Hazards Affecting Grizzly Bear Survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

Abstract: During the past 2 decades, the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) has increased in numbers and expanded its range. Early efforts to model grizzly bear mortality were principally focused within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, which currently represents only about 61% of known bear distribution in the GYE. A more recent analysis that explored one spatial covariate that encompassed the entire GYE suggested that grizzly bear survival was highest in Yellowstone National Park, followed by areas in the grizzly bear Recovery Zone outside the park, and lowest outside the Recovery Zone. Although management differences within these areas partially explained differences in grizzly bear survival, these simple spatial covariates did not capture site-specific reasons why bears die at higher rates outside the Recovery Zone. Here, we model annual survival of grizzly bears in the GYE to 1) identify landscape features (i.e., foods, land management policies, or human disturbances factors) that best describe spatial heterogeneity among bear mortalities, 2) spatially depict the differences in grizzly bear survival across the GYE, and 3) demonstrate how our spatially explicit model of survival can be linked with demographic parameters to identify source and sink habitats. We used recent data from radiomarked bears to estimate survival (1983–2003) using the known-fate data type in Program MARK. Our top models suggested that survival of independent (age ≥ 2 yr) grizzly bears was best explained by the level of human development of the landscape within the home ranges of bears. Survival improved as secure habitat and elevation increased but declined as road density, number of homes, and site developments increased. Bears living in areas open to fall ungulate hunting suffered higher rates of mortality than bears living in areas closed to hunting. Our top model strongly supported previous research that identified roads and developed sites as hazards to grizzly bear survival. We also demonstrated that rural homes and ungulate hunting negatively affected survival, both new findings. We illustrate how our survival model, when linked with estimates of reproduction and survival of dependent young, can be used to identify demographically the source and sink habitats in the GYE. Finally, we discuss how this demographic model constitutes one component of a habitat-based framework for grizzly bear conservation. Such a framework can spatially depict the areas of risk in otherwise good habitat, providing a focus for resource management in the GYE.     

Using spatially‐explicit capture–recapture models to explain variation in seasonal density patterns of sympatric ursids

Understanding how environmental factors interact to determine the abundance and distribution of animals is a primary goal of ecology, and fundamental to the conservation of wildlife populations. Studies of these relationships, however, often assume static environmental conditions, and rarely consider effects of competition with ecologically similar species. In many parts of their shared ranges, grizzly bears Ursus arctos and American black bears U. americanus have nearly complete dietary overlap and share similar life history traits. We therefore tested the hypothesis that density patterns of both bear species would reflect seasonal variation in available resources, with areas of higher primary productivity supporting higher densities of both species. We also hypothesized that interspecific competition would influence seasonal density patterns. Specifically, we predicted that grizzly bear density would be locally reduced due to the ability of black bears to more efficiently exploit patchy food resources such as seasonally abundant fruits. To test our hypotheses, we used detections of 309 grizzly and 597 black bears from two independent genetic sampling methods in spatially‐explicit capture–recapture (SECR) models. Our results suggest grizzly bear density was lower in areas of high black bear density during spring and summer, although intraspecific densities were also important, particularly during the breeding season. Black bears had lower densities in areas of high grizzly bear density in spring; however, density of black bears in early and late summer was best explained by primary productivity. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that smaller‐bodied, more abundant black bears may influence the density patterns of behaviorally‐dominant grizzly bears through exploitative competition. We also suggest that seasonal variation in resource availability be considered in efforts to relate environmental conditions to animal density.     

Contrasting Activity Patterns of Sympatric and Allopatric Black and Grizzly Bears

ABSTRACT The distribution of grizzly (Ursus arctos) and American black bears (U. americanus) overlaps in western North America. Few studies have detailed activity patterns where the species are sympatric and no studies contrasted patterns where populations are both sympatric and allopatric. We contrasted activity patterns for sympatric black and grizzly bears and for black bears allopatric to grizzly bears, how human influences altered patterns, and rates of grizzly-black bear predation. Activity patterns differed between black bear populations, with those sympatric to grizzly bears more day-active. Activity patterns of black bears allopatric with grizzly bears were similar to those of female grizzly bears; both were crepuscular and day-active. Male grizzly bears were crepuscular and night-active. Both species were more night-active and less day-active when ≤1 km from roads or developments. In our sympatric study area, 2 of 4 black bear mortalities were due to grizzly bear predation. Our results suggested patterns of activity that allowed for intra- and inter-species avoidance. National park management often results in convergence of locally high human densities in quality bear habitat. Our data provide additional understanding into how bears alter their activity patterns in response to other bears and humans and should help park managers minimize undesirable bear-human encounters when considering needs for temporal and spatial management of humans and human developments in bear habitats.     

