How Many Polar Bears Are Left? Populations and Status

Polar bears are not all moving in the same direction. Some subpopulations are declining, some appear stable or increasing, and many do not have enough recent data to determine a trend. That uncertainty is one reason the headline number needs context.

#	Preview	Product	Price
1		Remembering Tigers (Remembering Wildlife)	$60.58	Buy on Amazon
2		True Wildlife	$57.99	Buy on Amazon
3		10 Years of Remembering Wildlife	$61.55	Buy on Amazon
4		The Whale in the Living Room: A Wildlife Documentary Maker's Unique View of the Sea	$1.64	Buy on Amazon
5		Remembering Leopards (Remembering Wildlife)	$65.00	Buy on Amazon

The best current estimate is about 26,000 polar bears

As of August 10, 2026, the best official estimate is approximately 26,000 polar bears in the wild, with a statistical range of 22,000–31,000. The estimate comes from the global assessment published by Regehr and colleagues in 2016 and remains the figure used in current summaries by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

That wording matters. There are not researchers who counted exactly 26,000 bears in 2026. The number is a midpoint produced by combining the best available regional information, while the confidence interval reflects uncertainty in both the surveys and the models. A scientifically honest short answer is therefore:

#1 Best Overall

Sale

Remembering Tigers (Remembering Wildlife)

$60.58

Buy on Amazon

About 26,000 wild polar bears remain, with a plausible estimated range of 22,000–31,000.

Some older websites still use the shorthand 20,000–25,000. The later 26,000 estimate should not be interpreted as proof that polar bears suddenly increased. It reflects a revised statistical assessment, improved information for some regions, and the way uncertainty was represented—not a new worldwide headcount.

The global estimate also does not fully quantify bears associated with the poorly surveyed Arctic Basin. It should be treated as the best available estimate, not as a complete census of every bear across every part of the Arctic.

Read the USGS record for the 2016 global assessment.

Why is it so difficult to count polar bears?

Polar bears live across a vast circumpolar region of sea ice, coastlines, islands, and remote Arctic waters. Their habitat is difficult and expensive to reach, and the bears themselves are sparsely distributed, highly mobile, and often traveling on moving ice.

Several practical problems make a precise global count impossible:

• Remote habitat: Much of the Arctic is inaccessible for long periods because of darkness, severe weather, ice, and distance.
• Constant movement: Bears cross sea-ice and national boundaries. A bear observed in one survey area may later be counted in another.
• Incomplete detection: Aerial teams cannot see every bear, especially bears on broken ice, near shorelines, in poor weather, or in areas with limited visibility.
• Different survey methods: Researchers use different techniques in different regions, making direct comparisons difficult.
• Old estimates: The latest accepted estimate for one region may be based on a survey from 1992, 1997, 2004, or another earlier year because repeat surveys have not yet been completed.
• Uncertain boundaries: Subpopulation boundaries are useful for management, but bears do not necessarily remain within lines drawn on a map.
• An unquantified Arctic Basin: The northernmost basin contains bears that cannot always be assigned confidently to another subpopulation, but its abundance is not currently known.

Scientists account for these problems by reporting confidence intervals or credible intervals rather than pretending that an estimate is exact. The current PBSG population-status table identifies the estimate year and uncertainty for each subpopulation where information is available.

How researchers estimate abundance

Depending on the region, studies may use one or more of the following:

• Physical capture–recapture: Bears are captured, marked or fitted with identifying equipment, and then resighted or recaptured later. The proportion of marked bears seen again helps estimate the total population.
• Genetic capture–recapture: Hair, tissue, or other samples identify individual bears genetically, reducing the need to physically capture every animal.
• Distance sampling: Researchers survey an area and model how the probability of detecting a bear changes with distance from the aircraft, boat, or observers.
• Mark–recapture distance sampling: This combines individual identification with distance-based aerial or ground surveys.
• Integrated population models: Models combine abundance, survival, reproduction, harvest, movement, and environmental information to estimate population dynamics.
• Indigenous Knowledge and local observations: Observations from people who live and work in the Arctic provide important information about movements, seasonal conditions, abundance, behavior, and changes that formal surveys may miss. This knowledge is evidence to be integrated respectfully, not dismissed as anecdotal by default.

There are 20 recognized polar bear subpopulations

Polar bears are not managed as one uniform Arctic herd. The current PBSG framework recognizes 20 subpopulations, following the formal recognition of Southeast Greenland as a separate subpopulation. Older articles and maps often show 19 because they predate that change.

