Ursus 11

Ursus 11 (1999)

Table of Contents

HISTORY OF THE IBA, 1968–1998 11

ALBERT L. LeCOUNT, Wild Work, 75743 Lemay Road, Albany, OH45710, USA, email: 103375.2617@compuserve.com

BIODIVERSITY AND BEARS – A CONSERVATION PARADIGM SHIFT 21

DANIEL SIMBERLOFF, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA, email: dsimberloff@utk.edu

HANGING BEARS FROM PHYLOGENETIC TREES: INVESTIGATING PATTERNS OF MACROEVOLUTION 29

JOHN L. GITTLEMAN,1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA

CAVE BEAR ECOLOGY AND INTERACTIONS WITH PLEISTOCENE HUMANS 41

MARY C. STINER, Department of Anthropology, Building 30, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ85721, USA, email:mstiner@u.arizona.edu

LARGE CARNIVORE DEPREDATION ON LIVESTOCK IN EUROPE 59

PETRA KACZENSKY, Munich Wildlife Society, Linderhof 2, D-82488 Ettal, Germany, email: PKaczensky@t-online.de

POPULATION DYNAMICS OF BROWN BEARS AFTER THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL 73

RICHARD A. SELLERS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 37, King Salmon, AK 99613, USA

STERLING D. MILLER,1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK99518, USA

ANNUAL AND SEASONAL MOVEMENT PATTERNS OF BARREN-GROUND

GRIZZLY BEARS IN THE CENTRAL NORTHWEST TERRITORIES 79

PHILIP D. McLOUGHLIN, Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, 112 Science Place, Saskatoon, SKS7N 5E2, Canada,email: mcloughlin@sask.usask.ca

RAY L. CASE, Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development, Government of the Northwest Territories, #600, 5102-50 Avenue, Yellowknife, NTX1A 3S8, Canada, email: ray_case@gov.nt.ca

ROBERT J. GAU, Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development, Government of the Northwest Territories, #600, 5102-50 Avenue, Yellowknife, NTX1A 3S8, Canada, email: rob-gau@gov.nt.ca

STEVEN H. FERGUSON 1 , Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, 112 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E2, Canada

FRANÇOIS MESSIER, Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, 112 Science Place, Saskatoon, SKS7N 5E2, Canada,email: francois.messier@sask.usask.ca

ESTIMATING DENSITY AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF SLOTH BEARS 87

DAVID L. GARSHELIS, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1201 East Highway 2, Grand Rapids, MN55744, USA, email: dave.garshelis@dnr.state.mn.us

ANUP R. JOSHI, Conservation Biology Program, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN55108USA, email:

joshi002@maroon.tc.umn.edu

JAMES L.D. SMITH, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA, email:dsmith@mercury.forestry.umn.edu

INTERACTIONS OF SYMPATRIC BLACK AND GRIZZLY BEARS IN NORTHWEST WYOMING 99

GREG W. HOLM, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Box 3166, Laramie, WY82071, USA

FREDERICK G. LINDZEY, U.S.Geological Survey, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Box 3166, Laramie, WY82071, USA, email: flindzey@uwyo.edu

DAVID S. MOODY, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY82520, USA, email:

dmoody@missc.state.wy.us

GEOPHAGY BY YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEARS 109

DAVID J. MATTSON 1 , U.S. Gelogical Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center and Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA

GERALD I. GREEN, Coeur d’Alene Tribe Fish, Water and Wildlife Office, P.O. Box 408, Plummer, ID83851, USA, email: kggreen@nidlink.com

ROGER SWALLEY, U.S. Gelogical Survey Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, Forestry Sciences Lab, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA

ESTIMATING POPULATION SIZE OF A LOW-DENSITY BLACK BEAR POPULATION USING CAPTURE–RESIGHT 117

RONALD G. GROGAN, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY82520, USA, email: rgroga@state.wy.us

FREDERICK G. LINDZEY, U.S. Geological Survey, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY82071-3166, USA, email: flindzey@uwyo.edu

POTENTIAL RANGE AND CORRIDORS FOR BROWN BEARS IN THE EASTERN ALPS, ITALY 123

LUIGI BOITANI, Department of Animal and Human Biology, Viale Università 32, 00185-Roma, Italy, email: boitani@pan.bio.uniroma1.it

PAOLO CIUCCI, Department of Animal and Human Biology, Viale Università 32, 00185-Roma, Italy, email: ciucci@pan.bio.uniroma1.it

FABIO CORSI, Istituto Ecologia Applicata, Via Spallanzani 32, 00161-Roma, Italy, email: corsi@pan.bio.uniroma1.it

EUGENIO DUPRE’, Istituto Nazionale Fauna Selvatica, Via Cà Fornacetta, 40064-Ozzano Emilia, Italy, email:Infseuge@iperbole.bologna.it

FIRE, RED SQUIRRELS, WHITEBARK PINE, AND YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEARS 131

SHANNON R. PODRUZNY, U.S. Geological Survey, NorthernRocky MountainsScienceCenter, Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, Forestry Sciences Lab, MontanaStateUniversity, Bozeman, MT59717, USA, e-mail: srp@montana.edu

DANIEL P. REINHART, YellowstoneNational Park, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY82190, USA, e-mail: dan_reinhart@nps.gov

DAVID J. MATTSON, U.S. Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Colorado Plateau Field Station, NorthernArizonaUniversity, P.O. Box 5614, Building 24, Flagstaff, AZ86011-5614, USA, e-mail: David_Mattson@usgs.gov

EFFECTS OF SAMPLE SIZE ON ACCURACY AND PRECISION OF BROWN BEAR HOME RANGE MODELS 139

STEPHEN M. ARTHUR, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK99701, USA, email: steve_arthur@fishgame.state.ak.us

CHARLES C. SCHWARTZ,1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 34828 Kalifornsky Beach Road, Soldotna, AK, 99669, USA

SUITABILITY OF STREAM BUFFERS AND RIPARIAN HABITATS FOR BROWN BEARS 149

KIMBERLY TITUS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 240020, Douglas, AK99824, USA, email: kim_titus@adfg.state.ak.us

LAVERN R. BEIER, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 240020, Douglas, AK99824, USA, email: vern_beier@adfg.state.ak.us

DOES HUNTING AFFECT THE BEHAVIOR OF BROWN BEARS IN EURASIA? 157

JON E. SWENSON, Department of Biology and Nature Conservation, Agricultural University of Norway, Box 5014, N-1432 Ås, Norway. e-mail: jon.swenson@ibn.nlh.no.

