You’ve seen the photos. A lonely, rib-thin bear perched on a tiny chunk of melting ice. It’s the image that launched a thousand climate campaigns. But then, you stumble across a headline claiming that polar bear numbers are actually "booming." It feels like total whiplash. One side says they’re going extinct; the other says there have never been more of them.
So, what’s the real story? Honestly, it’s complicated.
The idea of a massive polar bear population increase isn't just a random internet rumor, but it’s often stripped of the context that makes the numbers make sense. If you look at the broad timeline from the 1960s to 2026, the numbers have gone up. But—and this is a big "but"—it’s not because the Arctic is suddenly a frozen paradise again.
The 1970s Bounce-Back: A Success Story with an Expiration Date
To understand why people talk about an increase, you have to go back to the mid-20th century. It was basically the Wild West in the Arctic. People were hunting polar bears from planes and snowmobiles with zero regulation. By the late 1960s, scientists were worried there were only about 5,000 to 10,000 bears left.
Then, in 1973, the five "Range States"—Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, the U.S., and the former USSR—signed a massive treaty. They basically said, "Okay, we need to stop the literal slaughter."
They restricted hunting. They set quotas.
👉 See also: What Year Was Nixon President? The Real Timeline of America's Most Complicated Leader
Guess what happened? The bears did what bears do. They recovered. By the 1980s and 90s, populations in many areas rebounded significantly. This is the "increase" people often cite. It was a genuine conservation win. But here's the thing: that recovery happened because we stopped shooting them, not because their habitat was getting better.
Where the Numbers Stand in 2026
Right now, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) estimates the global population is somewhere between 22,000 and 31,000 bears.
If you compare 26,000 (the mid-point) to the 1960s "guesstimate" of 5,000, it looks like a massive explosion. But experts like Dr. Jon Aars of the Norwegian Polar Institute point out that we didn't actually have good counts back then. We were guessing. Today, we use satellite collars, aerial surveys, and DNA "darting" to get real data.
A Tale of Two Arctics
The Arctic isn't one giant bathtub. It's divided into 20 different subpopulations. And they are all doing something different.
- The Winners (For Now): In places like Kane Basin and the M’Clintock Channel, bear numbers have actually looked stable or even slightly increased recently. Why? Because the ice used to be too thick there. As it thins out, it’s actually easier for seals (the bears' main food) to create breathing holes. It’s a temporary "sweet spot."
- The Losers: Down in Western Hudson Bay, things are rough. This is the most studied population on Earth. Since the 1980s, the population there has plummeted by nearly 50%. The ice is melting earlier in the summer, forcing bears onto land where they can't hunt seals. They basically starve for months until the ice returns.
- The "Who Knows?": About half of the 20 subpopulations are "Data Deficient." This includes huge swaths of the Russian Arctic. We simply don't know if those bears are thriving or dying because the areas are too remote and expensive to study.
The "Booming" Narrative vs. Scientific Reality
You might have heard Dr. Susan Crockford, a zoologist who has famously argued that polar bears are thriving despite sea ice loss. Her work is often shared by those skeptical of climate change. She points to the fact that bears have survived past warm periods and that their numbers remain high.
Mainstream scientists, however, aren't buying it. A 2018 study in BioScience analyzed her claims and found they often cherry-picked data or ignored the long-term trends of "ice-free" days.
The nuance here is key. You can have more bears today than in 1970 because of hunting bans, while simultaneously facing a future where they have no place to live. It’s like saying a house is "better than ever" because you stopped the burglars from breaking in, even though the foundation is currently sinking into a swamp.
Why Do People Keep Seeing More Bears?
If the population is "vulnerable," why are communities in Nunavut and Churchill reporting more bears than ever? This is a huge point of friction between local Inuit knowledge and scientific models.
The answer is often "distributional shift."
🔗 Read more: Who is British PM Keir Starmer? Why He’s Still in Charge
Basically, the bears are hungry. When the sea ice fails, they head to where the food is: human trash, dog teams, and coastal settlements. To a person living in Arviat, it looks like a polar bear population increase because there’s a bear in their backyard every night. But to a scientist, that's not more bears—it's just desperate bears moving into human territory.
What Actually Happens Next?
Is the polar bear going extinct tomorrow? No.
But the 2024-2025 reports from the PBSG are pretty clear: the trend lines for sea ice are going the wrong way. Most models suggest that if we don't hit major emissions targets, we could lose the majority of the world's polar bears by 2100.
They are incredibly resilient animals, though. We’ve seen them start to eat goose eggs, reindeer, and even berries. But a polar bear needs a massive amount of fat to survive the winter. You can’t replace a 200-pound blubbery seal with a few blueberries. The math just doesn't work.
Actionable Insights for the Informed Reader
If you want to look past the headlines and understand what's actually happening with Arctic wildlife, here is how to filter the noise:
📖 Related: History of African slavery in Africa: What most people get wrong about the pre-colonial era
- Check the Subpopulation: Never trust a global number. If a headline says "Polar bears are increasing," ask which ones. Look for data on the Southern Beaufort Sea or Western Hudson Bay for the real "canary in the coal mine" groups.
- Look at Ice-Free Days: The most important metric isn't the number of bears, but the number of days they are forced to stay on land. Anything over 120-150 days is the danger zone for cub survival.
- Support Co-Management: The best conservation happens when scientists work with Indigenous hunters. Local knowledge (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit) provides real-time data on bear health and behavior that satellites miss.
- Follow the Range States: Keep an eye on the official reports from the Polar Bear Range States website. This is where the five nations that actually manage the bears publish their peer-reviewed findings.
The story of the polar bear isn't a simple "up or down" arrow. It’s a story of a species that we saved from the gun, only to challenge it with a changing planet. Understanding that distinction is the only way to have a real conversation about their survival.