Southeast Greenland was recognized as distinct by the Greenland government in 2023 and by the PBSG in 2024. The separation reflects movement, genetic, ecological, and management evidence. A subpopulation is a practical scientific and management unit; it does not mean that bears are permanently confined to it.

The latest PBSG summary classifies the 20 units as:

• 10 data deficient
• 3 likely decreasing
• 5 likely stable
• 2 likely increasing

These categories do not form one synchronized global trend. The underlying surveys cover different years, use different methods, and measure different aspects of population change. The PBSG population-status table was last updated in 2024, so newer studies may not yet appear in every row.

Latest available abundance estimates by subpopulation

The table below gives the latest figures displayed by the PBSG, with the estimate year shown beside every number. East Greenland is the exception: a peer-reviewed study published in 2026 provides a new estimate that had not yet been incorporated into the PBSG table at the time of this article.

Rank #2

True Wildlife

$57.99

Buy on Amazon

Source: PBSG population-status table. The East Greenland figure is from Laidre and colleagues’ 2026 study and had not yet been added to the PBSG table.

Do not add the numbers in this table and call the result the current global population. Some subpopulations have no estimate, the dates differ by decades, boundaries and methods differ, and the global estimate was not constructed as a simple sum of current point estimates.

Are polar bear numbers increasing or decreasing?

The most accurate answer is: there is no reliable single measured global trend for the entire species. Trends vary by subpopulation, and half of the 20 recognized units are classified as data deficient in the latest summary.

Examples of declining populations

Western Hudson Bay is classified as very likely decreased over both the long-term and short-term periods shown by the PBSG. Its 2021 estimate was 26.7% below the 2016 estimate. However, the change is not necessarily a simple loss of bears: movement between Western Hudson Bay and neighboring Southern Hudson Bay contributed to the difference. The result is still a serious warning, but it illustrates why abundance, movement, survey timing, and habitat conditions must be considered together.

Southern Beaufort Sea is classified as likely decreased over both periods. The displayed estimate is approximately 900 bears and is based on data from 2010, with later demographic analyses informing the trend assessment. It should not be described as a 2026 census.

Examples of stable or mixed results

Southern Hudson Bay is listed as likely stable over both periods. Its 2021 estimate was at least 29% higher than the 2016 estimate, but the PBSG notes that good ice years, movement between neighboring regions, and other factors complicate the interpretation. A short-term increase does not automatically mean that the population’s long-term carrying capacity has improved.

Chukchi Sea is classified as likely stable in the short term. Available indicators of body condition and recruitment did not show a clear decline through the monitoring period used in the assessment.

Barents Sea is listed as very likely increased over the long term and likely stable in the short term. But its displayed abundance estimate dates from 2004. The trend label is useful evidence about the population’s history; it is not a current population count.

Baffin Bay and Davis Strait show why population size and population trend are separate questions. A population can have a point estimate in the thousands and still be data deficient about its long-term direction. Conversely, a smaller unit may show a short-term increase without being secure over the long term.

Why are polar bears classified as Vulnerable?

The IUCN classification is not based only on how many animals exist today. It also considers the probability that a species will decline substantially in the future.

The current formal IUCN assessment, published in 2015, classifies the polar bear as Vulnerable. Using a mean generation length of 11.5 years, the assessment examined projected change over approximately three generations—roughly 35–41 years. Across the scenarios considered, the estimated probability of a global decline greater than 30% was approximately 0.71, with a scenario range of 0.20–0.95. That projected risk supported the Vulnerable classification under IUCN criterion A3c. The assessment details are summarized by the PBSG Red List page and the USGS publication record.

Vulnerable is the lowest of the IUCN’s three threatened categories, below Endangered and Critically Endangered. It does not mean that most polar bears have already disappeared, or that the species is certain to vanish soon. It means that the species meets criteria indicating a high risk of extinction in the wild if the relevant pressures continue.

The PBSG has begun work toward a new Red List assessment, but no published replacement for the 2015 assessment could be verified by August 10, 2026. The present status therefore combines an older formal global assessment with newer regional studies and monitoring results.