AN OVERVIEW OF BROWN BEAR MANAGEMENT IN SIX EUROPEAN COUNTRIES 163

SYBILLE A. KLENZENDORF, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, 106 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA24061-0321, USA, e-mail: sklenzen@vt.edu

MICHAEL R. VAUGHAN, U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg, VA24061-0321, USA, e-mail: mvaughan@vt.edu

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE BANNING TWO METHODS OF BEAR HUNTING IN OREGON: EFFECTS ON BEAR HARVEST 179

MARGARET C. BOULAY, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 4192 North Umpqua Highway, Roseburg, OR97470, USA, e-mail: Peg.C.Boulay@state.or.us

DEWAINE H. JACKSON, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 4192 North Umpqua Highway, Roseburg, OR97470, USA, e-mail: DeWaine.H.Jackson@state.or.us

DAVID A. IMMELL, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 4192 North Umpqua Highway, Roseburg, OR97470, USA, e-mail: Dave.A.Immell@state.or.us

HUMAN-IMPOSED THREATS TO SUN BEARS IN BORNEO 185

ERIK MEIJAARD, Ecosense Consultants, c/o Inchdryne, Nethybridge, Inverness-shire, Scotland PH253EF

ATTITUDES OF AUSTRIAN HUNTERS AND VIENNA RESIDENTS TOWARD BEAR AND LYNX IN AUSTRIA 193

H. ZEILER, Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game Management, University of Agricultural Sciences, Peter Jordan Strasse 76,1190 Vienna, Austria, email:zeiler@edv1.boku.ac.at

A. ZEDROSSER, Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game Management, University of Agricultural Sciences, Peter Jordan Strasse 76,1190 Vienna, Austria, email: a_zedrosser@hotmail.com

A. BATH, Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NFA1B 3X9, Canada, email: abath@kean.ucs.mun.ca

BEAR–HUMAN ENCOUNTERS IN AUSTRIA 201

GEORG RAUER, World Wide Fund for Nature Austria, Ottakringerstrasse 114-116, A–1160 Wien, Austria, email: georg.rauer@baer.wwf.at

HUMAN INJURIES INFLICTED BY BEARS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: 1960–97 209

STEPHEN HERRERO, Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, ABT2N 1N4, Canada, email: herrero@ucalgary.ca

ANDREW HIGGINS, Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, ABT2N 1N4, Canada, email: andrew.higgins@questepc.com

LANDOWNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF CROP DAMAGE AND MANAGEMENT

DAVID L. GARSHELIS, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1201 East Highway 2, Grand Rapids, MN55744, USA, email: dave.garshelis@dnr.state.mn.us

ROBERT S. SIKES, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and Bell Museum of Natural History and Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN55108, USA, email: rssikes@valr.edu

DAVID E. ANDERSEN, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN55108, USA, email: dea@fw.umn.edu

ELMER C. BIRNEY, Bell Museum of Natural History and Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN55108, USA, email: ecbirney@biosci.cbs.umn.edu

HABITAT SECURITY FOR ALASKAN BLACK BEARS AT KEY FORAGING SITES: ARE THERE THRESHOLDS FOR HUMAN DISTURBANCE? 225

DANIELLE K. CHI, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, UtahStateUniversity, Logan, UT84322-5255, USA, email: dchi@cache.net

BARRIE K. GILBERT, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, UtahStateUniversity, Logan, UT84322-5255, USA, email: bgilbert@cc.usu.edu

CHARACTERISTICS OF NONSPORT MORTALITIES TO BROWN AND BLACK BEARS AND HUMAN INJURIES FROM BEARS IN ALASKA 239

STERLING D. MILLER, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK99518-1599, USA

V. LEIGH TUTTERROW, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK, 99518-1599, USA

MOLECULAR GENETIC APPLICATIONS FOR BEAR RESEARCH 253

LISETTE P. WAITS, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, MoscowID83844-1138, USA, email: lwaits@uidaho.edu

RADIOTRACKING LARGE WILDERNESS MAMMALS: INTEGRATION OF GPS AND ARGOS TECHNOLOGY 261

CHARLES C. SCHWARTZ, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 34828 Kalifornsky Beach Road, Suite B, Soldotna, AK 99669, USA

STEPHEN M. ARTHUR, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 34828 Kalifornsky Beach Road, Suite B, Soldotna, AK99669, USA, email: SteveAr@fishgame.state.ak.us

CEMENTUM ANNULI ARE UNRELIABLE REPRODUCTIVE INDICATORS IN

FEMALE BROWN BEARS 275

GARY M. MATSON, Matson’s Laboratory, P.O. Box 308, Milltown, MT59851, USA, email: gjmatson@montana.com

HEDI E. CASQUILHO-GRAY, Matson’s Laboratory, P.O. Box 308, Milltown, MT59851, USA, email: ittw@marsweb.com

JOSHUA D. PAYNICH,1 Matson’s Laboratory, P.O. Box 308, Milltown, MT59851, USA, email: hvestal@juno.com

VICTOR G. BARNES, JR.,2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1390 Buskin River Road, Kodiak, AK99615, USA, email: jgbarnes@rmi.net

HARRY V. REYNOLDS III, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK99701, USA, email: hreynolds@fishgame.state.ak.us

JON E. SWENSON,3 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tungasletta2, N-7005 Trondheim, Norway, email: jon.swenson@ninatrd.ninaniku.no

HISTORY OF THE IBA, 1968–1998

ALBERT L. LeCOUNT, Wild Work, 75743 Lemay Road, Albany, OH45710, USA, email: 103375.2617@compuserve.com

Abstract: This paper traces the 30-year history of the International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA) from an informal organization of bear biologists, to the Bear Biology Association (BBA), to the IBA. Dates, locations, and highlights of the organizations 10 conferences are presented along with lists of officers and newsletter editors. Information from these conferences, along with newsletter articles, document the events and issues that shaped and changed the IBA and have made it the premier professional bear organization in the world.

