South Africa Antarctic and Canada’s Arctic are worlds apart; however, people in both regions share the frustration of outsiders trying to dictate how wildlife conservation and sustainable use hunting should take place.
When the Daily Maverick published its op‑ed, “Trade in polar bears: Film reveals shocking exploitation hidden behind ‘sustainable use’,” it was presented as an exposé uncovering a hidden crisis. As a Canadian wildlife ecologist, the article reads differently. To the experts I interviewed, it is built on factual omissions and a near‑total erasure of Indigenous rights.
Canada contains 13 of the world’s 19 subpopulations, making it home to roughly two‑thirds of the world’s polar bears. It is also where Inuit communities exercise constitutionally protected harvesting rights, co‑manage polar bear populations with government, and participate in international wildlife governance.
I interviewed four leading experts: Dr. Andrew Derocher from the University of Alberta; Dr. Douglas Clark, professor at the University of Saskatchewan; Doug Chiasson, Executive Director of the Fur Institute of Canada; and Dr. Dan Challender, Senior Research Fellow at Oxford and a global authority on CITES and wildlife trade governance.
The op‑ed opens by suggesting that the public assumes polar bears are “intensely protected,” and Dr. Adam Cruise’s film, Trade Secret, has “shattered this assumption” by exposing a hidden global trade. Polar bear scientist Dr. Andrew Derocher rejects this premise:
“From the outset, this is incorrect. That polar bears have been harvested in parts of their range has been widely reported… Any individual with access to a computer can review the harvest and trade in polar bears. If this was a ‘secret’, it’s the worst kept one in the world of wildlife management.”
The trade is legal, regulated, documented, and monitored by CITES, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, and the five polar bear range states. Nothing about it is hidden.
The most troubling omission is the article’s disregard for Inuit People, who are central to polar bear management in Canada. Inuit polar bear harvest is not trophy hunting. It is subsistence harvesting, protected under legal agreements, Canada’s constitution, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Canada has endorsed. Derocher explains:
“Polar bear harvest is a subsistence hunt regulated by co‑management between government agencies and Indigenous groups… Characterization of a subsistence harvest as the ‘exploitation of wildlife’ is clearly an attempt to inflame an emotional argument.”
Clark goes further, noting that the film and the article constitute an ideological project that excludes Indigenous voices:
“This film… has no room for Indigenous perspectives. One of the film’s protagonists, Ole Liodden, has been outspoken to the point of overt racism about the barbarism of Inuit livelihoods.”
The Daily Maverick article never mentions Inuit rights, knowledge, or management systems. It never acknowledges that Inuit communities rely on polar bear harvest for food security, cultural continuity, economic subsistence and safety when polar bears pose risks to people. I do not speak for Inuit People. They speak for themselves, through organizations like the Inuit Circumpolar Council and initiatives such as Nanuk Narratives, which Clark recommends as essential reading. The omission is not irresponsible journalism only; it is erasure.
The op‑ed frames CITES as a trade‑promotion body that “protects commerce, not species.” According to experts, this is simply false. Dr. Dan Challender, one of the world’s leading scholars on CITES, states:
“CITES was designed to regulate international trade to ensure it is not unsustainable… Trade is permitted based on non‑detriment findings to ensure it is not unsustainable and legal acquisition findings to ensure specimens were acquired legally.”
He adds:
“The Convention has never been about stopping all wildlife trade… Framing this as some sort of revelation is disingenuous.”
The article’s portrayal of CITES as a villain is not grounded in how the Convention works. It undermines public understanding of global conservation governance.
The op‑ed asserts that Nunavut’s 2019 management plan which allows harvest of breeding‑age females, “spells disaster” and risks “population collapse.”
Derocher responds bluntly:
“There is no reason to believe that the change in management is a ‘disaster’… That this harvest change could result in ‘population collapse’ is nonsense with a clearly anti‑harvest perspective.”
He emphasizes that:
“Harvest of polar bears is not a risk factor in their long‑term persistence. The only true threat to the persistence of polar bears as a species is climate change.”
Climate change, not harvest, is the existential threat. Harvest levels are adjustable, monitored, and responsive. Sea‑ice loss is not.
Clark echoes this:
“You can’t call climate change an apocalypse and then claim that we actually need to focus on something else.”
The op‑ed highlights a warehouse containing “300 to 400 full bear skins,” implying this represents ongoing mass exploitation.
Clark explains the reality:
“That warehouse scene… probably doesn’t mention that the large number of furs present is due to a glut and a crash in the market over a decade ago.”
Chiasson adds important context:
“Restrictions in trade of Canadian-origin polar bears are not based on any evidence in conservation or population science… Organizations including the Fur Institute of Canada, Inuit Circumpolar Council, World Wildlife Fund and Polar Bears International do not oppose the trade in Inuit-harvested polar bear skins.”
The op‑ed repeatedly compares polar bear trade to African ivory and rhino horn trafficking.
Derocher calls this out:
“To consider the conservation and trade issues of elephants and rhinos within the same arena as polar bears reflects a profound misunderstanding… This is a chalk and cheese argument.”
Polar bear trade is legal, regulated, and monitored. Ivory and rhino horn trade is largely illegal and driven by organized crime. The comparison is misleading and scientifically incoherent. An investigation led by Canadian journalist Jenn Thornhill Verma with The Globe and Mail and the Pulitzer Center wrote:
“Our investigation found the illegal wildlife trade is driven by the same criminal networks moving drugs, firearms and people.”
The Daily Maverick op‑ed adopts a moralistic stance against sustainable use, portraying it as archaic and unethical.
Derocher responds:
“It is disingenuous to imply that polar bear hunting is a commercial enterprise or that it is based on outdated science… We could stop all hunting of polar bears today and it would not change the long-term conservation concerns for the species.”
Clark characterizes the film’s narrative as conspiratorial:
“A conspiracy is a great narrative device, so the filmmakers created one… Heroes in their own drama.”
Across scientific and Indigenous communities in Canada, Trade Secret is widely regarded as lacking credibility, rigor, or meaningful contribution to conservation.
Polar bear conservation deserves serious, evidence‑based conservation journalism.
As Clark notes:
“Inuit have taken more than their fair share of hits in the name of saving polar bears.”
That is why this story matters beyond Canada. For South Africans, it should sound familiar. Like Inuit communities, South Africans have long faced outside campaigns that flatten complex conservation realities into moral claims. Future reporting must recognize that local people are not obstacles to conservation, but central to it.
Conservation loses credibility when it silences the people who live with wildlife. Whether in Canada’s Arctic or South Africa, it must protect species and the sovereignty of the communities whose futures are bound to them.
[Image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica_%287%29,_Laubeuf_Fjord,_Webb_Island.JPG]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend