•7 6 pgb 5 Doodt Arnold Robert Draft programmatic en v ir eminent al impact statement *AFT Programmatic .mental Impact Statement THE GRIZZLY BEAR — IN STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION NORTHWESTERN MONTANA 4 1990 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 1515 E. 6th AVE. JHELENA, MONTANA 59620 cMoiitaria'Deptirtnjerit of - Wsti,eWUdtifeC8lYarl<$ 1420 East Sixth Avenue Helena, Montana 59620 November 1985 MONTANA STATE LIBRARY s 599.74446 F2dpgb 1985 C.1 Dood VP 2 * 8 1 W t I9M Draft programmatic •« wironmo«t»l Tf! , HUHHHl 3 0864 00067286 8 DRAFT PROGRAMMATTC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT THE GRIZZLY BEAR IN NORTHWESTERN MONTANA Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Primary Authors: Arnold R. Dood Robert D. Rrannon Richard D. Mace November 198 S A C K NOWL ED G EVENTS This draft programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (ETS) was produced through the efforts of numerous people from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (DFWP) , Pritish Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Montana universities, and other state and federal agencies. The Department wishes to specifically thank the following persons supplying information for the document : P. Aasheim, M. Aderhold, K. Aune, G. Pissell, S. Pradshaw, J. Cada, K. Constan, P. Demarchi, G. Erickson, K. Greer, J. Gunson, R. Harris, D. Fyyppa, G. Jonkel, P. Kent, P. Klaver, P. Martinka, G. Martinka, L. Metzgar, J. Mundinger, A. Olsen, J. Posewitz, L. Pussell, P. Schladweiler, and F. Tompa . DFWP would also like to thank those who edited the draft, and praise the excellent secretarial work of Margaret Morelli, Laurie Booth, Judy Kirkland, and Marilyn Johnson. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables vii List of Figures x T. INTRODUCTION 1 Historical Perspective 2 Circumstances Leading to the Programmatic EIS . 5 Ecosystems Evaluated in this EIS 6 Historical Review 6 II. DEPARTMENT GOALS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES . . 9 Montana Fish and Game Commission Policy .... 9 Specific Department Goals for the Grizzly Bear 9 Legal Context of Grizzly Management 14 III. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 16 The Natural Environment 16 The Human Environment 22 Jurisdiction and Land Use 25 IV. DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT SELECTION 32 Distribution 32 Habitat Selection 32 V. GRIZZLY BEAR POPULATIONS 41 Densities 41 Density Estimation 45 Reproduction 50 Age Structure 55 Mortality 56 Population Regulation 56 Population Status 58 Trend Monitoring 63 Augmentation or Reint roduct ion 63 VI. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW 66 Mortality Ouota 66 Hunting Seasons 69 Female Protection 71 Closure Authority 72 Other Regulations 73 i i i Page Hunter Surveys 73 Trophy License Summary 73 Season Setting Process 73 VII. GRIZZLY REAP MORTALITY IN THE NODE 77 Total Man-caused Mortality 77 Hunting Mortality 77 Effects of Hunting P7 Nonhunting Man-caused Mortality in the NCDF . . 92 VIII. DAMAGE CONTROL 105 IX. HUMAN INTERACTIONS 108 Habitat Encroachment 108 Fire Suppression 109 Vegetation Manipulations 109 Disturbance from Motorized Activities 110 Public Perceptions 113 X. RESEARCH PROGRAM 115 XI. ENFORCEMENT ..... 119 XII. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION 120 Statewide Activities 120 Regional Efforts 122 Results and Plans 125 XIII. RECREATION MANAGEMENT 126 XIV. LAND MANAGEMENT 127 Department Lands . 127 Established Department Policies 127 Coordination with Other Landowners 127 Northwest Power Act — Grizzly Bear Mitigation . 129 XV. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 130 XVI. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES . 1 3 2 Manaqement Alternative 1: No qrizzly bear hunting . . 133 Management Alternative 2: Grizzly bear hunting 137 Regulations ...... I44 Grizzly Bear Management Units 14P i v Page XVII. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 152 Criteria for Determining Population Status . . 153 Regulations 154 Grizzly Bear Management Units 155 Recommended Mortality Pate for the NCDE .... 156 XVIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 158 Unavoidable Environmental Effects 158 Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitment 159 Short-term and Long-term Impacts 159 Worst Case Scenario 159 Current Management Program 161 XIX. DISCUSSION OF EXTRAORDINARY CASE 163 XX. RECOMMENDATIONS 166 Habitat Preservation, Improvement, and Land Acquisition 166 Management Area Changes 166 Intensive Research 167 Population Trends 167 Damage Control 167 Mortality Reporting 167 Enforcement Efforts 168 Unreported Mortality 168 Hunter Surveys 168 Bear Relocations 168 Augmentation 169 Sale of Grizzly Bear Parts 169 Fires from Natural Causes 169 Legal Management Boundaries 169 Focus Concern for the Grizzly Bear to Other Fcosystems 170 Management Plans by Area 170 Framework for Evaluation 171 XX. LITERATURE CITED 172 APPENDICES 191 A. Grizzly Pear Policy 191 B. NCDE Management Area Boundary Description 194 C. CYE Management Area Boundary Description . 195 D. 50 CFR 17 196 E. NCDE Population Density Justifications . . 199 F. Correspondence on Bear Relocation .... 206 G. Relocation Guidelines in the NCDE .... 212 H. FWP Species Priorities 233 v I. Management Guidelines 234 J. Specific Grizzly Pear Guidelines 237 Page K. IGBC Agreement 240 L. Pear Management Unit Poundary Descriptions 246 M. Model of Sustainable Harvest Pates for Grizzly Pears 248 N. Grizzly Pear Mortality Report Form .... 260 O. Muisance/Pelocat ion Grizzly Bear Peport Form 261 ATTACHMENTS 262 vi LIST OF TABLES Page 1 Montana population, 1950-2000 23 2 Montana hunting and fishing license sales, 1950-1983 24 3 Management of the NCDE by agency and acreage ... 26 4 Recreational visitor-use days on the Flathead National Forest, 1976-1983 28 5 Visitor Days in four wilderness areas in the NCDE, 1975-1983 29 6 Visitor-use data for Glacier National Park, Montana, 1956-1984 30 7 Data on land exchanges in the NCDE 31 8 Home range size for grizzly bear in the NCDE ... 34 9 Percent of radio-fixes in each of 5 habitat component groupings by season (spring-summer/ summer-fall) 35 10 Major foods of the grizzly bear in the NCDE ... 37 11 Information on denning behavior of grizzly bears in the NCDE 39 12 Summary of spring den departure information ... 40 13 Grizzly bear density estimates for the NCDE ... 41 14 Grizzly bear density estimates from study areas in and adjacent to the NCDE 43 15 Summary of grizzly bear population densities in North America, Europe, and USSR 44 16 Re-evaluated density estimates for 3 study areas in the NCDE 4 9 17 Reproductive characteristics of North American grizzly bear populations 54 18 Age structures of North American grizzly bear populations 55 19 Mortality rate (%) in each age class for several grizzly bear populations in North America .... 57 vi i Page 20 Composition of total mortality in the entire NCDE and within ]0 miles of Glacier National Park, 1970-1984 58 21 Recommended and reported grizzly bea r mortal ity rates 68 22 North American grizzly bear hunting seasons for 1984 69 23 Summary of weekly hunter harvest of grizzlybears in northwestern Montana, 1967-1984 70 24 Summary of protection provided female grizzlies in states and provinces withcurrent or historic grizzly bear hunting seasons 72 25 Summary of total known mortality of qrizzly bears in the NCDE, 1967-1984 . 78 26 Distribution of hunting mortality by hunting district, 1973-1984 .... 