Physiologic responses of grizzly bears to different methods of capture

The physiologic effects of two methods of capture, chemical immobilization of free-ranging (FR) bears by remote injection from a helicopter and physical restraint (PR) by leg-hold snare prior to chemical immobilization, were compared in 46 grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) handled during 90 captures between 1999 and 2001. Induction dosages and times were greater for FR bears than PR bears, a finding consistent with depletion of, or decreased sensitivity to, catecholamines. Free-ranging bears also had higher rectal temperatures 15 min following immobilization and temperatures throughout handling that correlated positively with induction time. Physically restrained bears had higher white blood cell counts, with more neutrophils and fewer lymphocytes and eosinophils, than did FR bears. This white blood cell profile was consistent with a stress leukogram, possibly affected by elevated levels of serum cortisol. Serum concentrations of alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and creatine kinase were higher in PR bears that suggested muscle injury. Serum concentrations of sodium and chloride also were higher in PR bears and attributed to reduced body water volume through water deprivation and increased insensible water loss. Overall, different methods of capture resulted in different patterns of physiologic disturbance. Reducing pursuit and drug induction times should help to minimize increase in body temperature and alteration of acid-base balance in bears immobilized by remote injection. Minimizing restraint time and ensuring snare-anchoring cables are short should help to minimize loss of body water and prevent serious muscle injury in bears captured by leg-hold snare.     

Grizzly Bear Behavior and Global Positioning System Collar Fix Rates

Abstract: Animal locations collected by Global Positioning System (GPS) collars will represent a biased sample of the sites an animal used if some position fixes fail and if those missed locations do not occur randomly. Probability of a GPS receiver obtaining a position fix is known to decline as canopy cover increases, but the impact of forest canopy cover was insufficient to account for the low fix rates we observed for GPS collars on grizzly bears (Ursus arctos). We tested the hypothesis that GPS fix rates were related to the interaction between animal activity (active vs. resting) and canopy cover by evaluating the following predictions: 1) grizzly bear activity should follow a circadian pattern similar to the circadian fix-rate pattern, 2) grizzly bear use of canopy cover should follow a circadian pattern similar to the circadian fix rates, 3) grizzly bear activity should be related to canopy cover (i.e., bears should rest in areas with relatively high canopy covers and feed and move in relatively open areas), and 4) collar orientation and canopy cover should interact to affect the fix rates of test collars. The GPS fix rates traced a bimodal circadian pattern that was directly related to the circadian pattern of grizzly bear activity. Fix rates declined when bears were more likely to be using denser cover, and fix rates of test collars demonstrated that collar orientation interacted with canopy cover, such that fix rates declined much more with increasing canopy cover when the collar was on its side than when the collar was upright. We concluded that inferences made about grizzly bear microhabitat use, based on GPS locations, will underrepresent high canopy cover sites, especially when grizzly bears are resting there. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):596–602; 2008)     

Grizzly bear responses to restrictions of recreation in Yellowstone National Park

Avoiding humans will be more difficult and energetically costly for animals as outdoor recreation increases and people venture farther into wildland areas that provide high-quality habitat for wildlife. Restricting human access can be an attractive management tool to mitigate effects of human recreation activities on wildlife; however, the efficacy of such measures is rarely assessed. In 1982, Yellowstone National Park identified areas important to grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) to help protect critical grizzly bear habitat and reduce the likelihood of human injuries by bears. Referred to as bear management areas (BMAs), human access is restricted in these areas for 2–8 months each year, with timing and type of restrictions varying by area. We examined 2 datasets to evaluate grizzly bear selection of BMAs and differences of bear density in BMAs and non-BMAs. First, we used 17 years of recent global positioning system telemetry data for grizzly bears to assess their selection of BMAs during periods when human access was allowed, and when access was restricted. We used step-selection functions to test the hypothesis that bears spend time in places that allow them to avoid people and select quality food sources. There was support that grizzly bears differentially select for BMAs regardless of whether human access was restricted at the time, compared with areas outside BMAs, and that selection changed with sex and season. Only males during the summer and hyperphagic seasons changed their selection of BMAs based on whether access restrictions were in place, and overall, male bears preferred unrestricted BMAs (BMAs without restrictions in place). Females preferentially selected BMAs regardless of whether the area had access restrictions in place only during the mating season. Individuals varied widely in their preference for BMAs and access restrictions. Bears likely choose to spend time in BMAs based on available food resources rather than restrictions to human access. Supporting this interpretation, our analyses indicated that a greater proportion of BMA in an area was associated with higher densities of grizzly bear. Thus, restrictions to human access likely help reduce the potential for human–bear interactions, accomplishing one of the original objectives for establishing the BMAs.     

