Ursus

Volume 15 (1) (2004)

Review

1

Importance of salmon to wildlife: implications for integrated management · Grant V. Hilderbrand, Sean D. Farley, Charles C. Schwartz, and Charles T. Robbins

Bear Management

10

Grizzly bear-human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, 1992-2000 · Kerry A. Gunther, Steven L. Cain, Jeff Copeland, Kevin Frey, Mark A. Haroldson, and Charles C. Schwartz

25

Using reproductive data to model American black bear cub orphaning in Manitoba due to spring harvest of females · Hank Hristienko, Douglas Pastuck, Ken J. Rebizant, Brian Knudsen, and M. Laurene Connor

37

Distribution of subadult grizzly bears in relation to human development in the Bow River watershed, Alberta · Cedar Mueller, Stephen Herrero, and Michael L. Gibeau

50

Status and management of brown bears in Turkey · Ö. Emre Can and İnci Togan

Short Communications

56

Spectacled bear use of the epiphytic bromeliad Tillandsia fendleri at Quebrada el Molino, Venezuela · Isaac R. Goldstein

59

Food habits of Andean bears in the Oyacachi River Basin, Ecuador · Verónica Troya, Francisco Cuesta, and Manuel Peralvo

Special section: Workshop on small populations of grizzly bears

63

Small populations of grizzly bears in the US-Canada transborder region: Introduction to the workshop proceedings · Sterling D. Miller, and Thomas France.

67

Demographics and population trends of grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems of British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, and Washington · Wayne L. Wakkinen, and Wayne F. Kasworm

78

A model-based appraisal of habitat conditions for grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak region of Montana and Idaho · David J. Mattson and Troy Merrill

92

Landscape permeability for grizzly bear movements in Washington and southwestern British Columbia · Peter H. Singleton, William L. Gaines, and John F. Lehmkuhl

106

Re-connecting grizzly bear populations: prospects for participatory projects · Steve Primm and Seth M. Wilson

117

Trends in road development and access management in the Cabinet–Yaak and Selkirk grizzly bear recovery zones · Bob Summerfield, Wayne Johnson and David Roberts

124

Grizzly bear recovery planning in the British Columbia portion of the North Cascades: lessons learned and re-learned · Matthew A. Austin

130

Integrating science and road access management: lessons from the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem · Richard D. Mace

138

Promoting understanding: the approach of the North Cascades grizzly bear outreach project · Chris P. Morgan, James Davis, Tim Ford, and Nan Laney

143

Instructions for contributors to Ursus

Importance of salmon to wildlife: implications for integrated management

Grant V. Hilderbrand^1,4, Sean D. Farley^1,5, Charles C. Schwartz^2,6, and Charles T. Robbins^3,7

¹Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK 99518, USA

²Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Montana State University, Bozeman MT 59717, USA

³Departments of Natural Resource Sciences and Zoology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA

Abstract: Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) are an important resource for terrestrial wildlife. However, the salmon requirements of wildlife populations and the role wildlife play in nutrient transport across ecosystems are largely ignored in salmon and habitat management. Any activity that reduces the availability of or access to salmon by wildlife may adversely affect wildlife populations and, potentially, ecosystem-level processes. Thus, when the conservation of specific wildlife populations or healthy ecosystems is the management objective, allocation of salmon to wildlife should be considered. We provide an example of how such allocations could be calculated for a hypothetical bear population. Ultimately, salmon allocations for wildlife calls for integrated management of natural resources across agencies, across species, and across ecosystems. We summarize the current state of knowledge relative to the interaction between Pacific salmon and the terrestrial ecosystem, with special emphasis on the import of salmon to terrestrial wildlife and the import of wildlife to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Key words: allocation, bear, consumer, ecosystem, management, nutrient flow, Oncorhynchus, predation, salmon, Ursus

Ursus 15(1):1–9 (2004)

Grizzly bear–human conflicts in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, 1992–2000

Kerry A. Gunther^1,6, Mark A. Haroldson^2,7, Kevin Frey^3,8 , Steven L. Cain^4,9 , Jeff Copeland^5,10, and Charles C. Schwartz^2,11