87 27 Mean age of grizzly bears harvested from the NCDE, Alaska , and British Columbia, 1969-1984 89 28 Grizzly bear hunter success for the NCDE, 1967-1984 90 29 Number of elk hunters, days afield, and grizzly licenses sold (1 97 1-1 9 83 ) 91 30 Human injuries resulting from bears 93 31 Categories of known man-caused, nonhunting mortality in the NCDE, 1975-1984 98 32 Data on the fate of radio-instrumented grizzly bears from four areas of the NCDE 101 33 Data from instrumented grizzly bears used to project the annual rate of unreported man-caused mortality 102 34 Summary of average annual man-caused mortality in the NCDE, 1975-1984 . . 104 35 Hunter kills and total known mortality within 18 miles of roads in the NCDE, 1970-1984 112 36 Montana grizzly bear license receipts, 1983 and 1984 116 v i i i Page 37 Observed changes in simulated grizzly bear populations subjected to variable annual mortality 162 i x LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 Present range of the grizzly bear in North America 3 2 Grizzly bear ecosystems in the continental United States 4 3 Grizzly bear management area for the NCDE 11 4 Grizzly bear management area for the CYE 12 5 Habitat regions in the CYE IP 6 Habitat regions in the NCDE 19 7 Grizzly bear density estimates in the NCDE .... 42 8 Composite home range map from the Rocky Mountain East Front (Aune et al. 1983) 51 9 Composite home range map from the South Fork of the Flathead Fiver (Mace and Jonkel 1980) 52 10 Composite home range map from the Mission Mountains (Servheen 1981) 53 11 Grizzly bear sightings in the CYE, 1950-1984 ... 62 12 Area in which the annual mortality quota of 25 applies ...... 67 13 Grizzly bear hunting district boundaries in the NCDE 7 4 14 Grizzly bear license sales in Montana, 1967-1984 . 75 15 Total known mortality of grizzly bears by type in the NCDE 1967-1984 79 16 Total known mortality of grizzly bears by sex in the NCDE, 1967-19 84 80 17 Distribution of age of female grizzly bears in total known mortality in the NCDE, 1970-1984 ... 81 18 Distribution of age of male grizzly bears in total known mortality in the NCDE, 1970-1984 82 19 Hunter harvest of grizzly bears bv sex in the NCDE, 1967-1984 P3 20 Hunter harvest of grizzly bears by age class in the NCDE, 1967-1984 x Page 2.1 Distribution of age of female qrizzly bears in the hunter harvest in the NCDF, 1 968-1984 ... 85 22 Distribution of age of male grizzly bears in the hunter harvest in the NCDE, 1968-1984 86 23 Location of nonhunting kills of grizzly bears in the NCDF, 1970-19P4 94 24 Distribution of age of male grizzly bears in nonhunting mortality in the NCDE, 1968-1984 .... 96 25 Distribution of age of female grizzly bears in nonhunting mortality in the NCDE, 196 8-1984 .... 97 26 Median age of grizzly bears harvested in wilderness and nonwi lde rness hunting districts in the NCDE, 1973-1984 103 27 Location of hunter kills of grizzly bears in the NCDF, 1970-1984 Ill 28 Two grizzly bear management units in the NCDF divided by the Continental Divide 150 29 Crizzly bear management units divided into ecologically similar units 151 x i I. INTRODUCTION Durinq the 1960s, a wave of environmental awareness o wept our nation. This awareness grew from the realization that our natural resources were finite and connected eco- logically, geographically, economically, socially, and politically. The use and development of some of our natural resources had an impact on the abundance and condition of other natural resources. People throughout the country developed a protective attitude toward our air, water, and soils. The condition of our wildlife resources was used as an overall indicator of environmental health and became the focus of this new-found interest in conservation. A long debate arose concerning the role of government in protecting rare animals, especially those threatened by human activities. The result was the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, the Endangered Species Conser- vation Act of 1969, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Most states, including Montana, followed in the 1970s with endangered species legislation of their own. The grizzly bear (tjrsus a rctgs) , Montana's state animal, was placed on the Endangered Species Act threatened species list in 1975. This status mandates special management actions to ensure its survival and enhancement of its habitat . This environmental impact statement (EIS) is designed to assemble in one document all of the information relevant to the State of Montana's grizzly bear management program in northwestern Montana. This EIS summarizes the information on the grizzly bear and its habitat in northwestern Montana. It summarizes the current grizzly management program and the legal, biologi- cal, political, and philosophical arguments on which that management program is based. The history of the program's evolution and the state's goals and management objectives are detailed. Future management is addressed, and possible alternatives and their impacts are explained. The objectives of the EIS are to: 1) give a comprehen- sive presentation of the subject, 2) review the many variables involved, 3) develop a framework for review of alternatives, and 4) through public discussion, weigh the merits and impacts of various alternatives and select a program for better future grizzly bear management. A. Historical Perspective The Eurasian brown bear and the North American grizzly are considered the same species (y_rsus arctos) (Herrero 1972). Current theory holds that this species developed its large size, aggressive temperament, flexible feeding habits, and adaptive nature in response to habitats created by intermittent glaciation. It is believed that ancestors of the grizzly bear migrated from Siberia across a land bridge at the Bering Strait at least 50,000 years ago. As the continental ice sheet receded about 10,000 years ago, the species began to work its way south over post glacial North America . European explorers found grizzlies throughout most of the American West, including northern Mexico. It is not known exactly how many grizzlies lived in the U.S. before 1700, but based on historical sightings and modern-day den- sities, it is estimated that around 100,000 bears lived in parts of 17 states. Almost without exception, bear numbers declined where man and bear came together for any length of time. The decline of the grizzly took less than 60 years, from the end of the trapping era in 1840 to the turn of the century. The decline was due to a number of things, including a reduction of prey because of market hunting associated with gold exploration and mining, construction of railroads, home- steading, predator control, and loss of habitat related to ranching, farming, and human settlement. Much of the killing was based on the notion that the grizzly bear posed a constant threat to people and livestock, and was incom- patible with human activity. Grizzlies were gone from west coast beaches by the 1870s, and gone from prairie river bottoms in the 1880s. Py the turn of the century, they had disappeared from most broad, open mountain valleys. Fifteen years later most foot- hill country lacked grizzlies. Grizzlies were last docu- mented in Texas in 1890; North Dakota in 1897; California in 1922; Utah in 1923; Oregon and New Mexico in 1931; Arizona in 1935; and Colorado in 1979. The present range of the grizzly is shown in Figure 1. In the U.S., outside of Alaska, the grizzly survives in six ecosystems (Fig. 2): 1) in and adjacent to Yellowstone National Park; 2) Glacier National Park and the wilderness areas and associated lands south