Since I always receive the reply "tell that to the polar bears" when I state my views on global warming (or the lack thereof) - I was intrigued by your comment - had to google it - here's a good article you can reference:
http://scienceline.org/2007/02/05/health_driscoll_polarbears/
From your linked article ......(and thanks)
Some, however, see the general rise in polar bear population and scoff at the possibility of regulation. “The law doesn’t say to look at any possible future threat. It says look at the data…if it’s not endangered then it’s not endangered,” said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow from the National Center for Policy Analysis, a non-profit organization that promotes private alternatives to government regulation, who has written about the polar bear issue.
What counts, he said, is the number of polar bears that exist right now, not some possible decrease in the future. He noted the overall polar bear population has rebounded from about 10,000 to 20,000 and asserted that warm temperatures in the 1930s were similar to current conditions, yet polar bears survived then.
As for the reports of cannibalism, he said, “We can’t say we know it is a new phenomenon” because researchers do not have good data from earlier decades.