¹Bear Management Office, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190, USA

²Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Forestry Sciences Lab, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA

³Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1400 South 19^th, Bozeman, MT 59715, USA

⁴Resource Management Office, Grand Teton National Park, P.O. Box 170, Moose, WY 83012, USA

⁵Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1515 Lincoln Road, Idaho Falls, ID 83401, USA

Abstract: For many years, the primary strategy for managing grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) that came into conflict with humans in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) was to capture and translocate the offending bears away from conflict sites. Translocation usually only temporarily alleviated the problems and most often did not result in long-term solutions. Wildlife managers needed to be able to predict the causes, types, locations, and trends of conflicts to more efficiently allocate resources for pro-active rather than reactive management actions. To address this need, we recorded all grizzly bear–human conflicts reported in the GYE during 1992–2000. We analyzed trends in conflicts over time (increasing or decreasing), geographic location on macro- (inside or outside of the designated Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone [YGBRZ]) and micro- (geographic location) scales, land ownership (public or private), and relationship to the seasonal availability of bear foods. We recorded 995 grizzly bear–human conflicts in the GYE. Fifty-three percent of the conflicts occurred outside and 47% inside of the YGBRZ boundary. Fifty-nine percent of the conflicts occurred on public and 41% on private land. Incidents of bears damaging property and obtaining anthropogenic foods were inversely correlated to the abundance of naturally occurring bear foods. Livestock depredations occurred independent of the availability of bear foods. To further aid in prioritizing management strategies to reduce conflicts, we also analyzed conflicts in relation to subsequent human-caused grizzly bear mortality. There were 74 human-caused grizzly bear mortalities during the study, primarily from killing bears in defense of life and property (43%) and management removal of bears involved in bear–human conflicts (28%). Other sources of human-caused mortality included illegal kills, electrocution by downed power-lines, mistaken identification by American black bear (Ursus americanus) hunters, and vehicle strikes. This analysis will help provide wildlife managers the information necessary to develop strategies designed to prevent conflicts from occurring rather than reacting to conflicts after they occur.

Key words: beehives, conflict, defense of life and property, grizzly bear, human injury, livestock depredation, management, mortality, property damage, Ursus arctos, Yellowstone Ecosystem

Ursus 15(1):10–24 (2004)

Station, 800

Using reproductive data to model American black bear cub orphaning in Manitoba due to spring harvest of females

Hank Hristienko^1,3, Douglas Pastuck^1,4, Ken J. Rebizant^1,5,
Brian Knudsen^1,6, and M. Laurene Connor^2,7

¹Manitoba Conservation, Box 24-200 Saulteaux Crescent

, Winnipeg,MB R3J 3W3, Canada

²Department of Animal Science, University of Manitoba,

Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada

Abstract: Animal rights groups have lobbied for the cancellation of Manitoba’s spring hunting season for American black bear (Ursus americanus), contending that hundreds of cubs are orphaned each year. We developed a mathematical model to estimate the number of black bear cubs that may be orphaned in Manitoba because of the spring hunting season. The model used information from annual questionnaires mailed to resident hunters, Outfitter Declaration Forms from operators who provide services to non-resident clients, and analysis of reproductive tracts (>200 for both spring and fall seasons) and tooth samples (>1,100). To accurately reflect the number of cubs orphaned each spring, the model accounted for cub losses (both litter reduction and total litter loss) prior to a female being harvested using values from the literature. Although the data was not used in the model, evidence from the examination of reproductive tracts suggests that total litter loss of hunter killed bears can be determined by examining the condition of the uterus and ovaries. The model estimated that on average, 41 cubs were orphaned for each of the spring seasons between 1996 and 2000. This number represents <2% of the estimated number of cubs that may die annually in Manitoba from natural causes.