Ursus 11 (1999):11–20

Key words: bear management, bear research, bears, biology associations, International Association for Bear Research and Management, international associations

BIODIVERSITY AND BEARS – A CONSERVATION PARADIGM SHIFT

DANIEL SIMBERLOFF, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA, email: dsimberloff@utk.edu

Abstract: Burgeoning conservation problems and shrinking resources to deal with them have fostered an ongoing paradigm shift from single-species management to ecosystem management. Simultaneously, the main conservation goal has become maximization of biodiversity. The fact that both ecosystem management and biodiversity have various meanings is ominous for conservation of some species, such as charismatic large mammals. The focus on processes rather than species, and on species richness rather than identity, could detract from conservation of bears (Ursidae). On the other hand, management of large blocks of habitat can be helpful. Bears are highly symbolic to humans in many contexts and thus are natural flagship species, capable of attracting attention and resources to large conservation efforts. There is currently insufficient information to qualify them as keystone species–species whose fate directly determines those of many other species in a system. However, because they have large and often well-defined habitat requirements and some species have been well-studied, they may be excellent umbrella species: their maintenance would require habitat management that would also maintain populations of many other species. The facts that ecosystem management is currently heralded as the governing paradigm for much conservation and that bears may serve as umbrella species to assist ecosystem management pose an enormous challenge to researchers. There are few empirically tested methods in the ecosystem management toolbox, and developing and testing such methods will require testing insightful hypotheses and conducting intensive monitoring, some of which will have to be long-term. Without such research and monitoring, “ecosystem management,” “biodiversity conservation,” and “umbrella species” will remain catchphrases rather than operational terms.

Ursus 11 (1999):21–28

Key words: bear, biodiversity, conservation, ecosystem management, flagship species, keystone species, umbrella species

HANGING BEARS FROM PHYLOGENETIC TREES: INVESTIGATING PATTERNS OF MACROEVOLUTION

JOHN L. GITTLEMAN,1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN37996, USA

Abstract: Phylogenetic information of the family Ursidae is well resolved and readily available for investigating macroevolutionary questions. Using complete phylogenies of the ursids and related terrestrial carnivores, I investigate whether patterns of body size and life history evolution in bears differ from other carnivores with respect to cladogenesis, species richness, and overall phyletic trends. Large body size in bears is not related to their phylogenetic history, in contrast to most other carnivore taxa; this may relate to bears’ relatively recent evolutionary history or their large body size, which is flexible for utilizing low-quality foods, thus buffering environmental change. Also, rates of body size evolution in bears are average or perhaps slightly slower than other carnivores. Certain life history traits (birth weight, age eyes open, inter-birth interval, longevity) are very different in bears relative to other carnivores, even after accounting for body size and phylogeny. In general, large body size, flexibility in phyletic change in size, and slow life histories of ursids may be an effective evolutionary strategy for dealing with recent environmental stresses.

Ursus 11 (1999):29–40

Key words: bears, body size, life history, macroevolution, Ursidae

CAVE BEAR ECOLOGY AND INTERACTIONS WITH PLEISTOCENE HUMANS

MARY C. STINER, Department of Anthropology, Building 30, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ85721, USA, email:mstiner@u.arizona.edu

Abstract: Human ancestors (Homo spp.), cave bears (Ursus deningeri, U. spelaeus), and brown bears (U. arctos) have coexisted in Eurasia for at least one million years, and bear remains and Paleolithic artifacts frequently are found in the same caves. The prevalence of cave bear bones in some sites is especially striking, as these bears were exceptionally large relative to archaic humans. Do artifact–bear associations in cave deposits indicate predation on cave bears by early human hunters, or do they testify simply to early humans’ and cave bears’ common interest in natural shelters, occupied on different schedules? Answering these and other questions about the circumstances of human–cave bear associations is made possible in part by expectations developed from research on modern bear ecology, time-scaled for paleontologic and archaeologic applications. Here I review available knowledge on Paleolithic human–bear relations with a special focus on cave bears (Middle Pleistocene U. deningeri) from Yarimburgaz Cave, Turkey. Multiple lines of evidence show that cave bear and human use of caves were temporally independent events; the apparent spatial associations between human artifacts and cave bear bones are explained principally by slow sedimentation rates relative to the pace of biogenic accumulation and bears’ bed preparation habits. Hibernation-linked behaviors and population characteristics of cave bears, based on osteometric, isotopic, and age and sex structure analyses, indicate that they depended heavily on seasonal food supplies, which were rich in resistant plant materials and cryptic, gritty foods. There is little evidence of direct ecological interaction among Pleistocene humans and cave bears.