Estimating grizzly and black bear population abundance and trend in Banff National Park using noninvasive genetic sampling

We evaluated the potential of two noninvasive genetic sampling methods, hair traps and bear rub surveys, to estimate population abundance and trend of grizzly (Ursus arctos) and black bear (U. americanus) populations in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Using Huggins closed population mark-recapture models, we obtained the first precise abundance estimates for grizzly bears (N=?73.5, 95% CI?=?64-94 in 2006; N=?50.4, 95% CI?=?49-59 in 2008) and black bears (N=?62.6, 95% CI?=?51-89 in 2006; N=?81.8, 95% CI?=?72-102 in 2008) in the Bow Valley. Hair traps had high detection rates for female grizzlies, and male and female black bears, but extremely low detection rates for male grizzlies. Conversely, bear rubs had high detection rates for male and female grizzlies, but low rates for black bears. We estimated realized population growth rates, lambda, for grizzly bear males (λ=?0.93, 95% CI?=?0.74-1.17) and females (λ=?0.90, 95% CI?=?0.67-1.20) using Pradel open population models with three years of bear rub data. Lambda estimates are supported by abundance estimates from combined hair trap/bear rub closed population models and are consistent with a system that is likely driven by high levels of human-caused mortality. Our results suggest that bear rub surveys would provide an efficient and powerful means to inventory and monitor grizzly bear populations in the Central Canadian Rocky Mountains.     

Quantifying Economic Impacts of Large-Carnivore Depredation on Bovine Calves

Abstract: We examined and quantified the economic impact of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and gray wolf (Canis lupus) depredation on calves in the Upper Green River Cattle Allotment in western Wyoming, USA, using records of the number of animals grazed and number lost during 1990–2004. Our analysis indicated that increased calf losses coincided with grizzly bear and gray wolf arrival and population establishment, with the first confirmed depredation by grizzly bears in 1995 and the first confirmed wolf depredation in 2000. From 1995 through 2004, 29,693 calves grazed on the allotment, and of the 1,332 calves lost to all causes, an estimated 520 calves were lost to grizzly bear depredation and 177 calves to gray wolf depredation. We examined past and current grizzly and gray wolf compensation programs with respect to reimbursement of producers for costs associated with large-carnivore depredation. Estimated 1995–2004 uncompensated financial impacts from grizzly bear and gray wolf calf losses on the allotment were US222,500. Our analysis suggested equitable compensation factors of 3.8:1 for grizzly bear depredation and 6.3:1 for gray wolf depredation. Inadequate compensation for livestock depredation results in resistance to large-carnivore recovery programs. Development of compensation programs that fairly reimburse livestock producers for losses is, therefore, a necessary component of carnivore recovery efforts. Our analysis also suggested that grizzly bear management actions were effectively targeting livestock-depredating grizzly bears on the allotment.     

Neonatal mortality of elk driven by climate, predator phenology and predator community composition