Ursus 15(1):25–36 (2004)

Key words: American black bear, cub mortality, cub orphaning, lactation, litter loss, Manitoba, model, reproduction, spring hunt, Ursus americanus

Distribution of subadult grizzly bears in relation to human development in the Bow River Watershed, Alberta

Cedar Mueller^1,4, Stephen Herrero^2,5, and Michael L. Gibeau^3,6

¹Resources and Environment Program, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada

²Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada

³Parks Canada, Banff National Park, Box 900, Banff, AB T0L 0C0, Canada

Abstract: We studied the relationship between human development and activity, and subadult grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) by comparing the distribution of radiotelemetry locations from 23 subadult versus 29 adult grizzly bears during 1994–2000 in the Bow River Watershed of Alberta, Canada. We used logistic regression to model significant differences in the spatial distribution of subadult and adult grizzly bears and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test for significant differences in temporal distribution. Subadult bears were significantly closer to high-use roads and at lower elevations than adult bears. Both subadult and adult bears were significantly closer to high-use roads and at lower elevations during human inactive periods (1800–0700) than during human active periods (0700–1800). Subadult bears were closer to high-use roads regardless of the time of day, and therefore predisposed to greater encounter rates with humans. Consequently, subadult bears had a greater chance of becoming habituated to humans and of being killed or removed from the population by humans than adult bears. In areas with high levels of human use, we recommend that grizzly bear managers consider the population effects of these losses.

Key words: Alberta, Banff National Park, Bow River Watershed, development, grizzly bear, habituation, logistic regression, subadult, Ursus arctos

4Present address: 154 Coyote Way, Canmore, AB T1W 1C2, Canada; email: cmueller@telus.net 5herrero@ucalgary.ca 6mike_gibeau@pch.gc.ca

Ursus 15(1):37–49 (2004)

Status and management of brown bears in Turkey

Ö. Emre Can^1,3 and İnci Togan^2,4

¹WWF Turkey, PK 871 06045, Ankara, Turkey

²Department of Biology, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract: The brown bear (Ursus arctos) is the largest carnivore in Turkey. Its present distribution is mainly confined to the intact natural habitats of the Black Sea and Eastern Anatolian regions. Forest fragmentation and direct persecution by humans have resulted in population declines in other regions during the last 50 years. Human–bear conflicts are more often observed in the eastern Black Sea than other areas within Turkey, but the species does not seriously threaten humans in Turkey. Turkish authorities have not kept records of bear damage, but depredation has mainly occurred on cattle and sheep. The brown bear has a more positive image among the local people than the wolf (Canis lupus). Brown bears are a protected species, but protected areas in Turkey are too small to provide a refuge for the species. Priority actions for the conservation of brown bears in Turkey are legislation development and implementation, research on population status and range, expansion of current protected areas, and identification of new ones. Public awareness and capacity building of the local authorities on theoretical and practical aspects of wildlife management, such as designing surveys, collecting systematic data, analyzing and reporting data, and brown bear handling techniques, will also play a critical role.

Key words: brown bear, conservation, distribution, management, status, Turkey, Ursus arctos

³E-mail: ecan@wwf.org.tr ⁴togan@metu.edu.tr

Ursus 15(1):50–55 (2004)

Spectacled bear use of the epiphytic bromeliad Tillandsia fendleri at Quebrada el Molino, Venezuela

Isaac R. Goldstein¹

Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, New York 10460, USA

Abstract: Protecting organisms means protecting their ability to meet their requirements. Effective conservation planning must clearly identify key resources for endangered animal species. Epiphytic bromeliads of the genera Tillandsia are a commonly reported food item for spectacled bears (Tremarctos ornatus) throughout their range. The distribution of Tillandsia fendleri and their use by spectacled bears was studied at Quebrada El Molino. 123 trees above 10 cm DBH were sampled along 10 5x200 m transects. Bears used thirteen trees for Tillandsia feeding. A correlation between tree size (height and DBH) and number of bromeliads was found. A significant difference in size between used and non-used trees was found. Moreover, a significant difference in the load of Tillandsia plants was found between used and non-used trees. These results support the hypothesis that spectacled bear are selective in their use of trees while feeding on Tillandsia fendleri plants, using large trees with the highest loads of epiphytic bromeliads. All the Andean bear feeding sites were encountered within old growth forest patches, showing the importance of such old growth stands as Andean bear habitat at Quebrada El Molino.