Ursus 11 (1999):41–58

Keywords: brown bears, cave bears, Mediterranean, mortality, paleodiet, Pleistocene human-bear interactions, sex ratio, Ursus arctos, Ursus deningeri,Ursus spelaeus

LARGE CARNIVORE DEPREDATION ON LIVESTOCK IN EUROPE

PETRA KACZENSKY, Munich Wildlife Society, Linderhof 2, D-82488 Ettal, Germany, email: PKaczensky@t-online.de

Abstract: One of the most important factors negatively influencing public attitudes toward brown bears (Ursus arctos) and other large carnivores is depredation on livestock. This is especially true in Norway, where a small population of 25–55 bears kill about 2,000 sheep annually. In other European countries the re-establishment of large carnivores is planned or underway, and similar problems may arise. As a basis for future large carnivore management in Europe, I compared depredation among 13 European countries having small, medium, or large bear, lynx (Lynx lynx), and wolf (Canis lupus) populations. I calculated annual per capita losses of livestock (ACLL) as the average annual loss of livestock divided by the estimated predator population in the area of concern. In Norway, the rates of livestock losses from bears, lynx and wolves were among the highest observed in Europe. Assuming predator population estimates are correct, each bear kills an average of 82 sheep annually, each wolf 41, and each lynx 9. Generally, in Europe, lynx were the least important predator on livestock. In all but one area (Cantabrian Mountains, Spain), sheep and goats were the livestock most often taken by all 3 of the large carnivores. Depredation levels were not related to the size of the bear population nor to the number of sheep available, but to differences in local husbandry traditions. Most attacks seemed to occur at night, and sheep were the most exposed on forested range. The high predation level in Norway can be explained by the large number of untended sheep that stay day and night on forested range. There is no example in Europe of extensive sheep farming with low losses and viable populations of bears and wolves on the same range.

Ursus 11 (1999):59–72

Key words: brown bear, Canis lupus, Eurasian lynx, Europe, large carnivores, livestock depredation, livestock husbandry, Lynx lynx, Ursus arctos, wolf

POPULATION DYNAMICS OF BROWN BEARS AFTER THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL

RICHARD A. SELLERS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 37, King Salmon, AK 99613, USA

STERLING D. MILLER,1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK99518, USA

Abstract: We estimated survival and reproduction rates of brown bears (Ursus arctos) on the coast of Katmai National Park, Alaska, during 1989–95 to assess effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Fifteen percent of fecal samples (n = 27) from brown bears captured in 1989 contained hydrocarbons indicative of exposure to crude oil. Females captured in 1989 and 1990 were divided into 2 groups: 12 with radiolocations that included oiled coastline and 21 that used unoiled areas. Survival rates during 1989–91 were not different (P > 0.90) between females from oiled versus unoiled areas. Based on the assumption that the availability and toxicity of oil was negligible by 1992, we also compared survival rates of both groups during 1989–91 with 1992–95 and observed no difference (P > 0.40). Recruitment rates during 1989–95 were not different (P = 0.12) between females from oiled and unoiled areas. Finite growth rates for the 2 groups suggested both were stable (瑬 = 1.003 and 1.014, respectively, for bears using oiled and unoiled areas).

Ursus 11 (1999):73–78

Key words: Alaska, brown bear, Exxon Valdez, Katmai National Park, oil spill, population dynamics, reproduction, survival, Ursus arctos

ANNUAL AND SEASONAL MOVEMENT PATTERNS OF BARREN-GROUND

GRIZZLY BEARS IN THE CENTRAL NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

PHILIP D. McLOUGHLIN, Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, 112 Science Place, Saskatoon, SKS7N 5E2, Canada, email: mcloughlin@sask.usask.ca

RAY L. CASE, Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development, Government of the Northwest Territories, #600, 5102-50 Avenue, Yellowknife, NTX1A 3S8, Canada, email: ray_case@gov.nt.ca

ROBERT J. GAU, Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development, Government of the Northwest Territories, #600, 5102-50 Avenue, Yellowknife, NTX1A 3S8, Canada, email: rob-gau@gov.nt.ca

STEVEN H. FERGUSON 1 , Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, 112 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5E2, Canada

FRANÇOIS MESSIER, Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, 112 Science Place, Saskatoon, SKS7N 5E2, Canada, email: francois.messier@sask.usask.ca

Abstract: Between May 1995 and September 1997, we equipped 64 barren-ground grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) with satellite radiocollars within a study area of 200,000 km 2 , centered 400 km northeast of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. We estimated annual ranges of radiotracked animals (≥ 38 locations/year) using the 95% fixed kernel technique with least squares cross-validating to determine bandwidths. The mean annual range for adult males was 6,685 km 2 (SE = 1,351, n = 19) and was larger (P < 0.001) than for females (x – = 2,074 km 2 , SE = 335, n = 35). There was no difference (P = 0.42) in the annual ranges among females of differing family status. Seasonal rates of movement, calculated from straight-line distances between successive locations, were higher for males than for females (P < 0.001). Both sexes decreased movement rates from their highest rates in spring (males) and summer (females) to lowest rates in autumn, which likely results from increased food availability as the year progresses. Annual ranges presented here are the largest ranges reported for grizzly bears in North America. Low primary productivity on the barrens may explain why the annual ranges of barren-ground grizzly bears are larger than the ranges of other grizzly bear populations.

Ursus 11 (1999):79–86

Key words: annual home range, fixed kernel, grizzly bear, minimum convex polygon, movement rates, Northwest Territories, Ursus arctos

ESTIMATING DENSITY AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF SLOTH BEARS

DAVID L. GARSHELIS, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1201 East Highway 2, Grand Rapids, MN55744, USA, email: dave.garshelis@dnr.state.mn.us

ANUP R. JOSHI, Conservation Biology Program, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN55108USA, email:

joshi002@maroon.tc.umn.edu

JAMES L.D. SMITH, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA, email:dsmith@mercury.forestry.umn.edu

Abstract: Estimates of abundance based on capturing, marking, and recapturing a small sample of bears are likely to be biased and imprecise, and indices of abundance are of little value if not verified with reliable population estimates. We captured and radiocollared 17 sloth bears (Melursus ursinus) in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal, but recapture rates were too low to derive a meaningful mark–recapture population estimate. However, we frequently observed these bears while radiotracking them, and in 47 instances saw another bear (not offspring) near the one that we were tracking; we used these sightings of associated bears as our “recapture” sample, thereby providing a means of estimating abundance. We divided estimates of abundance by the area of composite seasonal home ranges to obtain estimates of density. Densities varied by season and habitat (25–72 bears/100 km² ). We extrapolated density estimates to obtain a population estimate for the entire park (≈ 250 bears, excluding dependent young). We also evaluated incidence of bear-excavated termite colonies (holes in mounds or in the ground) as a potential index of bear density. This proposed index did not reflect differences in estimated bear density between habitats within the park, probably because of habitat-related differences in bear diets and in the persistence of their diggings. However, incidence of digging reflected apparent differences in bear density for areas with similar habitats. Incidence of bear diggings outside the park, where local people reported low bear densities, was only 10–20% of that in similar habitat within the park, despite equal densities of termite mounds. No bear diggings were found where local people indicated that bears had been extirpated. Thus, diggings appear to be a means of detecting the presence or absence and relative abundance of sloth bears.