to the Blackfoot drainage and northwest to the Kootenai drainage; 3) the Cabinet Mountains and Yaak Piver drainage in the northwest corner of Montana; 4) the Pitterroot Mountains and associated wilder- ness lands north to the Salmon Piver and west to the Selway drainage in northcentral Idaho; 5) the Selkirk Mountains in northeast Washington and the panhandle of Idaho; and 6) the 2 GRIZZLY BEAR RANGE Historical distribut.cn Present distribution I I Figure northern edge of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington . P. Circumstances Leading to the Programmatic FIS The degree of protection and the sophistication of management practices has grown steadily. In the 1960s, the importance of protecting fish and wildlife habitat began to emerge as a key public issue in wildlife management. Through all of the previous years, wildlife conservation was the goal, and was sought through the restriction and regu- lation of hunters and fishermen. Although effective, regu- lations and laws fail to address a more fundamental issue: the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. Habitat protection under state authority began with stream preservation in the early 1940s. Generally, concern for, and protection of habitat appeared in state laws dealing with controlling natural resource development. These laws usually addressed specific resource issues such as surface mining and siting of major industrial facilities. An exception to this specific approach was the Montana Environmental Policy Act ( M EPA) which was passed in 1971. On the national level, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in 1969. MFPA, patterned closely after its federal counterpart, includes three basic parts: 1. It establishes a policy for a productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment. 2. It requires state government to coordinate state plans, functions and resources to achieve various environmental, economic and social goals. 3. It establishes that each person is entitled to a healthful environment and has a responsibility to enhance and preserve the environment. The Montana Fish and Game Commission (MFGC) adopted rules for implementing MFPA. These rules provide for the preparation and distribution of a programmatic review to evaluate a series of actions, programs or policies that affect the quality of the human environment. Grizzly bear management in Montana is being addressed within the frame- work of MFPA and its regulations. This programmatic review concerns that portion of Montana known as the "Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem" (NCDE) and the "Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem" (CYE). Hunting in general, and grizzly bear hunting in particu- lar, were addressed previously under the provisions of MEPA. One year after the passage of the Act, the "Annual Statewide Harvest of Pig Game Animals", an FIS, was written and 5 reviewed. An addendum to the hunting FIS titled, "Environ- mental Impact Statement on the Sport Hunting of the Grizzly Bear", was written and circulated for public review in July 1975. Both of these documents were written and reviewed before the adoption of the current rules. In the public review of both these documents, no comment critical of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (Department) management program was offered. In addition to these periodic environmental evaluations, the Commission holds public meetings as part of the annual season-setting process. The Commission agenda and season- setting procedure is a public process, accessible and open to new data, information, and opinion. Tentative seasons and quotas for big game are set every January and copies of those tentative recommendations are mailed to sportsmen and other interested parties. In March, a special public meeting is held and the Commission solicits public comment and suggestion. All season-setting decisions on the coming hunting season are completed by the end of August. This procedure is repeated annually. The more detailed public analysis inherent in MEPA is used periodically when the need for such analysis is evident. It is in this context that this programmatic FIS is prepared and circulated for comment . C. Ecosystems Evaluated in this EX£ Montana contains all or portions of four of the six areas identified as occupied by grizzly bears in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI 1982). Of these four, only the NCDE and CYE contain enough grizzly habitat within the state to allow for the Department program, by itself, to signifi- cantly guide the management of grizzly bear. Although Mon- tana's management program influences grizzly management in other areas (like the Yellowstone), management in those areas requires a joint effort with adjacent states. This document, therefore, describes only the Depart- ment's program as it pertains to areas in and adjacent to the NCDE and CYE in Montana. The management directions for the Selway-Bi tter root and Yellowstone grizzly bear eco- systems are not included. D. Historical Peview To properly evaluate Montana's grizzly bear management program, it is important to have some historical perspectives on past events and management actions. The outline below provides a brief review. Past actions by the Department are underlined. 1804-06 Lewis and Clark Expedition 1807 Montana's First Settlement 6 1862 Homestead Act 1872 Yellowstone Park created 1885 Peak of Cattle Boom 1889 Montana becomes a state 1905 First hunting licenses for residents 1910 Glacier National Park Created 1913 Legislation creating the Fun Piver Game Preserve 1917 Montana Fish and Qame Commission publishes an article seeking game animal status for bears 1921 {Jse of dogs to hy_nt bears piQhipited Statute against e_nticing or luring game animals is enacted 1923 Bears are declared game animals 192 9 Spotted gear Preserve formed ]930 Predator control (and use of poisons) is extensive 1936 Spotted Bear Preserve abolished 1940 First Big G_a_me manage r hired for the Montana Fish and Game Dep&rtment Bob Marshall Wilderness created 1941 Glizzly bear survey, work by Cponey (19411 Spring season on grizzlies closed Qrizzly bear season closed on the west side of the south fork of the Flathead Piyer 1947 Sun Piyer Game Range acquired Killing bear cubs or females with cubs prohibited 194 8 Regulations specifically prohibit baiting bears 1953 Grizzly bear survey work IStQckstad 1 953_,_ 195 41 1954 Surveys indicate an increase in grizzly populations lMarsha.ll 1955) ; however, the need for more accurate population trend monitoring and density estimates was docu- mented 1955 Grizzly bear season on the south fork of the Flathead Piyer reopened Qf-izzly bear s_u ryeys iMarsha.ll 1955.1 1956 QQpney H956_l reports. 43_£ grizzly in Montana outside of pa rks Rognrud 119_56_1 grimly bear suryeys 1957 Suryey for possible grizzly bear study area iQn.is_h_u.k_ and Stock stad 195.2.1 1960 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act 1964 Wilderness act passed 1967 First grizzly license sold and trophy license required Ires.id.ent license §.1 nonresident $.25.1 Mandatory reporting of gr.izz.ly kills and submission of heads and hides of harvested pears implemented 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 3 971 Grizzly license purcha_s_e date by July 1 7 E££id£nt lice.__s.__ ____£ raised to. £5 and nonresident to $35. Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) 1973 Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness created Endangered Species Act passed 197 4 Moratorium on grimly hunting in the Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly hunting season in the Cabinet-Yaak EcosYStern closed Border grizzly; project studies initiated Department grizzly bear survey in northwestern Montana IHamlin & Fris.in.a__ Ml 197 5 First environmental impact statement on Q.LLZ.Z.1.Y. be_a_r management prepared Grizzly bear listed as threatened in the lower 48 states by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Annual quota of 25 man-caused grizzly bear mortalities implemented in northwestern Montana 1976 Ea_st Front gr.iz_2.ly bear studies begun Resident license increased to _j.25__ nonresident H25 1979 Great Bear Wilderness created 19 81 Nonresident license increased to §.150 Flathead Indian Reservation grizzly bear management plan written 1982 Grizzly bear recovery plan approved Nonresident license increased to $175 Mission Mountain Wilderness created 19 83 Female subguotas established Cabinet -Ya a k grizzly study initiated 19 84 Elogra.mma.tic environmental impact statement on all aspects q_£ grizzly IBa.na_gen!ent initiated Resident licence in.crea.s_ed to ________ nonresident to _i2Q_Q. 1985 State law passed restricting sale of grizzly parts IT. DEPARTMENT GOALS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES A. Montana Fish and Qame Commission iMFCCL Policy MFGC is the policy making arm of Montana's Fish and Wildlife Program. Section 87-1-301(1), Montana Codes Annotated (MCA), requires the Commission to "set policies for the protection, preservation, and propagation of the wildlife, fish, game furbearers, waterfowl, nongame species, and endangered species of the state for the fulfillment of all other responsibilities of the Department as provided by law." This section recognizes the Commission's responsi- bility to address endangered species. The legislature has given specific policy direction to the Commission on the issue of grizzly bears. Section 87-5- 301, MCA, states: "It is hereby declared the policy of the state of Montana to protect, conserve, and manage grizzly bear as a rare species of Montana wildlife." Section 87-5-302 describes the Commission's power with regard to grizzly bears. Within this legal framework, the Commission developed a grizzly bear policy in Section 12.9.103, ARM (Appendix A). That policy addresses the need to protect grizzly habitat, the need to pursue grizzly research, the role of sport hunting and grizzly management, depredations, and the appro- priate department response to depredations, and requires compliance with federal regulations relating to grizzly bears. It is within this framework and that described by the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531, et seq.) that specific department goals for the grizzly bear are developed . P. Specific Department Goals for the Grizzly Bear 1. Department Goals To provide the people of Montana and visitors with the optimum outdoor recreational opportunities, emphasizing the tangible and intangible values of wildlife and the natural and cultural resources of authentic, scenic, historic, scientific, and archaeological significance, in a manner: a. Consistent with the capabilities and require- ments of the resources, b. Recognizing present and future human needs and desires, c. Ensuring maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. 9 2. Wildlife Program Coal To protect, perpetuate, enhance, and regulate the wise use of wildlife resources for public benefit now and in the future . 3. Grizzly Bear Management Objectives Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) To manage for a recovered grizzly bear population and maintain distribution in the management area as defined in Figure 3, and seek to maintain the habitat in a condition suitable to sustain the population (excluding Glacier National Park) at an average density between 1 bear/30 mi? to 1 bear/15mi2. NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE ECOSYSTEM (NCDE) ( EXCLUDING GLACIER NATIONAL PARK) DEPARTMENT GOAL r NUMBER OF BEARS o 2eo 540 800 BEARS/MI2 o TtTo 7^1 vio Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE) : To manage for a recovered grizzly bear popu lat ion and maintain distribution in the management area as defined in Figure 4, and seek to maintain the habitat in a condition suitable to sustain the population at an average density of 1 bear/40 mi2 to 1 bear/30 mi2. CABINET YAAK ECOSYSTEM (CYE) NUMBER OF BEARS o DEPARTMENT GOAL r —i 90 125 200 H ■ 1 (__ J BEARS/ Ml2 o UA0 1/30 ^l8 10 Figure 3. Grizzly bear management area for the NCDE. 11 Figure 4. Grizzly bear management area for the CYli. 12 Justification for these objectives comes from several sources. Shaffer (19P3) determined the minimum viable popu- lation (MVP) size (the smallest population with a 95% proba- bility of surviving at least 100 years) of grizzlies to be 50-90 bears. Data from the Yellowstone population (Craighead et al. 1974) were used to determine this minimum population size. However, Suchy et al. (19P5), also using data from the Yellowstone population, determined that the MVP varied from 40 to 125 by increasing mortality rates only slightly. Further, they reported that dropping the repro- ductive rate only 10% produced a 25-P0% increase in the MVP. When such small variations in MVP models produce such wide variation in MVP estimates, care should clearly be taken in their interpretation. Franklin (19P0) suggested that continued evolution of a population would require a minimum effective population number of at least 500. The grizzly bear recovery plan (USDI 19P2) established a goal of 560 bears for the NCDB. However, evidence exists that very small populations of grizzly bears have existed for long periods of time and remain stable. Poth (1976) reported a stable population of approximately 10 animals in Trentino, Italy since 1969. Sorenson (pers. comm., Norwegian Directorate for Wildlife and Freshwater Fish, Trondheim) stated that several distinct populations in Norway, numbering approximately 5-30 animals, have remained stable for decades following heavy hunting last century, and are now slowly increasing. Poth (1972), Elgmork (197P) and Mysterud (1977) report on small popula- tions which have existed near densely populated areas by becoming nocturnal, avoiding confrontation with humans, and withdrawing from human contact. The densities suggested as the objectives for the two ecosystems were selected because they should provide for the continued existence of populations in these ecosystems. Review of other densities reported in the literature (see Grizzly Bear Populations) for similar areas range from 1 bear/6 mi2 for good quality habitat to 1 bear/58 mi2 for more marginal habitat. Habitat in the CYE and NCDE is considered not to be of the highest quality nor of marginal quality, but is intermediate. The objective for grizzly bear density in the CYE is lower than for the NCDE. The reasons for this difference are that there are significant differences in human impacts and land use patterns between the two ecosystems (see Juris- diction and Land Use). The CYE is more heavily impacted than the NCDE. The area of the CYE (Figure 4), which the Department wishes to manage for grizzly bears, is considerably larger than that suggested by the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI 19P2). As provided in this figure, the CYE line is not a recovery line nor a management situation line. Rather, the 13 Department's management activities outside of the Recovery Area are intended to allow population interchange with Canada and management of sporadic occurrences of bears which can