Seasonal habitat use and selection by grizzly bears in Northern British Columbia

We defined patterns of habitat use and selection by female grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in the Besa-Prophet watershed of northern British Columbia. We fitted 13 adult females with Geographic Positioning System (GPS) radio-collars and monitored them between 2001 and 2004. We examined patterns of habitat selection by grizzly bears relative to topographical attributes and 3 potential surrogates of food availability: land-cover class, vegetation biomass or quality (as measured by the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index), and selection value for prey species themselves (moose [Alces alces], elk [Cervus elaphus], woodland caribou [Rangifer tarandus], Stone's sheep [Ovis dalli stonei]). Although vegetation biomass and quality, and selection values for prey were important in seasonal selection by some individual bears, land-cover class, elevation, aspect, and vegetation diversity most influenced patterns of habitat selection across grizzly bears, which rely on availability of plant foods and encounters with ungulate prey. Grizzly bears as a group avoided conifer stands and areas of low vegetation diversity, and selected for burned land-cover classes and high vegetation diversity across seasons. They also selected mid elevations from what was available within seasonal ranges. Quantifying relative use of different attributes helped place selection patterns within the context of the landscape. Grizzly bears used higher elevations (1,595 ± 31 m SE) in spring and lower elevations (1,436 ± 27 m) in fall; the range of average elevations used among individuals was highest (500 m) during the summer. During all seasons, grizzly bears most frequented aspects with high solar gain. Use was distributed across 10 land-cover classes and depended on season. Management and conservation actions must maintain a diverse habitat matrix distributed across a large elevational gradient to ensure persistence of grizzly bears as levels of human access increase in the northern Rocky Mountains. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.     

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.     

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.     

Perception of Human-Derived Risk Influences Choice at Top of the Food Chain

On human-used landscapes, animal behavior is a trade-off between maximizing fitness and minimizing human-derived risk. Understanding risk perception in wildlife can allow mitigation of anthropogenic risk, with benefits to long-term animal fitness. Areas where animals choose to rest should minimize risk from predators, which for large carnivores typically equate to humans. We hypothesize that high human activity leads to selection for habitat security, whereas low activity enables trading security for forage. We investigated selection of resting (bedding) sites by GPS radiocollared adult grizzly bears (n = 10) in a low density population on a multiple-use landscape in Canada. We compared security and foods at resting and random locations while accounting for land use, season, and time of day. On reclaimed mines with low human access, bears selected high horizontal cover far from trails, but did not avoid open (herbaceous) areas, resting primarily at night. In protected areas bears also bedded at night, in areas with berry shrubs and Hedysarum spp., with horizontal cover selected in the summer, during high human access. On public lands with substantial human recreation, bears bedded at day, selected resting sites with high horizontal cover in the summer and habitat edges, with bedding associated with herbaceous foods. These spatial and temporal patterns of selection suggest that bears perceive human-related risk differentially in relation to human activity level, season and time of day, and employ a security-food trade-off strategy. Although grizzly bears are presently not hunted in Alberta, their perceived risks associated with humans influence resting-site selection.     

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.     

Evaluating the role of environmental familiarity and behaviour in the success of wildlife translocation: A grizzly bear case study using agent-based modelling

Human-carnivore systems are built on multi-scalar complex processes often resulting in conflicts that force wildlife managers to address what are conceived as problem individuals. In North America, the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) is often involved in human-bear conflict with management measures such as translocations, in which problem individuals are moved to new areas, being used to reduce conflict risk. While translocations offer a non-lethal alternative to managing conflict animals, they show varying levels of success. Our objective was to perform a novel assessment of grizzly bear translocation success through agent-based simulation by evaluating how familiarity with landscape features coupled with behavioral traits affects the way individuals use resources in a new environment. Our results showed that bears translocated to familiar habitat used high-quality habitat more than bears moved to areas with unfamiliar landscape characteristics. Increased exploration led to greater use of high-quality habitat in the long run but resulted in reduced use of high-quality habitat during the first two years following a translocation. Habitat quality use depended on scale, with bears translocated to less familiar environments accessing higher quality areas at a finer scale than bears translocated to familiar habitats. We emphasize the need to account for wildlife behavioral traits and habitat characteristics at multiple scales when selecting suitable translocation locations. Understanding the role of factors such as these on translocation outcome will help ensure the success of translocations not only as a method for managing problem wildlife, but also for population restoration, species reestablishment, and conservation translocations across the globe.     

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.     

