Reply to response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008)

Abstract We address the three main issues raised by Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Gough, W.A., Rode, K., in press. Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecol. Complexity]: (1) evidence of the role of climate warming in affecting the western Hudson Bay polar bear population, (2) responses to suggested importance of human–polar bear interactions, and (3) limitations on polar bear adaptation to projected climate change. We assert that our original paper did not provide any “alternative explanations [that] are largely unsupported by the data” or misrepresent the original claims by Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Lunn, N.J., Iacozza, I., 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climate change. Arctic 52, 294–306], Derocher et al. [Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., Stirling, I., 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integr. Comp. Biol. 44, 163–176], and other peer-approved papers authored by Stirling and colleagues. In sharp contrast, we show that the conclusion of Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Gough, W.A., Rode, K., in press. Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecol. Complexity] – suggesting warming temperatures (and other related climatic changes) are the predominant determinant of polar bear population status, not only in western Hudson (WH) Bay but also for populations elsewhere in the Arctic – is unsupportable by the current scientific evidence. The commentary by Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Gough, W.A., Rode, K., in press. Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay. Ecol. Complexity] is an example of uni-dimensional, or reductionist thinking, which is not useful when assessing effects of climate change on complex ecosystems. Polar bears of WH are exposed to a multitude of environmental perturbations including human interference and factors (e.g., unknown seal population size, possible competition with polar bears from other populations) such that isolation of any single variable as the certain root cause (i.e., climate change in the form of warming spring air temperatures), without recognizing confounding interactions, is imprudent, unjustified and of questionable scientific utility. Dyck et al. [Dyck, M.G., Soon, W., Baydack, R.K., Legates, D.R., Baliunas, S., Ball, T.F., Hancock, L.O., 2007. Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? Ecol. Complexity, 4, 73–84. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002 ] agree that some polar bear populations may be negatively impacted by future environmental changes; but an oversimplification of the complex ecosystem interactions (of which humans are a part) may not be beneficial in studying external effects on polar bears. Science evolves through questioning and proposing hypotheses that can be critically tested, in the absence of which, as Krebs and Borteaux [Krebs, C.J., Berteaux, D., 2006. Problems and pitfalls in relating climate variability to population dynamics. Clim. Res. 32, 143–149] observe, “we will be little more than storytellers.”