be expected to occur at higher population levels. C . Legal Context of Grizzly Management As noted in Section II. A., state law and the MFGC have described the state policy for grizzly bear management. In addition, a number of other specific laws address the Commission's and the Department's authority to manage grizzly bears. MCA P7-5-302 states: "The commission shall have authority to provide open and closed seasons? means of taking; shooting hours; tagging requirements for carcasses, skulls, and hides; possession limits; and requirements for transportation, exportation, and importation of grizzly bear." This section was enacted in 1969, prior to the enactment of the Endangered Species Act. In addition, grizzly bears are treated as a game animal under Montana law, Section P7-2-10K5), MCA. As such, they come under the Department's authority to establish hunting seasons, F7-1-304, MCA. Ultimately, federal law controls the Department's authority to manage grizzly bears. The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was enacted in 1973. Section 16 U.S.C. 1531, the purposes and policy statement of the Act, describes the congressional commitment to protect and conserve endangered and threatened species. The Department of Interior is authorized (16 U.S.C. 1533 [c]) to list endan- gered and threatened species. Federal regulations, 50 C.F.P. Sec. 17.11 list the grizzly as threatened in the 4P conterminous states. Prohibitions that apply to grizzlies are described in 50 C.F.F. Sec. 17.40[b] (Appendix D). Among actions allowed with regard to grizzly bears in that regulation are the taking of grizzlies in self defense, the taking of nuisance bears when it has not been reasonably possible to eliminate the threats posed by such bears by live capturing and releasing in a remote area, and the taking of bears by hunting. In addition, the regulation contains prohibitions on import and export of the bear, on the sale of unlawfully taken bears, and on the transport of bears for commercial purposes. The Endangered Species Act addressed the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Section 16 U.S.C. 1532(1) defines the terms "conserve," "conserving" and "conservation" to mean: ". . . to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which measures 14 provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping and trans- plantation, and, in the extraordinary; case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved^, may include regulated taking" (emphasis added). A recent case, Sierra Club vA Clark, F.2d , No. P4- 5042,5134 (19P5) construed 16 D.S.C. Sec. 1532(2) to mean that the Department of Interior, prior to allowing a regulated sport season on wolves, had to make a finding, supported by evidence, that wolves, a threatened species in Minnesota, were so populous as to meet the extraordinary case criteria. Pased on that case, the Department and Commission must be able to establish that grizzly bear population pressure dn an ecosystem are so extraordinary as to warrant a regulated taking, in order to justify a hunting season on grizzlies. Finally, the Endangered Species Act, through its defini- tion of "conservation," sets a clear mandate that the goal of endangered and threatened species conservation is recov- ery of the species. Likewise, a number of Federal Court decisions have held that the responsible agencies must do far more than merely avoid elimination of a protected species. Defenders of Wildlife y^ And r us , 42 f F. Supp. 167 (1977) . The Department of Interior, MFGC, and the Department have a mandate to manage the grizzly bear in a fashion best intended to assure its recovery from the status of threatened species. The Department was a cooperator in the development of the Grizzly Bear Pecovery Plan (DSDI 1982) and supports the management actions outlined in the Plan. The Department has initiated, modified and continued management activities recommended in this recovery plan. These Department activi- ties are described in this EIS. Furthermore, information presented in this FIS should serve to compliment future recovery plans. 15 III. DESCRIPTION OF 'EXISTING ENVIRONMENT A. The Natural Environment 1. Geological History The geological history of northwestern Montana has been described by Deiss (195P) and Montagne and McMannis (1961). The area has a rugqed mountain topography separated by int ermounta in valleys. The Continental Divide of the Pocky Mountain Cordillera extends through Glacier National Park south to Rogers Pass. The mountains in northwestern Montana rarely exceed 10,000 feet, not as high as those elsewhere in the Rocky Mountains. During the Proterozoic Era (approximately 600 million years ago), western North America was covered by water. Sands, silts, and clays were deposited across what is now northwestern Montana to an estimated thickness exceeding 15,000 feet. These deposits hardened and compressed into limestones, sandstones, shales, and argillites. Subseauent erosion during the Cambrian Period again reduced the area to sea level. Inland seas covered the area during the Paleozoic Era and deposited sediments known as the Cambrian, Devonian, and Mississipian rock formations. Petween 60-70 million years ago land was uplifted and tilted. Older deposits slid above younger formations and resulted in the Overthrust Pelt, a formation with oil and gas deposits. Glaciers began to carve the mountains one million years ago, forming today's U-shaped valleys, hanging valleys, cirques, and horns. 2. Climate The area is strongly influenced by maritime air masses moving east from the Pacific Ocean. Arctic air masses flow into northwestern Montana from the north. This oceanic influence decreases from north to south in northwestern Montana (Daubenmire 1969). Much of the moisture in these air masses has been depleted upon reaching the Continental Divide . For every 1000 feet in elevation, there is an average decrease in temperature of 3.5°F. This has a marked influ- ence on the length of the growing season, which varies greatly throughout the divide. The lowest temperature ever recorded in the conterminous U.S. (-70°F) was set in northwestern Montana near Rogers Pass. Conversely, most area weather stations have recorded temperatures in excess of 100°F. Such extremes, however, are unusual although the annual and daily temperature ranges are large. Mountain nights above 70°F are unusual. 16 3. Vegetation The rugged mountain topography of northwestern Montana creates complex local weather patterns and produces an array of vegetation. Relatively dry slopes occur in rain shadows, and cool, moist drainages occur in areas of high precipita- tion and cloud cover (Arno 1979). Major forest habitat types include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menz ies i i) , spruce (Pice a spp.), subalpine fir (Abies las ioca rp_a) , and western red cedar (Thuga plicata) (Pfister et al. 1977). Many plant taxa have adapted to and depend on fires. Serai vegetation forms complex mosaics throughout the area. The history and influences of fire in the northern Pocky Mountains are given by Steele (1960), Fabeck and Mutch (1973) , and Arno (19P0) . The grizzly bear management areas in northwestern Mon- tana were stratified into 6 major regions (Figs. 5 and 6) discernible on the basis of major climax forest communities, understory unions, precipitation, and landform. Region boundaries and vegetative descriptions were assessed using Arno (1979), Pfister et al. (1977), and Daubenmire (1969). Primary river drainages were considered separately because they provide unioue and