Landscape partitioning and spatial inferences of competition between black and grizzly bears

Population effects of competition between large carnivore species may be evident by contrasting actual distributions of putative competitors against predictions of inherent landscape quality for each species. Such comparison can be insightful if covariation with external factors known to influence the occurrence, density, or persistence of each species over space and time can be controlled. We used systematically‐distributed DNA hair‐trap stations to sample the occurrence of black bears (Ursus americanus) and grizzly bears (U. arctos) across 5496 km² in southeastern British Columbia, Canada. We describe interspecific landscape partitioning according to terrain, vegetation and land‐cover variables at 2 spatial scales. We developed multivariate models to predict the potential distribution of each species. At sampling site‐session combinations that detected either species, we then investigated whether the expected or actual occurrence of each influenced the likelihood of detecting the other while controlling for human influence and inherent landscape quality. Black bears were more likely than grizzly bears to occur in gentle, valley bottom terrain with lower proportions of open habitats. Each species also was detected less frequently with the other species than predicted by their respective models; however, the strength of this relationship decreased as landscapes became more characteristic of black bear habitat. As landscapes showed higher inherent potential to support grizzly bears, black bears occurred more than model prediction in areas with higher human access and proximity to major highways but less in national parks. As potential to support black bears increased, grizzly bears occurred more than model prediction only in national parks and less with increasing human access and proximity to major highways. Results suggest that competition is occurring between the species, and that the differential response of each species to human disturbance or excessive mortality may influence the outcome and hence landscape partitioning. Moreover, black bears are more likely to benefit from human encroachment into landscapes of high inherent value for grizzly bears than vice versa. Conservation implications relate to potential mediating effects of habitat and human influence on competitive interactions between the species.     

Does Learning or Instinct Shape Habitat Selection?

Habitat selection is an important behavioural process widely studied for its population-level effects. Models of habitat selection are, however, often fit without a mechanistic consideration. Here, we investigated whether patterns in habitat selection result from instinct or learning for a population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in Alberta, Canada. We found that habitat selection and relatedness were positively correlated in female bears during the fall season, with a trend in the spring, but not during any season for males. This suggests that habitat selection is a learned behaviour because males do not participate in parental care: a genetically predetermined behaviour (instinct) would have resulted in habitat selection and relatedness correlations for both sexes. Geographic distance and home range overlap among animals did not alter correlations indicating that dispersal and spatial autocorrelation had little effect on the observed trends. These results suggest that habitat selection in grizzly bears are partly learned from their mothers, which could have implications for the translocation of wildlife to novel environments.     

Influence of whitebark pine decline on fall habitat use and movements of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

When abundant, seeds of the high‐elevation whitebark pine (WBP; Pinus albicaulis) are an important fall food for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Rates of bear mortality and bear/human conflicts have been inversely associated with WBP productivity. Recently, mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) have killed many cone‐producing WBP trees. We used fall (15 August–30 September) Global Positioning System locations from 89 bear years to investigate temporal changes in habitat use and movements during 2000–2011. We calculated Manly–Chesson (MC) indices for selectivity of WBP habitat and secure habitat (≥500 m from roads and human developments), determined dates of WBP use, and documented net daily movement distances and activity radii. To evaluate temporal trends, we used regression, model selection, and candidate model sets consisting of annual WBP production, sex, and year. One‐third of sampled grizzly bears had fall ranges with little or no mapped WBP habitat. Most other bears (72%) had a MC index above 0.5, indicating selection for WBP habitats. From 2000 to 2011, mean MC index decreased and median date of WBP use shifted about 1 week later. We detected no trends in movement indices over time. Outside of national parks, there was no correlation between the MC indices for WBP habitat and secure habitat, and most bears (78%) selected for secure habitat. Nonetheless, mean MC index for secure habitat decreased over the study period during years of good WBP productivity. The wide diet breadth and foraging plasticity of grizzly bears likely allowed them to adjust to declining WBP. Bears reduced use of WBP stands without increasing movement rates, suggesting they obtained alternative fall foods within their local surroundings. However, the reduction in mortality risk historically associated with use of secure, high‐elevation WBP habitat may be diminishing for bears residing in multiple‐use areas.     

Spatiotemporal railway use by grizzly bears in Canada's Rocky Mountains

Railway networks contribute to the direct mortality of wildlife through collisions with trains, which can threaten vulnerable wildlife populations even in protected areas, including grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in Banff and Yoho National Parks, Canada. Mitigation to reduce bear-train collisions requires information about how grizzly bears use the railway spatially and temporally and how particular types of use might increase collision vulnerability. We used data from 27 grizzly bears fitted with global positioning system (GPS) collars between 2000 and 2016 to relate railway use by bears via resource selection functions to variables that described land cover, human use, and topography. We used the same suite of explanatory variables to distinguish pairs of 4 types of steps, in which 3 successive GPS points (with 2-hr fix rates) included ≥1 within 30 m of the rail (hereafter on) and 2 others that defined locations where bears effectively entered the railway (first fix off rail, next 2 on), crossed it (only the middle fix on the rail), continued along the railway (all 3 fixes on), or exited the railway corridor (first 2 on, last off). We compared both sites of higher use and each of these 4 step types to the relative frequency of bear-train collisions, predicting a positive correlation for continue step types. Relative to available locations, bears were more likely to use the railway close to railroad sidings (sections of twinned track where trains sometimes stop), at intermediate distances from human-use features (e.g., town sites, highways, trails), in areas with lower values of the compound topographic index (a proxy for wetness; within 500 m), and within 90 m of rugged terrain. Seasonally, bears made greater use of the railway in spring and fall. Among 1,515 sequences of 3 steps, crossing locations comprised >50% and were most distinct from continue locations (about 20%), which occurred in areas with more rugged terrain (within 300 m), closer to railway sidings, in spring and fall, and with steps that were 60% shorter. Contrary to our prediction, past reports of bear-train collisions were negatively correlated with continue locations and unrelated to overall use or any other movement type. Our results suggest that railway use by bears increased where it provided increased forage or easier travel, particularly in spring and fall, but more work will be needed to determine the mechanistic basis of bear-train collisions. Meanwhile, mitigation efforts such as habitat alteration or warning systems might target locations where past strikes are concentrated for grizzly bears or other sensitive populations. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Bear deterrence with scare devices,a non-lethal tool in the use-of-force continuum

