The problem with this is that hunting per se is not the issue. Polar bear populations will decline in any event due to climate change. (Of course, for those who do not believe in climate change, it's not happening!)The real question would be along the lines of "Does it make sense to try and manage polar bear populations to fit the available habitat?" Hard to say. If polar bears are not hunted, the populations will stay higher longer but under poor circumstances for the bears. If they are hunted, the population will fall sooner but the remaining bears may exist in better circumstances.
The survival of any animal population is, in reality, dependent upon human goodwill. We've eliminated whole species in the past and will do so again. This occurs often not from hunting an animal to extinction (though humans have certainly done that often enough too) but as a consequence of developement driven by economics. Face it, if BP had to roust the last polar bear out of her den because there was oil there, she'd be hunting a new home and most wouldn't care.
As for hunting the bears, I think any hunt which is undertaken under "fair chase" guidelines is perfectly acceptable. Perhaps giving more people an opportunity to experience the dwindling Arctic would help more to recognize what we are losing. I really think the bears are likely to benefit from being hunted in that it may be better to die from the hunter's bullet rather than starve as their habitat shrinks. GD