superior foraging habitat for the grizzly bear. Pegion 1 Region 1 occurs in extreme northwestern Montana and includes the entire CYE. This area is under the strong influence of Pacific maritime air masses. The region experiences high precipitation, and is generally humid and cloudy (Arno 1979). Representative coniferous vegetation includes western hemlock (Tsuga_ het e rophylla ) and western red cedar. Grand fir (Abies grandis) and western white pine (PiQus monticola) are also more prominent here than in other regions of the state. The region's mildest weather conditions are in the vicinity of the Kootenai River drainage. Region 2 Arctic air masses are much more frequent here than in Region 1. As a result, the representative conifers listed for Region 1 are much less abundant and are restricted to valley bottomlands and other sheltered areas. Climax forest habitat types typical of Region 2 include Douglas fir, spruce, and subalpine fir. Ponderosa pine forests (Pinus Eon^erosa) are more common in the southern portion of this region. Extensive stands of serai lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and climax or serai Douglas fir can be found throughout the region. Region 2 extends from the western edge of the NCDF east to the Continental Divide. 17 Figure 5. Habitat regions in the CYE. 18 Figure 6. Habitat regions in the NCUE. Region 2. Region 3 is much higher in elevation and drier than the other habitat regions. This region includes much of the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat wilderness areas. Dramatic tempera- ture fluctuations and severe chinook winds influence the vegetation on the east side of the Continental Divide. Much of the precipitation moving east from the Pacific Ocean has been depleted before air masses reach the Divide. Precipi- tation also decreases in a southerly direction along the divide. Because of winter chinooks and generally lower snow- pack, this region often experiences severe drought con- ditions during the summer. Subalpine fir is the most exten- sive forest habitat type, with white-bark pine (P inus a lb i epulis ) stands dominating high elevation ridges. The most expansive areas of alpine vegetation occur in this region . Region 4 Region 4 is that area of habitat along the interface between the Rocky Mountain Cordillera and the Great Plains. This region extends from the international border south to the Rogers Pass area. This low-elevation region is a complex mosaic of grasslands, shrublands, and aspen (Populus tremuloides) grovelands. Limber pine (P inus f lex i lis) savannas are common on dry sites at low elevations. Wet seeps, bogs, marshes, and glades are especially prominent microhabitats in this region. Region 5 Region 5 lies in the southern portion of grizzly bear habitat in the NCDE. The region includes the Rattlesnake Wilderness and a narrow band south of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Many of the conspicuous p>lant taxa of the more northern and western regions are rare. Although the region is under the influence of Pacific climate, precipitation is relatively low. Tnt ermounta in forest species such as western larch (L_aiix occ iden t a_l i s ) , alpine larch ( iyallii) i ponderosa pine, and beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax) characterize this region (Arno 1979). Broad valley grass- lands dominated by bunchgrasses occur in inter mounta in valleys . Region 6 This region includes large int e rmoun t a in river flood- plains. Such river bottoms provide unique and superior foraging habitats. Vegetation composition in river flood- plains is similar among all regions. Deciduous trees and shrubs (Salix spp., Cornus spp., Alnus. spp., Populus spp., and Betula spp.) are common. Coniferous overstory is vari- able, depending on location. This region, while of utmost importance to grizzly bears, is the most limited. The North 20 Fork of the Flathead and Swan rivers are considered superior to the upper South Fork of the Flathead, Kootenai, and Clark Fork . 4. Wildlife The habitat used by the grizzly bear in northwest Mon- tana is rich in other forms of wildlife. The variety is a function of great diversity in climate, soil and topography. The abundance of many species is also a function of this diversity, but mainly is related to the unusual security of grizzly country. All ten of Montana's other big-game mammals share the grizzly's habitat. The general absence of roads, year-round residents, intensive farming, and heavy livestock use bene- fits every big-game animal. Pronghorn (Ant ilgcapra ame r icana) and woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus) occur in very small portions of the grizzly's range. Pronghorn are restricted to a small amount of prairie bordering the east front. Caribou are very rare and have been observed a few times in the last 30 years in the Whitefish Mountains and the northern edge of the Yaak dra inage . Whitetail deer (Qdocoileus virgin ianus) , elk (Cervus elaphus) , black bear (U_A amer icanus) , and mountain lions (Felis cgncglor) are found throughout grizzly country in some of the most abundant populations found anywhere in the U.S. Mule deer (0^. hemignus) are also found throughout the grizzly's range, but they prefer the drier more open country bordering the management areas. Moose (A Ices alces) , bighorn sheep (Qvis canadensis), and mountain goats (Qreomnus a me r icanus ) are found in relatively small numbers scattered in numerous drainages throughout the CYF and NCDF. In addition to the big-game animals, at least 41 other species of mammals are found in grizzly bear habitat. These include four shrews (Sorex spp.) , eight bats, three rabbits, four squirrels, two marmots (Marmgta spp.), two chipmunks (Eutamias spp.), and thirteen other rodents. The lynx (Lynx lynx), wolverine (Gulg gulg), wolf (Can is lupus) , northern bog lemming (Synagtgmyx bgreal is) , and hoary marmot (Marmgta caligata) seem to survive best in country used by the grizzly bear. All of Montana's predators and furbearers, except the least weasel (Mustela nivalis) and northern swift fox (Vulpes yelgx) , use the same habitat . The third edition (19P5) of P^D^ gkaarls Montana Bird Distributign lists 3 PI species observed in Montana. Of 21 these, 273 have been observed in the northwest corner. This is the greatest variety found anywhere in Montana. About IPO bird species breed in the area; over 120 species winter over in parts of the CYE. Our grizzly bear management areas support two endangered bird species: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Between 1,000 and 1,500 bald eagles feed along the Flathead River drainage during their fall migration and about 16 pair nest in grizzly bear management areas every spring. Peregrines are reported several times each year in the Flathead Fiver dra inage . At least 30 of Montana's P4 species of fish are found in northwestern Montana. Of this number, 23 are known to occur in grizzly bear management areas. All of the state's salmon ids, except coho (Qncorfrynchus. k is_y_tch) , are present and grizzly habitat supports some of the best bull trout (£alYa! inus malmaj , westslope cutthroat trout (£a_lmo gla_rki lew.isi) , and kokanee (0,. nerka) spawning sites in Montana. Grizzly bear habitat contains 10 of Montana's 17 species of reptiles, including at least six snakes, two turtles, and two lizards. The same country supports 10 of the state's 17 amphibian species, including five frogs, four salamanders, and one toad (Bufo boreas). B. The Human Environment 1. Social and Economic Considerations a. Population and Distribution Table 1 shows human census figures for the entire state compared with those for 14 northwestern Montana counties, including Cascade, Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, Sanders, Teton and Toole. The proportion of Montana's population in northwestern Montana was 3 P% in 1960, 42% in 1970, and 43% in 19P0. The 19P4 Census placed Montana's total population at approxi- mately P24,000. (Figures for 19P4 are unavailable by county.) Estimates of the 19P3 population indicate that 42% of Montana's population is located in northwestern Montana. Projections indicate that northwestern Montana's population will be approximately 43% of the state's total population by 1990 (Table 1). 