Wild animals eating agricultural products and coming close to people's residences are primary causes of human–wildlife conflict worldwide. When carnivores eat anthropogenic foods and cause human safety concerns, it often results in the removal of the animals and public demand for reduced wildlife populations. The use of remote methods, such as scare devices, to deter carnivores has been touted in the literature; however, efficacy evidence remains thin. I test the efficacy of a widely available motion-activated solar alarm lamp to deter grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) from farms in Montana, USA. When scare devices were activated, there was a 46% reduction in the odds bears would access an attractant. For every additional scare device, there was an additional 44% reduction in the odds of a bear getting the food. Additionally, scare devices caused bears to be more vigilant and increase movement behavior. More bears in a group led to loss of deterrence efficacy, and there was no evidence for habituation to the aversive stimuli. This deterrence method was most effective in August and for fungicide-treated wheat. Out of 21 farms, scare devices stopped bears from returning to 11 sites. Overall, scare devices can be a cheap and easy first step to preventing, or resolving, some grizzly bear issues in the use-of-force continuum, which hierarchically organizes conflict responses from non-lethal to more severe.     

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.     

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.     

Brown Bear Den Habitat and Winter Recreation in South-Central Alaska

ABSTRACT Increasing demand for backcountry recreation opportunities during winter (e.g., snowshoeing, helicopter-assisted skiing, snowmobiling) in steep, high-elevation terrain has elevated concern about disturbance to brown bears (Ursus arctos) denning on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, USA. To help identify areas where such conflicts might occur, we developed a spatially explicit model to predict potential den habitat. The model indicated brown bears selected locations for den sites with steep slopes, away from roads and trails. Den sites were associated with habitat high in elevation and away from potential human contact. We then compared areas with the highest probability of providing den habitat with patterns of snowmobile and nonmotorized recreation on a portion of the Kenai Peninsula. We found limited overlap between the 2 recreation activities and potential den habitat for brown bears. At the landscape scale, however, backcountry skiing overlapped more high-quality den habitat than did snowmobile riding. Our results may be used by land management agencies to identify potential conflict sites and to minimize the potential effects of recreation activities on brown bears in dens.     

Staying cool or staying safe in a human-dominated landscape: which is more relevant for brown bears?

Pigeon et al. (2016) Staying cool in a changing landscape: the influence of maximum daily ambient temperature on grizzly bear habitat selection. Oecologia 181:1101. doi: 10.1007/s00442-016-3630-5 analyzed the effect of ambient temperature on the habitat selection of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) in Alberta, Canada. They concluded that temperature played a significant role in bear habitat selection and that it was unlikely that human activity introduced biases to the habitat selection of bears. However, Pigeon et al. did not consider variables related to human activities in their analyses. They also misinterpreted previous research that has accounted for temperature in the habitat selection of brown bears. There is much literature published on the negative effects of human disturbance on wildlife in general and on bears in particular. Downplaying the role of human disturbance could have important negative consequences if, in fact, human disturbance were a more important factor than thermoregulation. Indeed, dismissing the importance of human influence, in the face of contradictory evidence, could tempt managers to disregard an important factor that is difficult and often unpopular to deal with in their conservation plans.     

Exertional myopathy in a grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) captured by leghold snare

We diagnosed exertional myopathy (EM) in a grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) that died approximately 10 days after capture by leghold snare in west-central Alberta, Canada, in June 2003. The diagnosis was based on history, post-capture movement data, gross necropsy, histopathology, and serum enzyme levels. We were unable to determine whether EM was the primary cause of death because autolysis precluded accurate evaluation of all tissues. Nevertheless, comparison of serum aspartate aminotransferase and creatine kinase concentrations and survival between the affected bear and other grizzly bears captured by leghold snare in the same research project suggests EM also occurred in other bears, but that it is not generally a cause of mortality. We propose, however, occurrence of nonfatal EM in grizzly bears after capture by leghold snare has potential implications for use of this capture method, including negative effects on wildlife welfare and research data.