1.?Understanding the interaction among predators and between predation and climate is critical to understanding the mechanisms for compensatory mortality. We used data from 1999 radio-marked neonatal elk (Cervus elaphus) calves from 12 populations in the north-western United States to test for effects of predation on neonatal survival, and whether predation interacted with climate to render mortality compensatory. 2.?Weibull survival models with a random effect for each population were fit as a function of the number of predator species in a community (3-5), seven indices of climatic variability, sex, birth date, birth weight, and all interactions between climate and predators. Cumulative incidence functions (CIF) were used to test whether the effects of individual species of predators were additive or compensatory. 3.?Neonatal elk survival to 3 months declined following hotter previous summers and increased with higher May precipitation, especially in areas with wolves and/or grizzly bears. Mortality hazards were significantly lower in systems with only coyotes (Canis latrans), cougars (Puma concolor) and black bears (Ursus americanus) compared to higher mortality hazards experienced with gray wolves (Canis lupus) and grizzly bears (Ursus horribilis). 4.?In systems with wolves and grizzly bears, mortality by cougars decreased, and predation by bears was the dominant cause of neonatal mortality. Only bear predation appeared additive and occurred earlier than other predators, which may render later mortality by other predators compensatory as calves age. Wolf predation was low and most likely a compensatory source of mortality for neonatal elk calves. 5.?Functional redundancy and interspecific competition among predators may combine with the effects of climate on vulnerability to predation to drive compensatory mortality of neonatal elk calves. The exception was the evidence for additive bear predation. These results suggest that effects of predation by recovering wolves on neonatal elk survival, a contentious issue for management of elk populations, may be less important than the composition of the predator community. Future studies would benefit by synthesizing overwinter calf and adult-survival data sets, ideally from experimental studies, to test the roles of predation in annual compensatory and additive mortality of elk.     

Grizzly Bear Density in Glacier National Park,Montana

Abstract: We present the first rigorous estimate of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) population density and distribution in and around Glacier National Park (GNP), Montana, USA. We used genetic analysis to identify individual bears from hair samples collected via 2 concurrent sampling methods: 1) systematically distributed, baited, barbed-wire hair traps and 2) unbaited bear rub trees found along trails. We used Huggins closed mixture models in Program MARK to estimate total population size and developed a method to account for heterogeneity caused by unequal access to rub trees. We corrected our estimate for lack of geographic closure using a new method that utilizes information from radiocollared bears and the distribution of bears captured with DNA sampling. Adjusted for closure, the average number of grizzly bears in our study area was 240.7 (95% CI = 202–303) in 1998 and 240.6 (95% CI = 205–304) in 2000. Average grizzly bear density was 30 bears/1,000 km², with 2.4 times more bears detected per hair trap inside than outside GNP. We provide baseline information important for managing one of the few remaining populations of grizzlies in the contiguous United States.     

Estimating distemper virus dynamics among wolves and grizzly bears using serology and Bayesian state‐space models

Many parasites infect multiple hosts, but estimating the transmission across host species remains a key challenge in disease ecology. We investigated the within and across host species dynamics of canine distemper virus (CDV) in grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and wolves (Canis lupus) of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). We hypothesized that grizzly bears may be more likely to be exposed to CDV during outbreaks in the wolf population because grizzly bears often displace wolves while scavenging carcasses. We used serological data collected from 1984 to 2014 in conjunction with Bayesian state‐space models to infer the temporal dynamics of CDV. These models accounted for the unknown timing of pathogen exposure, and we assessed how different testing thresholds and the potential for testing errors affected our conclusions. We identified three main CDV outbreaks (1999, 2005, and 2008) in wolves, which were more obvious when we used higher diagnostic thresholds to qualify as seropositive. There was some evidence for increased exposure rates in grizzly bears in 2005, but the magnitude of the wolf effect on bear exposures was poorly estimated and depended upon our prior distributions. Grizzly bears were exposed to CDV prior to wolf reintroduction and during time periods outside of known wolf outbreaks, thus wolves are only one of several potential routes for grizzly bear exposures. Our modeling approach accounts for several of the shortcomings of serological data and is applicable to many wildlife disease systems, but is most informative when testing intervals are short. CDV circulates in a wide range of carnivore species, but it remains unclear whether the disease persists locally within the GYE carnivore community or is periodically reintroduced from distant regions with larger host populations.     

Dietary adjustability of grizzly bears and American black bears in Yellowstone National Park

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and American black bears (U. americanus) are sympatric in much of Yellowstone National Park. Three primary bear foods, cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) nuts, and elk (Cervus elaphus), have declined in recent years. Because park managers and the public are concerned about the impact created by reductions in these foods, we quantified bear diets to determine how bears living near Yellowstone Lake are adjusting. We estimated diets using: 1) stable isotope and mercury analyses of hair samples collected from captured bears and from hair collection sites established along cutthroat trout spawning streams and 2) visits to recent locations occupied by bears wearing Global Positioning System collars to identify signs of feeding behavior and to collect scats for macroscopic identification of residues. Approximately 45 ± 22% ( ± SD) of the assimilated nitrogen consumed by male grizzly bears, 38 ± 20% by female grizzly bears, and 23 ± 7% by male and female black bears came from animal matter. These assimilated dietary proportions for female grizzly bears were the same as 10 years earlier in the Lake area and 30 years earlier in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. However, the proportion of meat in the assimilated diet of male grizzly bears decreased over both time frames. The estimated biomass of cutthroat trout consumed by grizzly bears and black bears declined 70% and 95%, respectively, in the decade between 1997–2000 and 2007–2009. Grizzly bears killed an elk calf every 4.3 ± 2.7 days and black bears every 8.0 ± 4.0 days during June. Elk accounted for 84% of all ungulates consumed by both bear species. Whitebark pine nuts continue to be a primary food source for both grizzly bears and black bears when abundant, but are replaced by false-truffles (Rhizopogon spp.) in the diets of female grizzly bears and black bears when nut crops are minimal. Thus, both grizzly bears and black bears continue to adjust to changing resources, with larger grizzly bears continuing to occupy a more carnivorous niche than the smaller, more herbivorous black bear. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.     

Predicting Grizzly Bear Density in Western North America

Conservation of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) is often controversial and the disagreement often is focused on the estimates of density used to calculate allowable kill. Many recent estimates of grizzly bear density are now available but field-based estimates will never be available for more than a small portion of hunted populations. Current methods of predicting density in areas of management interest are subjective and untested. Objective methods have been proposed, but these statistical models are so dependent on results from individual study areas that the models do not generalize well. We built regression models to relate grizzly bear density to ultimate measures of ecosystem productivity and mortality for interior and coastal ecosystems in North America. We used 90 measures of grizzly bear density in interior ecosystems, of which 14 were currently known to be unoccupied by grizzly bears. In coastal areas, we used 17 measures of density including 2 unoccupied areas. Our best model for coastal areas included a negative relationship with tree cover and positive relationships with the proportion of salmon in the diet and topographic ruggedness, which was correlated with precipitation. Our best interior model included 3 variables that indexed terrestrial productivity, 1 describing vegetation cover, 2 indices of human use of the landscape and, an index of topographic ruggedness. We used our models to predict current population sizes across Canada and present these as alternatives to current population estimates. Our models predict fewer grizzly bears in British Columbia but more bears in Canada than in the latest status review. These predictions can be used to assess population status, set limits for total human-caused mortality, and for conservation planning, but because our predictions are static, they cannot be used to assess population trend.     

Components of Grizzly Bear Habitat Selection: Density,Habitats, Roads,and Mortality Risk

Abstract: We used resource selection functions (RSF) to estimate the relative probability of use for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) adjacent to the Parsnip River, British Columbia, Canada, 1998-2003. We collected data from 30 radiocollared bears on a rolling plateau where a large portion of the landscape had been modified by human activities, primarily forestry. We also monitored 24 radiocollared bears in mountain areas largely inaccessible to humans. Bears that lived on the plateau existed at less than one-quarter the density of bears in the mountains. Plateau bears ate more high-quality food items, such as meat and berries, leading us to conclude that food limitation was not responsible for the differences in densities. We hypothesized that plateau bears were limited by human-caused mortality associated with roads constructed for forestry activities. Independent estimates of bear population size from DNA-based mark-recapture techniques allowed us to link populations to habitats using RSF models to scale habitat use patterns to population density. To evaluate whether differences in land-cover type, roads, or mortality risk could account for the disparity in density we used the mountain RSF model to predict habitat use and number of bears on the plateau and vice versa. We predicted increases ranging from 34 bears to 96 bears on the plateau when switching model coefficients, excluding land-cover types; when exchanging land-cover coefficients, the model predicted that the plateau population would be 9 bears lower than was observed. Large reductions in the numbers of mountain bears were predicted by habitat-selection models of bears using the plateau landscape. Although RSF models estimated in mountain and plateau landscapes could not predict bear use and abundance in the other areas, contrasts in models between areas provided a useful tool for examining the effects of human activities on grizzly bears.     