Rank #3

Sale

10 Years of Remembering Wildlife

$61.55

Buy on Amazon

Legal status differs by jurisdiction

Words such as vulnerable, threatened, and special concern are not interchangeable. IUCN categories are global scientific assessments, while national classifications are legal or statutory designations with different criteria and consequences.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service retained the Threatened designation in 2023. In Canada, the 2018 COSEWIC assessment reconfirmed Special Concern. Canada’s category does not mean polar bears face no serious risks; it reflects that the species does not meet the criteria for a higher Canadian risk category under that system.

The 1973 agreement brought together Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the United States. It helped coordinate conservation and reduce the uncontrolled hunting that had severely depleted some populations. The agreement did not eliminate all harvest; modern management generally combines quotas, monitoring, reporting, and local or co-management arrangements.

Learn about the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears.

The main threat is loss of sea ice

Polar bears depend heavily on sea ice. It is a platform for hunting seals, moving across the Arctic, finding mates, and carrying out other essential activities. Earlier spring breakup, later autumn freeze-up, thinner ice, and longer ice-free seasons can reduce access to prey and force bears to spend more time fasting on land or swimming between ice patches.

When seals are harder to reach, bears may lose body mass, reproduce less successfully, produce fewer surviving cubs, or face greater mortality. These effects do not appear at the same time or with the same intensity in every region because sea-ice conditions, seal availability, geography, and behavior vary across the Arctic. Nevertheless, climate-driven sea-ice loss is the primary range-wide long-term threat identified in current polar bear assessments.

A 2025 study using a bioenergetic model and four decades of Western Hudson Bay monitoring connected sea-ice-related feeding limitations with an approximately 50% decline in that regional study population since the mid-1990s. This is important evidence about the mechanism linking habitat loss to population decline. It is not evidence that polar bears worldwide have declined by exactly 50%.

Read the University of Toronto summary of the Western Hudson Bay study.

Can polar bears adapt by eating food on land?

Polar bears do spend more time on land in some regions as the ice-free season lengthens. Individual bears may eat eggs, berries, birds, reindeer, carcasses, or other terrestrial foods. This behavior can provide calories temporarily and may help some individuals survive a difficult season.

But land foods generally do not offer the same energy density or reliable access as seals. In the regions most affected by sea-ice loss, terrestrial feeding has not been shown to replace seal hunting well enough to sustain normal reproduction and population growth across the whole subpopulation. The ability of an individual bear to eat land food is therefore not the same thing as proof that the species has adapted to a changing climate.

Responses can differ substantially by region. A 2026 study from the Barents Sea and Svalbard reported improved body condition among sampled adult bears despite approximately 100 additional ice-free days over the study period. That result is a valuable local exception, but it does not establish a global recovery or show that land-based foods can replace sea-ice hunting everywhere.

See the 2026 Barents Sea body-condition study.

Harvest remains important in particular regions

Harvest has a complicated role in polar bear conservation. Subsistence harvest is culturally, nutritionally, and economically important to Indigenous communities throughout the Arctic. It is not accurate to describe all Indigenous harvest as unsustainable. Harvest is managed at the subpopulation or management-unit level, often through co-management and agreements that incorporate scientific data, Indigenous Knowledge, and local observations.

Historically, uncontrolled or excessive hunting severely reduced some polar bear populations. The 1973 agreement and later national management helped reduce overharvesting as the dominant range-wide threat. Harvest can nevertheless be unsustainable in a particular unit, especially when population estimates are old, quotas do not reflect current conditions, or the proportion of females killed rises.

Rank #4

The Whale in the Living Room: A Wildlife Documentary Maker's Unique View of the Sea

$1.64

Buy on Amazon

Adult females are especially important to population growth. Polar bears mature slowly and reproduce at relatively low rates, so the loss of breeding females can affect a population more strongly than an equivalent loss of adult males.

A specific management concern involves Nunavut. Beginning with the 2019–2020 harvest season, Nunavut changed its approach from a 2:1 male-to-female harvest ratio to allowing up to a 1:1 ratio without simultaneously revising quotas. The PBSG warned that this could increase the potential allowable female take by up to 50% and could be biologically unsustainable in some shared subpopulations. This is a concern about the effects of a particular management change; it is not evidence that all Indigenous harvest is unsustainable.

Read the PBSG material on harvest and international trade. Canada’s polar bear management and CITES report provides additional context on quotas, harvest, and conservation findings.