Ursus 11 (1999):87–98

Key words: density, habitat-related effects, index of abundance, mark–resight, Melursus ursinus, Nepal, population estimate, Royal Chitwan National Park, sloth bear, termite mounds

INTERACTIONS OF SYMPATRIC BLACK AND GRIZZLY BEARS IN NORTHWEST WYOMING

GREG W. HOLM, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Box 3166, Laramie, WY82071, USA

FREDERICK G. LINDZEY, U.S.Geological Survey, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Box 3166, Laramie, WY82071, USA, email: flindzey@uwyo.edu

DAVID S. MOODY, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY82520, USA, email:

dmoody@missc.state.wy.us

Abstract: As the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) moves toward recovery, it will expand into more areas occupied by black bears (U. americanus). Interactions between the species may affect resident black bear populations and also influence the ease with which grizzly bears recolonize. We monitored movement and activity patterns of 17 radiocollared grizzly bears and 13 radiocollared black bears on a 450 km 2 area in northwest Wyoming during June–October in 1995 and 1996 and tested hypotheses predicting similarity in dispersion, activity, and habitat use patterns of sympatric black and grizzly bears. The larger home ranges of grizzly bears overlapped a number of black bear home ranges, yet core use areas were less likely to overlap. Adult male grizzly bears used open habitats more than expected (P ≤ 0.05), whereas black bears selected against them and used forested habitats more than expected (P ≤ 0.05). Patterns of black bear habitat use were more similar to those of adult female and sub-adult grizzly bears than adult male grizzly bears. Male grizzly bears were nocturnal, female grizzly bears were generally crepuscular, and black bears were diurnal. Differences in distribution, habitat use, and activity patterns suggested sufficient separation to reduce interactions between black bears and adult

male grizzly bears. However, similarities between black bear and female and sub-adult grizzly bear patterns suggest that interactions between the species will become more common as adult female grizzly bears become established.

Ursus 11 (1999):99–108

Key words: activity, black bear, distribution, grizzly bear, habitat, interaction, Ursus americanus, Ursus arctos, Wyoming

GEOPHAGY BY YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEARS

DAVID J. MATTSON 1 , U.S. Gelogical Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center and Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA

GERALD I. GREEN, Coeur d’Alene Tribe Fish, Water and Wildlife Office, P.O. Box 408, Plummer, ID83851, USA, email: kggreen@nidlink.com

ROGER SWALLEY, U.S. Gelogical Survey Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, Forestry Sciences Lab, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA

Abstract: We documented 12 sites in the Yellowstone ecosystem where grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) had purposefully consumed soil (an activity known as geophagy). We also documented soil in numerous grizzly bear feces. Geophagy primarily occurred at sites barren of vegetation where surficial geology had been modified by geothermal activity. There was no evidence of ungulate use at most sites. Purposeful consumption of soil by bears peaked first from March to May and again from August to October, synchronous with peaks in consumption of ungulate meat and mushrooms. Geophageous soils were distinguished from ungulate mineral licks and soils in general by exceptionally high concentrations of potassium (K) and high concentrations of magnesium (Mg) and sulphur (S). Our results do not support the hypotheses that bears were consuming soil to detoxify secondary compounds in grazed foliage, as postulated for primates, or to supplement dietary sodium, as known for ungulates. Our results suggest that grizzly bears could have been consuming soil as an anti-diarrheal.

Ursus 11 (1999):109–116

Key words: geophagy, grizzly bear, potassium, sodium, sulphur, Ursus arctos horribilis, Yellowstone

ESTIMATING POPULATION SIZE OF A LOW-DENSITY BLACK BEAR POPULATION USING CAPTURE–RESIGHT

RONALD G. GROGAN, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY82520, USA, email: rgroga@state.wy.us

FREDERICK G. LINDZEY, U.S. Geological Survey, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY82071-3166, USA, email: flindzey@uwyo.edu

Abstract: We estimated black bear (Ursus americanus) density and population size in the Snowy Range of southeast Wyoming, an area suspected of supporting few bears. We captured 26 bears in 3 study areas during intensive trapping efforts (1,161 trap nights) in 1994–95. Using infrared-activated camera systems to identify marked and unmarked bears visiting bait stations, we estimated population size of the 3 areas with program NOREMARK then calculated density. The estimated population size in 1995 was 70 bears; density estimates ranged from 1.75–3.73 bears/100 km 2 for the 3 areas, with a mean of 2.54 bears/100 km 2 (95% CI = 2.11–2.97). Black bear density in the Snowy Range was considerably lower than density estimates previously reported for populations in the mountains of western North America.