Trends in intensive management of Alaska's grizzly bears, 1980–2010

Hunting regulations for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in much of Alaska since 1980 increasingly were designed to reduce bear abundance in the expectation such regulations would lead to increased harvests by hunters of moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Regulations were liberalized during 1980–2010 primarily in the area we termed the Liberal Grizzly Bear Hunting Area (hereafter Liberal Hunt Area) which encompassed 76.2% of Alaska. By 2010, these changes resulted in longer hunting seasons (100% of Liberal Hunt Area had seasons > 100 days, 99.7% > 200 days, and 67.8% > 300 days), more liberal bag limits (99.1% of the Liberal Hunt Area with a bag limit ≥ 1/yr and 10.1% with a bag limit ≥ 2/yr), and widespread waiver of resident tag fees (waived in 95.7% of the Liberal Hunt Area). During 1995–2010, there were 124 changes that made grizzly bear hunting regulations more liberal and two making them more conservative. The 4-year mean for grizzly bear kills by hunters increased 213% between 1976–1980 (387 grizzly bears) and 2005–2008 (823 grizzly bears). Since 2000, long-term research studies on grizzly populations in the Liberal Hunt Area have been terminated without replacement. Management of large predators by the State of Alaska is constrained by a 1994 state statute mandating “intensive management” in areas classified as important for human consumptive use of ungulates. Current grizzly bear management in the Liberal Hunt Area is inconsistent with the recommendations of the National Research Council's 1997 report on predator management in Alaska. Current attitudes, policies and absence of science-based management of grizzly bears in Alaska are increasingly similar to those that resulted in the near extirpation of grizzly bears south of Canada in the 19th and 20th centuries. If current trends continue, they increase risks to portions of the largest and most intact population of grizzly bears in North America. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.     

Prevalence of Trichinella spp. in black bears, grizzly bears, and wolves in the Dehcho Region, Northwest Territories, Canada, including the first report of T. nativa in a grizzly bear from Canada

Samples of muscle from 120 black bears (Ursus americanus), 11 grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), and 27 wolves (Canis lupus) collected in the Dehcho Region of the Northwest Territories from 2001 to 2010 were examined for the presence of Trichinella spp. larvae using a pepsin-HCl digestion assay. Trichinella spp. larvae were found in eight of 11 (73%) grizzly bears, 14 of 27 (52%) wolves, and seven of 120 (5.8%) black bears. The average age of positive grizzly bears, black bears, and wolves was 13.5, 9.9, and approximately 4 yr, respectively. Larvae from 11 wolves, six black bears, and seven grizzly bears were genotyped. Six wolves were infected with T. nativa and five with Trichinella T6, four black bears were infected with T. nativa and two with Trichinella T6, and all seven grizzly bears were infected with Trichinella T6 and one of them had a coinfection with T. nativa. This is the first report of T. nativa in a grizzly bear from Canada. Bears have been linked to trichinellosis outbreaks in humans in Canada, and black bears are a subsistence food source for residents of the Dehcho region. In order to assess food safety risk it is important to monitor the prevalence of Trichinella spp. in both species of bear and their cohabiting mammalian food sources.     

Grizzly bear movements relative to roads: application of step selection functions

Access management is among the most important conservation actions for grizzly bears in North America. In Alberta, Canada, nearly all grizzly bear mortalities are caused by humans and occur near roads and trails. Consequently, understanding how bears move relative to roads is of crucial importance for grizzly bear conservation. We present the first application of step‐selection functions to model habitat selection and movement of grizzly bears. We then relate this to a step‐length analysis to model the rate of movement through various habitats. Grizzly bears of all sex and age groups were more likely to select steps closer to roads irrespective of traffic volume. Roads are associated with habitats attractive to bears such as forestry cutblocks, and models substituting cutblocks for roads outperformed road models in predicting bear selection during day, dawn, and dusk time periods. Bear step lengths increased near roads and were longest near highly trafficked roads indicating faster movement when near roads. Bear selection of roads was consistent throughout the day; however, time of day had a strong influence over selection of forest structure and terrain variables. At night and dawn, bears selected forests of intermediate age between 40 and 100 yr, and bears selected older forests during the day. At dawn, bears selected steps with higher solar radiation values, whereas, at dusk, bears chose steps that were significantly closer to edges. Because grizzly bears use areas near roads during spring and most human‐caused mortalities occur near roads, access management is required to reduce conflicts between humans and bears. Our results support new conservation guidelines in western North America that encourage the restriction of human access to roads constructed for resource extraction.     

