated cost of
capturing a polar bear?
It’s very clear that the costs per year for
this are in the tens of millions [of krónur]
even though no polar bear might arrive
in Iceland. There must always be trained
individuals from the Coast Guard and
police, and a well-trained vet. It’s neces-
sary to have a building in which to keep
the polar bear for quite a long time and
of course the anesthesia must be available
in the country all the time, but its shelf
N AT U R E