Key words: bromeliad, epiphyte, resource use, spectacled bear, Tillandsia fendleri, Tremarctos ornatus, Venezuela

Ursus 15(1):56-58 (2004)

Food habits of Andean bears in the Oyacachi River Basin, Ecuador

Verónica Troya¹, Francisco Cuesta², and Manuel Peralvo²

EcoCiencia, Francisco Salazar E14-34 y Coruña, Quito, Ecuador

Abstract: We collected Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) scats during 2000 in the Oyacachi river basin, inside the Cayambe-Coca Ecological Reserve in Ecuador. Scats were collected along 53 transects that were surveyed once every 2 months. Scat contents were analyzed to document the food habits of Andean bears in the area. Bromeliads and fruits were the most frequently observed food items. Fruits were eaten by bears only during certain months, whereas terrestrial bromeliads were part of the diet all year long. Because bromeliads are present in 5 of the 6 different vegetation types in the study area and they are available all year long, they represent a strategic food source for Andean bears. Protection of the páramo, were terrestrial bromeliads are most abundant, will be particularly important to maintain Andean bear populations.

Key words: Andean bear, diet, ecology, Ecuador, Oyacachi, scat analysis, Tremarctos ornatus

Ursus 15(1):59–62 (2004)

Demographics and population trends of grizzly bears in the Cabinet–Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems of British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, and Washington

Wayne L. Wakkinen^{1, 3} and Wayne F. Kasworm^{2, 4}

¹Idaho Department of Fish and Game, HCR 85 Box 323J,

Bonners Ferry, ID 83805, USA

²U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 475 Fish Hatchery Road, Libby, MT 59923, USA

Abstract: We summarize and report survival and cause specific mortality of grizzly bears in the Cabinet–Yaak and Selkirk Mountains recovery zones from 1983–2002 to examine effects on the populations. Fifty-four percent of total known mortality in the Cabinet–Yaak was human-caused (n = 28) and 80% of total known mortality in the Selkirk Mountains was human-caused (n = 40). We investigated demographic values of 53 and 61 radiocollared grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and attendant offspring in the Cabinet–Yaak and Selkirk Mountains recovery zones, respectively from 1983–2002. Nineteen mortalities of radiocollared animals or offspring were detected in the Cabinet–Yaak sample and 20 in the Selkirk Mountains. Estimated survival rates were 0.929 (95% CI = 0.091) for adult females, 0.847 (95% CI = 0.153) for adult males, 0.771 (95% CI = 0.208) for subadult females, 0.750 (95% CI = 0.520) for subadult males, 0.875 (95% CI = 0.231) for yearlings, and 0.679 (95% CI = 0.179) for cubs in the Cabinet–Yaak. Estimated survival rates for the Selkirk Mountains were 0.936 (95% CI = 0.064) for adult females, 0.908 (95% CI = 0.102) for adult males, 0.900 (95% CI = 0.197) for subadult females, 0.765 (95% CI = 0.176) for subadult males, 0.784 (95% CI = 0.178) for yearlings, and 0.875 (95% CI = 0.125) for cubs. Reproductive rates were 0.291 and 0.284 female cubs/year/adult female for the Cabinet–Yaak and Selkirk Mountains recovery zones, respectfully. The annual exponential rate of increase (r) was -0.037 for the Cabinet–Yaak recovery zone and 0.018 for the Selkirk Mountains.