Other threats create local or additional pressure

Sea-ice loss is the central long-term problem, but several other pressures can harm polar bears or make their response to habitat change more difficult:

• Oil spills and industrial development: Bears may be exposed directly to oil or displaced from feeding and denning areas. A major spill in an icy environment would be especially difficult to clean up.
• Shipping and increased Arctic access: More vessels can increase noise, disturbance, ship strikes, pollution, and the chance of encounters near shore or on sea ice.
• Human–bear conflict: Bears spending longer periods on land may approach settlements, camps, food-storage areas, dumps, and industrial sites. Conflict can injure people and lead to the removal or killing of bears.
• Pollution and persistent contaminants: Chemicals can move through the marine food web and accumulate in long-lived predators such as polar bears.
• Disease and pathogens: Warming and changing species distributions may alter exposure to infectious agents.
• Disturbance of maternity dens: Industrial activity, aircraft, vehicles, and other disturbance can affect denning females and cubs.
• Changing seal prey: Changes in sea-ice conditions can affect the abundance, distribution, and accessibility of the seals on which polar bears depend.
• Loss of connectivity: Changing ice conditions and development may reduce movement between areas and make it harder for subpopulations to remain connected.

The importance of each pressure depends on location. A shipping risk may be especially important in one corridor, harvest in a particular management unit, and contaminants or den disturbance in another. None currently replaces sea-ice loss as the principal range-wide threat.

What recent research changes—and what it does not

East Greenland received its first abundance estimate

A 2026 peer-reviewed study estimated 2,275 East Greenland polar bears, with a 95% confidence interval of 1,360–3,807. The estimate was based on aerial surveys conducted from March to May 2023. It is an important improvement because East Greenland had previously lacked an abundance estimate in the PBSG table.

This new result does not automatically replace the global 22,000–31,000 estimate or raise the global total by 2,275. The global estimate and the new regional estimate were built from different datasets, dates, boundaries, and population definitions. A revised global total requires a formal reassessment rather than simple addition.

Read the East Greenland abundance study.

Western Hudson Bay provides stronger evidence about mechanism

The 2025 Western Hudson Bay study connected reduced access to food caused by sea-ice change with declining body condition and regional population loss. It strengthens the biological explanation for why sea-ice loss matters: bears need sufficient feeding opportunities before the ice-free season to maintain themselves and reproduce.

It remains a regional study. A regional result cannot be converted into a single worldwide decline rate.

Barents Sea results show that regional responses are not uniform

The 2026 Barents Sea study found improved body condition among sampled adult bears despite a longer ice-free season. Such findings are important because they prevent an overly simplistic claim that every subpopulation responds identically or declines at the same speed. They also do not overturn the broader conclusion that long-term loss of sea ice creates substantial risk for a species dependent on that habitat.

Monitoring and reassessment are ongoing

Researchers are expanding the use of aerial surveys, satellite telemetry, genetic sampling, integrated population models, harvest reporting, and local observations. Satellite telemetry is particularly useful for understanding movements, habitat use, sea-ice relationships, and connectivity among areas. Better monitoring is urgent because many accepted abundance estimates are old, including estimates from 1992 and 1997.

Does this mean polar bears are going extinct?

Not immediately, uniformly, or with a known date. Some polar bear subpopulations are stable or increasing, and the species still numbers in the tens of thousands. It would be inaccurate to say that every subpopulation is declining or that extinction is certain in the near future.

But it would be equally inaccurate to say that polar bears are safe because some populations are stable. Ten of the 20 recognized subpopulations are data deficient, the global trend cannot be summarized as one measured annual rate, and the primary habitat trend—declining Arctic sea ice—is unfavorable. A population can appear stable for a period because of favorable ice conditions, movement from a neighboring area, reduced harvest, or other local factors while still facing serious long-term pressure.

Best Value

Remembering Leopards (Remembering Wildlife)

$65.00

Buy on Amazon

The most defensible conclusion is that polar bears are not currently on the immediate verge of global extinction, but they face a substantial long-term risk. Their future depends on maintaining healthy sea-ice ecosystems, managing local pressures carefully, improving population data, and reducing the greenhouse-gas-driven loss of their habitat.

What conservation measures are helping?

Polar bear conservation has produced real successes, particularly where direct human pressures were reduced. The 1973 international agreement coordinated action among the five range states, and hunting restrictions and quota systems helped some populations recover from earlier depletion.

Current conservation work includes:

• Population surveys and repeated estimates using aerial, genetic, and capture–recapture methods
• Harvest quotas, sex-ratio rules, reporting, and local management agreements
• Satellite telemetry to track movement, habitat use, denning, and connectivity
• Genetic studies that identify individuals and clarify population boundaries
• Monitoring of body condition, reproduction, cub survival, and survival rates
• Protection of maternity denning areas and important habitat
• Programs to reduce attractants and prevent human–bear conflict near communities and industrial sites
• Use of Indigenous Knowledge alongside scientific monitoring
• International controls on trade and cooperation among Arctic range states

Protecting polar bears cannot mean only preventing direct killing. Long-term persistence requires protecting the sea-ice ecosystem and addressing the greenhouse-gas emissions driving habitat loss. Local conservation can reduce additional mortality and give populations more resilience, but it cannot fully compensate for the disappearance of the hunting platform on which polar bears evolved.

Read about the PBSG’s satellite-telemetry priorities.

Frequently asked questions

Frequently Asked Questions

Are polar bears endangered?

Globally, polar bears are classified as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, not Endangered. They are nevertheless listed as Threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and as Special Concern in Canada. These labels come from different systems and are not synonyms. Vulnerable means the species faces a high risk of extinction in the wild under the IUCN criteria, especially because of projected future sea-ice loss.

Are there more polar bears now than in the 1960s?

Some populations that were depleted by uncontrolled hunting recovered after stronger management, but there is no precise, directly comparable global before-and-after count. The often-repeated estimate of 5,000 bears in the 1960s was highly uncertain and was produced using methods that cannot be cleanly compared with modern surveys. It should not be used as a precise historical baseline.

Are polar bear populations increasing or decreasing?

Both patterns occur. The PBSG lists some subpopulations as likely decreasing, some as likely stable, and some as likely increasing, while 10 of 20 are data deficient. Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea are examples of declining units; Southern Hudson Bay and Chukchi Sea have more stable recent assessments. There is no reliable single annual decline rate for all polar bears worldwide.

How many polar bears live in Canada?

Canada contains or shares 14 of the recognized management units, but there is no single current Canadian census that can be reported by simply adding the regional figures. Several units cross international or territorial boundaries, some estimates are old, and some populations lack reliable abundance estimates. The responsible approach is to use the relevant subpopulation estimates and identify their years and uncertainty.

Are polar bears found in Antarctica?

No. Polar bears are native to the Arctic and the surrounding northern regions of Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the United States. Antarctica has no native wild polar bear population. The five Arctic range states cooperate under the 1973 Polar Bear Agreement.

Are captive polar bears included in the estimate of 26,000?

No. The 26,000 figure is an estimate of wild polar bears. Bears living in zoos or other managed facilities are not part of the wild population estimate.

Can polar bears survive by eating land animals?

Individual bears can eat eggs, berries, birds, reindeer, carcasses, and other land-based foods, and this may provide temporary calories. However, these foods generally do not replace the energy and reliable access provided by seals. Some regions show better body-condition results than others, but land feeding has not been demonstrated to replace sea-ice hunting for polar bear populations across the Arctic.

What can people do to help polar bears?

The most important broad action is supporting policies and choices that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, because sea-ice loss is the main long-term threat. People can also support reputable conservation and Arctic community organizations, avoid wildlife tourism that encourages unsafe feeding or close encounters, reduce demand for products linked to habitat damage, and rely on current scientific and Indigenous-led conservation information rather than sensational population claims.

The Bottom Line

Bottom line: The best official estimate is about 26,000 wild polar bears worldwide, with a 95% confidence interval of 22,000–31,000. That is not a 2026 census. The species is divided into 20 recognized subpopulations, half of which are currently data deficient, and local trends range from increasing to sharply declining. Polar bears are Vulnerable globally, Threatened in the United States, and Special Concern in Canada. Better harvest and conflict management can help, but the decisive long-term issue is whether enough Arctic sea ice remains for bears to hunt seals and reproduce.

Quick Recap

SaleBestseller No. 1

Remembering Tigers (Remembering Wildlife)

$60.58

Bestseller No. 2

True Wildlife

$57.99

SaleBestseller No. 3

10 Years of Remembering Wildlife

$61.55

Bestseller No. 4

The Whale in the Living Room: A Wildlife Documentary Maker's Unique View of the Sea

$1.64

Bestseller No. 5

Remembering Leopards (Remembering Wildlife)

$65.00

Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.