22 Table 1. Montana Population, 1950-2000. Year State Northwestern Montana % Total Population in Popu la t ion EQBULs t ion Northwestern 1950 591,024 N/A N/A 1960 674,767 259,100 38.4 1970 694,400 294,200 42.4 19 80 786,690 340,000 43.2 19 83 816,300 345,400 42.3 1990 859,900 372,700 43.3 2000 935,600 410,000 43.8 Source: 1950-80 - MT Dept. of Commerce, Census and Economic Information Center Figures 1983 - Census and Economic Information Center; Estimates October 1984 1990-2000 - Census and Economic Information Center Pro ject ions b . Economy; 1) Timber The 1983 production of lumber, paper, and wood products in Montana was valued at $750 million. This represents 14.4% of Montana's economy. Total timber harvest in Montana in 1981 was 1,035 million board feet (MMBF), with 84% (867 MMPF) coming from northwestern counties. Lincoln, Flathead, Missoula, and Sanders counties accounted for 70% of Mon- tana's timber harvest in 1981 (Keegan et al. 1981, Montana Department of State Lands, 1982). 2) Agriculture Agriculture is Montana's number 1 industry, accounting for approximately one-third of the state's total annual income. Montana ranks second nationally in the amount of land in farms and ranches. Cash receipts from agriculture in Montana totaled over $1.8 billion in 1982, with 14 northwestern counties contributing 23% (Montana Department of Agriculture, 1984). 3) Tourism Tourism contributed $625 million to Montana's economy. Nonresident visitors totaled over 2.2 million and contri- buted $423 million to Montana's economy in 1983. North- western Montana counties which rank high include Cascade, Flathead, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Missoula, and Powell (Dailey 1984). 23 4) Peer eat ion There are 494 public recreation sites in Montana, of which two-thirds are state owned. One hundred forty-two of these sites are located within northwestern Montana. (Visi- tation figures are available only for state-owned sites.) Visitation at all Montana state-owned sites was 4,469,700 visitor days in 1PP3. Northwestern counties received 23% of this use. a. Hunting and Fishing Fifty-six percent of the total license sales in Montana in 19F3 were within northwestern Montana (Table 2). Table 2. Montana hunting and f i s h i n g license sales, 1 95 0- 19F3. Year Sales-Montana Sales -Northwestern Montana 1950 2P5,1 50 N/A 1960 375,196 N/A 1970 967,947 N/A 19P0 1,120,144 N/A 19P3 1,250,51F 697,423 5) Hydroelectric Production Fight of Montana's 22 hydroelectric plants are located in the northwest. These eight plants have a total production capacity of 1,331.3 megawatts, nearly 63% of the state's total hydroelectric capacity (Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 19P4). 6) Hydrocarbons a) Coal Coal accounted for 65% of the total energy produced in Montana in 19P2. One-quartet of the U.S. demonstrated reserve base of coal is in Montana. Tn 19P3, Montana provided 2P,660,2P4 tons of coal, with none coning from the northwest (Ibid). b) Natural Gas Natural gas accounted for 7% of the total energy produced in Montana in 19P2. The U.S. Dept. of Fnergy estimated Montana reserves at P70 billion cubic feet in 19P2. Total Montana production was 52.4 billion cubic feet in 19P3. The northwest accounted for 27% of this production (Ibid) . 24 c) Crude Oil Crude oil accounted for 22% of Montana's total energy production in 19P2. Montana reserves were estimated to be 216 million barrels in 19P2. The total amount of crude oil produced in Montana in 19P3 was 29.7 million barrels with 10% coming from the northwest (Ibid). d) Minerals Lincoln County has recently become western Montana's leading minora] producer since the mines closed in Butte. W. P. Grace Co. operates a vermiculite mine near Libby and Asarco operates a silver and copper mine near Troy, which is the nation's largest silver producer (Ibid). C. CLur isdict ion And Land Use 1 . Jur isd ict ion The grizzly bear occupies over 5.5 million acres of land in the NCDF. Grizzly bear management areas transcend federal, state, private, and corporate ownership. The U.S. Forest Service administers 63% of the ecosystem (Table 3). Four wilderness areas (the Fob Marshall, Scapegoat, Great Bear, and Mission Mountains) constitute approximately 36% of the ecosystem. The National Park Service, with adminis- trative responsibilities for Glacier National Park, controls 1 P% of the ecosystem. The Blackfeet and Confederated Sa 1 i sh/Koot ena i Peservations manage 7% of the ecosystem. Corporate owners of grizzly bear habitat include Plum Creek Inc., Champion Internationa], Montana Power Company, and Anaconda Mining Company. Private holdings are most preva- lent along the North Fork of the Flathead Fiver, and in the Swan Fiver Valley. Other private parcels occur along the Middle Fork of the Flathead Fiver and along the Focky Moun- tain Front. The area designated for grizzly bear management in the CYF is over 2.3 million acres. The U.S. Forest Service (Kootenai and Lolo National Forests) administers approxi- mately P5% of this area. Corporate ownership comprises P%, and state lands 1%. Private parcels occur primarily along the Clark Fork, Kootenai, Bull, and Yaak rivers, and comprise approximately 6% of the grizzly bear management area for the CYF. The majority of the CYF is in Montana, but is contiguous with habitat in the Panhandle National Forest of Idaho. The Cabinet Wilderness (93,7F4 acres) is approximately 4% of the management area. Numerous potential mining claims occur along the wilderness boundary. 2. Habitat Manaqement Situations The federal government has stratified grizzly bear habitat in the NCDF into 3 management situation categories 25 Table 3. Management of the NCDE by agency and acreage (USDA Forest Service, Flathead National Forest). Pe rcentage Agency or Unit Acres (thou.) of Ecosystem U.S. Forest Service Flathead 2,056 Lewis and Clark 776 I.olo 2P1 Helena 1P0 Kootenai 2Q2 Subtotal 3,500 63.0 National Park Service 1014 1P.0 Bureau of Land Management 24 0.4 Department of State Lands 196 4.0 Indian Reservation 362 7.0 Private* 454 8.0 Wilderness Acreage Bob Marshall 950 Scapegoat 240 Great Bear 709 Mission Mountains 73 * Includes private and corporate ownership. following the general methods outlined in the Management Guidelines for the Greater Yellowstone Area. Three manage- ment situations were developed, based on habitat values and grizzly bear distribution, which set the framework for land management in the NCDF. Indian reservations, state, and private lands are unstratified at present. These management situations are currently being delineated and are in the public review stage. Because private lands are not strati- fied at present, percentages of the land base for these situations do not equal 100%. Management situation 1 areas are considered the most important for recovery of the species. These areas contain important seasonal