Key words: British Columbia, Cabinet–Yaak, grizzly bear, Idaho, Montana, mortality, population trend, reproduction, Selkirks, survival, Ursus arctos, Washington

³ wakkinen@coldreams.com ⁴ kasworm@libby.org

Ursus 15(1) Workshop Supplement:67–77 (2004)

A model-based appraisal of habitat conditions for grizzly bears in the Cabinet–Yaak region of Montana and Idaho

David J. Mattson^1,3 and Troy Merrill^2,4

¹U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center, Colorado Plateau Research Station, P.O. Box 5614, Northern Arizona University,

Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5614, USA

²LTB Institute of Landscape Ecology, 208 South Main, Suite 7, Moscow, ID 83843, USA

Abstract: We used a broad-scale model based on observations of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) or their sign, calibrated to reported putative death rate, to appraise current habitat conditions in the Cabinet–Yaak region of Montana. Habitat capability (i.e., potential grizzly bear densities) and regional human population sizes had the greatest effects in this model. We predicted the effects of (1) human population increases (+150% anticipated by 2023), (2) changes in lethality of humans (i.e., the probability that a human would kill a bear given an encounter), and (3) differences in the ratio of unknown to known bear deaths on the extent and location of potential source areas. We predicted densities of 1.0 and 2.1 grizzly bears/100 km² with and without human impacts, respectively. Under our baseline scenario (3% sustainable mortality and 1:1 ratio of unknown to known bear deaths), we predicted that 2 source areas totaling 9,156 km² and potentially supporting 123 bears occurred in our study area. With projected human population increases, potential source areas and bear populations declined by 33% and 45%, respectively. A spatially uniform increase of 1% in annual death rate (as a surrogate for increased human lethality) reduced potential source areas and bear numbers by 41% and 36%. Source areas and bear numbers declined by 39% and 34% if the ratio of unknown to known grizzly bear deaths was 2:1 versus 1:1. We obtained the best match with current population estimates (about 35 bears) assuming a 2:1 ratio of unknown to known deaths and a very low sustainable death rate of 2%. This implies either high levels of illegal human-caused mortality and low birth and recruitment rates or a population smaller than currently estimated. We conclude that human numbers and human lethality will likely govern the fate of grizzly bears in this region.

Key words: Cabinet–Yaak, density, grizzly bears, habitat suitability, Montana, Ursus arctos

Ursus 15(1) Workshop Supplement:78–91 (2004)

Landscape permeability for grizzly bear movements in Washington and southwestern British Columbia

Peter H. Singleton^1,3, William L. Gaines², and John F. Lehmkuhl¹

¹U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1133 North Western Avenue, Wenatchee WA 98801, USA

²U.S. Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee WA 98801, USA

Abstract: Providing opportunities for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) to move between blocks of habitat is important for the long-term conservation of grizzly bear populations. While the particulars of grizzly bear habitat selection during long-distance movements are poorly understood, some landscape characteristics such as road density and land cover type are correlated with grizzly bear habitat use at various scales. We compiled digital maps of roads, human population density, land cover class, and topography to evaluate the resistance of the year 2001 landscape to grizzly bear movement in Washington State and adjacent portions of Idaho and British Columbia. We developed habitat association and dispersal habitat suitability models based on published literature and used geographic information system (GIS) weighted-distance and least-cost analysis techniques to evaluate landscape permeability for grizzly bear movement. Our analysis identified 5 blocks of potential grizzly bear habitat in Washington and adjacent areas, including the Columbia–Selkirk Mountains, the North Cascades, the Central Cascades, the South Cascades, and the Coast Range. We evaluated landscape permeability between these habitat blocks and highlighted potential linkage areas. Our models indicated the Stevens Pass fracture zone between the North and Central Cascades blocks was the most permeable, followed (in order of relative permeability) by the Fraser–Coquihalla fracture zone between the North Cascades and the Coast Range, the Okanogan–Kettle fracture zone between the North Cascades and the Columbia Mountains, and the Snoqualmie Pass fracture zone between the Central and South Cascades. This evaluation provides a consistent measure of the expected potential for grizzly movement across a broad landscape that can be used to target areas for finer-scale evaluation and help identify landscape management priorities at a regional scale.

Key words: grizzly bear, habitat modeling, highways, landscape connectivity, meta-population, North Cascades Ecosystem, Ursus arctos

Ursus 15(1) Workshop Supplement:92–105 (2004)

^{3psingleton@fs.fed.us}

Re-connecting grizzly bear populations: