Funny that they list the US office first, and during my 20 minutes on the site all of the incoming donations were from the US. Does Canada simply respond differently to initiatives like these? Or is it targeted at Americans? Maybe education and local initiatives are more effective in Canada, as a southerner would rarely consider polar bears.

The need to consider not only national stakeholders but international interest groups is understandable in co-management, but the "firsthand" knowledge they present should, as science, never get in the way of those directly effected by changes in polar bear availability. Interestingly enough, attempts to protect the polar bear to a greater extent than current regulations have outlasted the Soviet Union, but fail to consider that the bears' circumstances may have shifted as well. Modern bears are threatened more by climate change than by hunters, yet Russian and American policy is still directed at preserving the animal and not the habitat.

Evidence that a moderate solution of greater inclusion can often times be easier and more effective than overhauling the whole system like we sometimes want to believe.

Has anyone asked the question of whether or not this is wanted? What lens are we using to evaluate standards of living?

It's unfortunate but the reality of the struggle for co-management is a history of disregard and mismanagement. I don't think we covered enough of this in the course as a necessary foundation.