Ursus 11 (1999):117–122

Key words: black bear, capture–resight, density estimation, population estimation, Ursus americanus, Wyoming

POTENTIAL RANGE AND CORRIDORS FOR BROWN BEARS IN THE EASTERN ALPS, ITALY

LUIGI BOITANI, Department of Animal and Human Biology, Viale Università 32, 00185-Roma, Italy, email: boitani@pan.bio.uniroma1.it

PAOLO CIUCCI, Department of Animal and Human Biology, Viale Università 32, 00185-Roma, Italy, email: ciucci@pan.bio.uniroma1.it

FABIO CORSI, Istituto Ecologia Applicata, Via Spallanzani 32, 00161-Roma, Italy, email: corsi@pan.bio.uniroma1.it

EUGENIO DUPRE’, Istituto Nazionale Fauna Selvatica, Via Cà Fornacetta, 40064-Ozzano Emilia, Italy, email:Infseuge@iperbole.bologna.it

Abstract: Although several techniques have been used to explore the spatial features of brown bear (Ursus arctos) range (e.g., potential distribution ranges, linkages between isolated sub-populations, and analyses of habitat suitability), quality and quantity of data have often constrained the usefulness of the results. We used 12 environmental variables to identify potentially suitable areas for bears in the Italian part of the Eastern Alps. We used Mahalanobis distance statistic as a relative index of the environmental quality of the study area by calculating for each pixel (250 meters) the distance from the centroid of the environmental conditions of 100 locations randomly selected within known bear ranges. We used different levels of this suitability index to identify potential optimal and sub-optimal areas and their interconnecting corridors. The model identified 4 major areas of potential bear presence having a total size of about 10,850 km² . Assuming functional connectivity among the areas and mean density for west European countries, the Eastern Alps could support 108–325 bears. Potential ranges were also compared with existing protected areas to evaluate gaps between bear range with adequate protection and range needing protection. Only 31% of existing protected areas was found suitable for bears. We suggest that bear conservation will depend more on establishing and managing effective corridors than other protected areas.

Ursus 11 (1999):123–130

Key words: Alps, brown bear, geographic information system, GIS, habitat suitability, Italy, Mahalanobis statistic, potential distribution, Ursus arctos

FIRE, RED SQUIRRELS, WHITEBARK PINE, AND YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY BEARS

DANIEL P. REINHART, YellowstoneNational Park, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY82190, USA, e-mail: dan_reinhart@nps.gov

Abstract: Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) habitats are important to Yellowstone grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) as refugia and sources of food. Ecological relationships between whitebark pine, red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and grizzly bear use of pine seeds on Mt. Washburn in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, were examined during 1984–86. Following large-scale fires in 1988, we repeated the study in 1995–97 to examine the effects of fire on availability of whitebark pine seed in red squirrel middens and on bear use of middens. Half of the total length of the original line transects burned. We found no red squirrel middens in burned areas. Post-fire linear-abundance (no./km) of active squirrel middens that were pooled from burned and unburned areas decreased 27% compared to pre-fire abundance, but increased in unburned portions of some habitat types. Mean size of active middens decreased 54% post-fire. Use of pine seeds by bears (linear abundance of excavated middens) in pooled burned and unburned habitats decreased by 64%, likely due to the combined effects of reduced midden availability and smaller midden size. We discourage any further large-scale losses of seed producing trees from management-prescribed fires or timber harvesting until the effects of fire on ecological relationships in the whitebark pine zone are better understood.

Ursus 11 (1999):131–138

Key words: fire, grizzly bear, habitat use, line transect, midden, Pinus albicaulis, red squirrel, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, Ursus arctos, whitebark pine, Yellowstone National Park

EFFECTS OF SAMPLE SIZE ON ACCURACY AND PRECISION OF BROWN BEAR HOME RANGE MODELS

STEPHEN M. ARTHUR, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1300 College Road, Fairbanks, AK99701, USA, email: steve_arthur@fishgame.state.ak.us

CHARLES C. SCHWARTZ,1 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 34828 Kalifornsky Beach Road, Soldotna, AK, 99669, USA

Abstract: We equipped 9 brown bears (Ursus arctos) on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, with collars containing both conventional very-high-frequency (VHF) transmitters and global positioning system (GPS) receivers programmed to determine an animal’s position at 5.75-hr intervals. We calculated minimum convex polygon (MCP) and fixed and adaptive kernel home ranges for randomly-selected subsets of the GPS data to examine the effects of sample size on accuracy and precision of home range estimates. We also compared results obtained by weekly aerial radiotracking versus more frequent GPS locations to test for biases in conventional radiotracking data. Home ranges based on the MCP were 20–606 km 2 (x – = 201) for aerial radiotracking data (n = 12–16 locations/bear) and 116–1,505 km 2 (x – = 522) for the complete GPS data sets (n = 245–466 locations/bear). Fixed kernel home ranges were 34–955 km 2 (x – = 224) for radiotracking data and 16–130 km 2 (x – = 60) for the GPS data. Differences between means for radiotracking and GPS data were due primarily to the larger samples provided by the GPS data. Means did not differ between radiotracking data and equivalent-sized subsets of GPS data (P > 0.10). For the MCP, home range area increased and variability decreased asymptotically with number of locations. For the kernel models, both area and variability decreased with increasing sample size. Simulations suggested that the MCP and kernel models required >60 and >80 locations, respectively, for estimates to be both accurate (change in area ≤1%/additional location) and precise (CV ≤50%). Although the radiotracking data appeared unbiased, except for the relationship between area and sample size, these data failed to indicate some areas that likely were important to bears. Our results suggest that the usefulness of conventional radiotracking data may be limited by potential biases and variability due to small samples. Investigators that use home range estimates in statistical tests should consider the effects of variability of those estimates. Use of GPS-equipped collars can facilitate obtaining larger samples of unbiased data and improve accuracy and precision of home range estimates.