Grizzly bear selection of avalanche chutes: Testing the effectiveness of forest buffer retention

In mountainous areas with sufficient snowfall, avalanche chutes are an important component of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) habitat. Therefore, regional land-use plans have recommended retaining adjacent forest buffers to maintain security and thus reduce potential impacts of clearcut forest harvesting. Our objective was to determine if forest buffers affected selection of avalanche chutes by grizzly bears, while accounting for factors such as vegetation composition and other physical attributes. We used radio-location data from 61 grizzly bears collected between 1994 and 2000 in southern British Columbia, mapped a sample of avalanche chutes (1,045), and quantified the amount of forb, shrub, tree, and non-vegetated cover within each chute. We also measured forested buffer width on each side of the chute, solar radiation, chute size, chute frequency (no. of chutes/km), and the area of clearcut logging adjacent to chutes. Each avalanche chute was the sample unit and the number of grizzly bear radiolocations was the dependent variable. We found that natural biophysical attributes were the strongest factors predicting the level of avalanche chute use by bears. Frequency of large chutes (>100 m wide), chute area, forb content, and solar radiation all positively affected use by bears. Larger avalanche chutes had a higher proportion of forb cover than smaller chutes, and more of these large chutes per unit area provided increased forage opportunities. Based on multivariate analyses, forested buffer width or the amount of clearcut logging were not strong factors predicting the level of use. However, a post hoc univariate analysis revealed that clearcut logging reduced the amount of bear use of the best avalanche chutes (large and abundant chutes). Furthermore, because a portion of our study area contained logging but no vehicle traffic, we concluded that it was the removal of tree cover, rather than displacement by vehicles, that caused the observed pattern. Although our multivariate models did not perform well using independent validation in a different geographic area, 4 factors were consistently important (large and abundant chutes, forb content, with a negative but weaker influence of clearcutting), suggesting broad applicability of these factors in mountainous ecosystems. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.     

The Impact of Roads on the Demography of Grizzly Bears in Alberta

One of the principal factors that have reduced grizzly bear populations has been the creation of human access into grizzly bear habitat by roads built for resource extraction. Past studies have documented mortality and distributional changes of bears relative to roads but none have attempted to estimate the direct demographic impact of roads in terms of both survival rates, reproductive rates, and the interaction of reproductive state of female bears with survival rate. We applied a combination of survival and reproductive models to estimate demographic parameters for threatened grizzly bear populations in Alberta. Instead of attempting to estimate mean trend we explored factors which caused biological and spatial variation in population trend. We found that sex and age class survival was related to road density with subadult bears being most vulnerable to road-based mortality. A multi-state reproduction model found that females accompanied by cubs of the year and/or yearling cubs had lower survival rates compared to females with two year olds or no cubs. A demographic model found strong spatial gradients in population trend based upon road density. Threshold road densities needed to ensure population stability were estimated to further refine targets for population recovery of grizzly bears in Alberta. Models that considered lowered survival of females with dependant offspring resulted in lower road density thresholds to ensure stable bear populations. Our results demonstrate likely spatial variation in population trend and provide an example how demographic analysis can be used to refine and direct conservation measures for threatened species.     

Estimation of Black Bear Abundance Using a Discrete DNA Sampling Device

Abstract We developed a snare for collection of black bear (Ursus americanus) hair that obtained a unique hair sample at each snare site, improved the quantity of collected hair compared to barbed-wire corrals, and was easy to deploy over a wide range of topographical features and habitat conditions. This device allowed us to implement intensive sampling methodology needed in mark-recapture experiments with minimal effort. By improving the quantity of hair collected, we also lowered the potential for bear identification errors at the lab. During 2003–2004, bears in 2 study areas triggered snares 1,104 times, which resulted in the collection of 981 hair samples. Of the samples we collected, 79% (775) produced valid genetic data. In 2003, 454 samples identified 79 genetically distinct individuals, and 321 samples identified 86 genetically distinct individuals in 2004. Analysis of capture-recapture data indicated that capture probabilities were affected by heterogeneity among individuals and behavioral responses, but showed little evidence of time effects. Consequently, we used the Pollock and Otto (1983) estimator for model M_bh to estimate abundance with reasonably good precision (CV: 12–14%). Density on the Steamboat and Toketee, Oregon, USA, study areas over the 2-year period averaged 19 bears/100 km² and 22 bears/100 km², respectively. Average capture and recapture probabilities over the 2 years of the study were 30% and 63%, respectively, indicating a trap-prone behavioral response. Knowledge of bear densities on the Steamboat and Toketee study areas will enable managers to set hunting quotas, advise land management agencies on habitat issues, and create a baseline database to assist in the long-term monitoring of bear trends in a changing landscape.