Key words: brown bear, home range, kernel, minimum convex polygon, Ursus arctos

SUITABILITY OF STREAM BUFFERS AND RIPARIAN HABITATS FOR BROWN BEARS

KIMBERLY TITUS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 240020, Douglas, AK99824, USA, email: kim_titus@adfg.state.ak.us

LAVERN R. BEIER, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 240020, Douglas, AK99824, USA, email: vern_beier@adfg.state.ak.us

Abstract: We studied riparian habitat use by a high density brown bear (Ursus arctos) population on the Tongass National Forest (Tongass) where spawning salmon (Oncorhyncus spp.) provide an important seasonal food resource. The Tongass contains large tracts of pristine old-growth coniferous forest and some of these tracts are within riparian zones that are subject to timber harvest and various timber management guidelines. Determining the size of protective riparian no-cut buffers to conserve fish and wildlife habitat and water quality was a major component of a revision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service’s Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP; U.S. Forest Service 1997). We radiocollared 111 brown bears on a 1,119 km 2 portion of Chichagof Island to evaluate bear use of riparian habitats and to determine how proposed buffers might be used by brown bears. Our study area was managed for timber harvest and had >25 salmon spawning streams and associated riparian habitats with various riparian-zone management opportunities. Sixty-three percent of 2,069 aerial radiotelemetry locations were in riparian habitats during August and 61% of all August locations were <1,000 m from a salmon-spawning stream. The new Tongass forest plan has 2 types of administrative buffers on salmon streams: (1) a riparian standard

and guideline, which is a variable-width buffer and usually incorporates <150 m of protection, and was established primarily to protect salmon habitat and water quality, and (2) a 153-m no-cut buffer established to protect foraging areas for brown bears. Twenty-four percent of the August locations were within the riparian standard and guideline buffer, and 39% fell within the brown bear buffer, assuming it was applied across all salmon spawning streams used by bears. These results were useful in revising the Tongass forest plan and in assisting decision-makers with the necessary information to change historic land allocations and provide more habitat conservation for brown bears. A panel of brown bear scientists recommended that a 153-m no-cut forest buffer be placed on all salmon spawning streams that are used by brown bears. The final forest plan weakened this recommendation, and its implementation will be subject to future interpretation. However, compared with previous forest planning efforts that had little protection of riparian habitats and none specifically for brown bears, this conclusion was an important measure for brown bear conservation.

Ursus 11 (1999):149–156

Key words: Alaska, brown bear, forest management, Oncorhynchus, salmon, Tongass National Forest, Ursus arctos

DOES HUNTING AFFECT THE BEHAVIOR OF BROWN BEARS IN EURASIA?

JON E. SWENSON, Department of Biology and Nature Conservation, Agricultural University of Norway, Box 5014, N-1432 Ås, Norway. e-mail: jon.swenson@ibn.nlh.no.

Abstract: Literature from Eurasia was reviewed for information to test the hypothesis that hunting of brown bears (Ursus arctos) makes them more wary of humans. The results were not rigorous enough to test the hypothesis scientifically. However, the common impressions were that bears are more wary of humans where they are hunted than where they are protected and that bears remained wary in several low-density populations that had been protected for a long time. In spite of this, bears in several increasing populations that were hunted became less wary. Use of human-derived food was involved when wariness toward humans was lost and appeared to be a more important factor influencing wariness than hunting. I tentatively conclude that accessible human-derived foods for bears must be controlled to maintain the bears’ wariness toward people. When this has been done, hunting may contribute to increasing bears’ wariness. This subject requires that more research and scientific experiments be conducted, because people are more willing to accept wary bears.

Ursus 11 (1999):157–162

Key words: behavior, brown bear, Eurasia, hunting, Ursus arctos

AN OVERVIEW OF BROWN BEAR MANAGEMENT IN SIX EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

SYBILLE A. KLENZENDORF, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, 106 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA24061-0321, USA, e-mail: sklenzen@vt.edu

Abstract: During 1995–96, we surveyed members of organizations and governmental agencies to construct an overview of brown bear (Ursus arctos) management in Austria, Italy, Norway, Romania, Slovenia, and Sweden. From the results, we summarized the extent of brown bear damage in each country, identified which organizations were involved in bear management, and which duties they fulfilled. We conducted 94 interviews using a standardized questionnaire. Bear damage in most countries was <20% of all reported wildlife damage and totaled <US $300,000/year (except Norway, averages based on data between 1984–95). Most bear damage incidents involved sheep and beehives and were concentrated in July and August for sheep and August–October for beehives. All 6 countries offered damage compensation programs, but satisfaction with such programs varied among countries. Four of 6 countries offered financial incentives for taking preventive measures such as protecting beehives with electric fencing. Brown bear management in Europe involved both private and governmental agencies with varying degrees of cooperation. A conservation management approach, practiced in Romania, Sweden, and Southern Slovenia, was characterized by economic use of the bear population. These countries had viable bear populations. Romania and Southern Slovenia fed bears to increase the huntable population, which we viewed as a utilitarian management scheme. In contrast, a preservationist approach was observed in Norway, Italy, Northern Slovenia, and Austria, where bear numbers were low; this approach included yearlong protection, low population numbers, and no feeding of bears. Dealing with problem bears in Europe was a difficult issue because the elimination of even a single bear threatens small populations. A successful bear management program in Europe seemed to include good communication and cooperation between involved agencies, stakeholders, and the public, a fast, adequate compensation program, and efficient problem bear management.

Ursus 11 (1999):163-178

Key words: brown bear, compensation, damage, Europe, management, philosophy, problem bear, Ursus arctos

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF A BALLOT INITIATIVE BANNING TWO METHODS OF BEAR HUNTING IN OREGON: EFFECTS ON BEAR HARVEST

MARGARET C. BOULAY, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 4192 North Umpqua Highway, Roseburg, OR97470, USA, e-mail: Peg.C.Boulay@state.or.us

DEWAINE H. JACKSON, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 4192 North Umpqua Highway, Roseburg, OR97470, USA, e-mail: DeWaine.H.Jackson@state.or.us

DAVID A. IMMELL, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 4192 North Umpqua Highway, Roseburg, OR97470, USA, e-mail: Dave.A.Immell@state.or.us

Abstract: In 1994, Oregon voters passed Measure 18, a citizen-sponsored ballot initiative that banned the use of dogs or bait for hunting black bears (Ursus americanus). A minority of bear hunters used dogs, bait, or both prior to the passage of Measure 18; however, hunters who used these methods killed the majority of bears, especially in western Oregon. Although estimated harvest was lower after Measure 18, the elimination of these hunting techniques did not significantly decrease the statewide harvest. However, the annual estimated harvest in western Oregon was significantly lower following Measure 18. Because hound hunting and baiting can be selective hunting methods, we suspected that their elimination might alter the age- and sex-structure of the harvest. We analyzed voluntary tooth return data to determine the effects of Measure 18 on harvest composition. Before Measure 18, hunters using bait took younger bears than hunters using dogs (P = 0.05). There was no difference between the average age of bears killed by hunters using other methods and those killed by hunters using either dogs (P = 0.91) or bait (P = 0.19). Male bears accounted for a higher (P < 0.01) proportion (66%) of the harvest than did females during all years, 1991–97; however, the proportion of males in the harvest did not differ between hunting techniques (P = 0.21). There was no difference detected in harvested bears between the 2 periods (pre-Measure 18 [1991–94] and post-Measure 18 [1995–97]) for either mean age of both sexes combined (P = 0.84) or proportion of males in the harvest (P = 0.95). Although more time may be required under the new hunting regulations before any differences can be detected, we concluded that the method of take had little initial effect on the sex and age composition of the harvest. Due to the regional effects of Measure 18, the loss of hound hunting and baiting may not directly affect statewide bear harvest levels but may present challenges to management of bear population levels and human–bear conflicts in localized areas, particularly in western Oregon.

Ursus 11 (1999):179–184

Key words: bait, ballot initiative, ballot measure, black bear, harvest, hound hunting, hunting, hunting method, Oregon, Ursus americanus, voter Initiative

HUMAN-IMPOSED THREATS TO SUN BEARS IN BORNEO

ERIK MEIJAARD, Ecosense Consultants, c/o Inchdryne, Nethybridge, Inverness-shire, Scotland PH253EF

Abstract: The sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) is the least studied bear species, and little information exists on threats to its survival. Based on studies of other bear species, I hypothesized that sun bears on the island of Borneo are threatened by destruction of habitat and hunting. The results of this 3-year survey confirmed this hypothesis. More specifically it identified 4 factors that influence sun bear survival in Borneo: hunting, trade in live bears and bear parts, habitat destruction, and establishment of plantations. Survey data and background information suggest that hunting pressure on Bornean sun bears is high. Trade in bear parts is now uncommon in Kalimantan, but it was higher in the 1980s. In Sabah and Sarawak, however, trade in bear gall bladders is still common. My estimates indicate that the sun bear lost 30–60 % of its total habitat in Borneo between 1960 and 1990, mainly through logging and land conversion. Apart from the possible deleterious effects of logging and conversion on the carrying capacity of the habitat, these activities are accompanied by increasing human presence and hunting pressure. There is a lack of ecological data on sun bears, so the impact of these factors cannot be assessed. However, this study provides a clearer focus for sun bear conservation, including recommendations on research and policy matters.

Ursus 11 (1999):185–192

Key words: Borneo, conservation, gall bladders, Helarctos malayanus, hunting, Malayan sun bear, threats

ATTITUDES OF AUSTRIAN HUNTERS AND VIENNA RESIDENTS TOWARD BEAR AND LYNX IN AUSTRIA

H. ZEILER, Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game Management, University of Agricultural Sciences, Peter Jordan Strasse 76,1190 Vienna, Austria, email:zeiler@edv1.boku.ac.at

A. ZEDROSSER, Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game Management, University of Agricultural Sciences, Peter Jordan Strasse 76,1190 Vienna, Austria, email: a_zedrosser@hotmail.com

A. BATH, Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NFA1B 3X9, Canada, email: abath@kean.ucs.mun.ca

Abstract: We analyzed 3 aspects of the human dimension of large carnivore conservation in Austria. We examined hunter ranking of wildlife species and suggest that while hunters still remain negative to brown bears (Ursus arctos) and lynx (Lynx lynx), there are differences between those who live in provinces with a longer tradition of living with bears and lynx and those who have had little exposure to these large carnivores. We measured the attitudes of an urban population (Vienna) about the re-introduction of wildlife including large carnivores. People from Vienna supported large carnivore re-introductions, but much less than a reintroduction of herbivores or birds of prey. We analyzed the content of bear and lynx articles in Austrian hunting magazines since 1948. Bears especially have been consistently prominent in this media. Most articles came from provinces with bear and lynx presence. The number of negative personal statements remained constant, but the number of neutral or balanced statements greatly increased. Our study is a preliminary test of attitudes in Austria toward large carnivores. For successful future management of large carnivores in Austria, we emphasize the importance of further human attitude studies.

Ursus 11 (1999):193–200

Key words: attitudes, Austria, content analysis, Eurasian lynx, European brown bear, human dimensions, hunters, Lynx lynx, Ursus arctos, Vienna

BEAR–HUMAN ENCOUNTERS IN AUSTRIA

GEORG RAUER, World Wide Fund for Nature Austria, Ottakringerstrasse 114-116, A–1160 Wien, Austria, email: georg.rauer@baer.wwf.at

Abstract: I analyzed 515 reliable reports of bear (Ursus arctos) observations and encounters in Austria during 1990–96 with respect to season, time of day, profession and activity of the observer, distance to the bear, reaction of the bear, and reaction of humans. Most commonly, bears were observed by hunters or foresters at dawn or dusk, when observers were driving a car on a forest road or hunting from a blind. Tourists and mushroom pickers seldom met bears. Bears normally fled or slowly withdrew when they encountered humans, but in about 25% of the cases bears acted indifferent or curious. Ten percent of the encounters were potentially dangerous. Three females with cubs, surprised at close distance, and 2 subadult bears, harassed at a feeding site, started false attacks. Two radiocollared females were seen more often when they had cubs than when they had not, and a higher percent of sightings with cubs were during the day.

Ursus 11 (1999):201–208

Key words: Austria, bear–human interactions, brown bear, habituation, Ursus arctos