or yearlong habitats for free-ranging grizzly bears. Federal management direction will seek to minimize grizzly/human conflict and will favor the needs of the grizzly bear over land-use practices, but nuisance bears will be controlled. As currently mapped, 73% of the federal- land in the NCDF is considered management situation 1 (USDA files, Flathead National Forest). Approximately f% of the federal land in the NCDF is currently mapped as management situation 2. These a roar, lack distinct grizzly population centers and highly suitable habitat does not occur. Grizzly bears are important,, but 26 are not the primary consideration in these areas. Federal direction may maintain or improve habitat and may seek to minimize grizzly/human conflict. However, these are not the most important considerations and other land-use needs may be maintained. If future information shows that these areas are needed for recovery, then the area would be reclassified as management situation 1. Management situation 3 areas are those where grizzly bear presence is possible, but infrequent. These areas are centers of human population and development and thus grizzly bear presence is undesirable. In management situation 3 areas grizzly bear habitat maintenance or improvements are not management considerations. Grizzly bear presence and factors contributing to their presence will be discouraged. All grizzly bears frequenting an area will be controlled. Approximately 0.4% of all federa] land in the NCDE is presently considered management situation 3. 3. Changes in Land-Use Patterns Patterns of land use in the NCDE are best described in terms of major resource uses, including logging areas, recreation sites, hydroelectric developments, grazing land, and residential subdivisions, discussed below. a . Timber Resource Approximately 59% of the grizzly bear habitat adminis- tered by the U.S. Forest Service in the NCDE is on the Flathead National Forest (Table 3). Thus timber related activities on this forest are particularly relevant. To track all changes in the land base in the forest would be difficult. However, several data sets are useful. By examining the acres of the Flathead forest altered by clear- cutting and seed-tree cutting in ten-year blocks, it is possible to trace changes in grizzly bear habitat. Timber harvest greatly increased during the period from 1940 to 1979. Approximately 35,000 acres (55 mi^) were clear- cut or seed-tree cut during the period 1970-1979 (USDA Forest Service files). Since 1910, approximately 157 mi^ of timber have been cut in the Flathead using these methods. Many of the older cuts now support productive second-growth stands. Since 1910, 30,000, 27,000 and 25,000 acres have been cut from Glacier View, Swan, and Hungry Horse ranger districts, respect i vely . Of the 5,58P mi^ of nonw ilderness grizzly bear habitat in the NCDE, approximately 45% of the sections contain a road. Poad closures instituted by the U.S. Forest Service restrict traffic seasonally or permanently in 23% of these roaded, square-mile sections. 27 b. Pecreation Patterns of recreational activities for the Flathead National Forest, expressed in "Recreational Visitor Use Days" (PVUD) , are given in Table 4. These data, for the period 1976-1983, incorporate primitive, dispersed, and developed recreational use. Between 1976 and 1981, the Flathead National Forest experienced an increase in recre- ational visitor-use days. This trend appears to be reversing from 1981 to the present. Hungry Horse and Spotted Pear ranger districts receive the most recreational use. Table 4. Recreational visitor use days on the Flathead National Forest, 1976-1983. District3 1976 1977 197 8 197 9 19 80 1981 1982 1983 Hungry Horse 36b N/A 210 309 N/A 378 334 2 81 Glacier View 9 50 52 88 85 91 Swan Lake 68 132 144 125 114 107 Spotted Pear 201 200 194 2.15 138 TOTAL "113 593 705 785 748 617 * Tally Lake not included In thousands SOURCE: Flathead Nat ional Forest files Visitor-use days in the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat Wilderness areas increased during the period 1975-1980, and have gradually declined from 1981 to the present (Table 5). While dispersed recreational activities appear to be increasing within the wilderness areas over recent years (P. Lucas, pers. comm., USDA Forest and Range Experiment Station, Missoula, MT) , most activities occur along several major arteries. Since the official wilderness designation in 1979, recreational use in the Great Pear Wilderness has exceeded 20,000 visitor days per year. Glacier National Park is a focal point for recreation- ists in the NCDE. Park visitations increased from 718,938 in 1956 to over 2 million in 1983 (Table 6). 28 Table 5. Visitor Use Days in four wilderness areas in the NCDF: 1975-19P3. Visitor-Use Days3 Mission Year Bob Marshall Great Bear Scapegoat Mountains0 1975 124,700 b 15,300 3P,100 1976 142,000 41,400 47,100 1977 149,400 32,900 39,100 197 P 156,300 33,700 IP, 000 1979 156,300 22,100 36,300 19,300 19P0 166,300 23,300 48,400 13,500 19 PI 154,000 30,400 32,600 13,300 19P2 17P,200 57,300 27,900 12,500 19P3 152,300 37,600 25,950 11,900 Visitor day = 1 person for 12 hours or any combination thereof . Data not available Eastern side of wilderness only. Data from 1975-77 seem inaccurate (P. Lucas pers. comm.) SOURCE: Use of National Forest Units, National Forest Preservation System (U.S. Forest Service). c. Residential Subdivision Several areas in the NCDE contain private land where subdivision is presently occurring. Because Montana has few subdivision, zoning, or building regulations, the extent of land development in grizzly bear habitat is difficult to assess (Jonkel and Demarchi 19P4). However, the Border Grizzly Project (Jonkel 19P3b) has inventoried land owner- ship patterns and land exchanges in several areas of the NCDE. From 1950 to 19P4, a minimum of 5 P4 land parcels have been exchanged (Table 7). These parcels total 2P,477 acres (approximately 45 mi2). Of the 4 areas inventoried, 66% of the acreage sold was in the North Fork of the Flathead Piver. Private lands in these areas are located primarily in the valley bottoms and benchlands. Information obtained for the Swan Piver Valley indicates an P6% increase in housing units, and a 7 P% increase in population between the years 1970 and 19P0 (letter from Lake County Lands Services Department 19P5). Subdivision is also occurring on the Rocky Mountain East Front. Particularly relevant subdivision locations occur along the Dearborn, Sun, and Teton rivers. No systematic inventory has been conducted in this portion of the NCDE. 29 Table 6. Visitor use data for Glacier National Park, Montana, 1956-19P4. Year No. of Visitors Packcountry Camp Days 1956 71P,93P N/A 1957 759,161 ] 958 706, P4] 1959 722, 33P 1960 724, 53P 1961 739,982 1962 966,100 1963 811,214 1964 642,000 1965 847,104 907, 839 1966 1967 884,049 6,665 196 P 964,493 5,131 1969 1,051,165 6,872 1970 1 ,241,603 6,592 1971 1,303,073 24,765 1972 1,392,145 26,574 1973 1,398,958 27,538 1974 1,406,643 28,257 1975 1,571,393 24,785 1976 ] ,662,678 28,978 1977 1,656,212 30,109 197P 1,60] ,] 31 2 4,395 197 9 1,446,236 25,323 19P0 ] ,475,538 22,640 19P1 1,786,843 17,744 19P2 1 ,666,431 16,198 19P3 2,204,131 15,507 19P4 1,946,783 15,032 SOURCE: Glacier National Park files 30 Table 7. Data on land exchanges in the NCDE. Period No. of Parcels Exchanged NO. of Acres Tin Xi/^ T"»^7 hung FY HOHSE-MAFTIN CITY— COFAM-WEST GLACIER < 1 950 13 321 1 950-54 3 170 1955-59 5 23P 1960-64 1 53 1965-69 14 POO 1970-74 18 726 1975-79 29 933 1 O OO O A 1 9 P0- P4 2 c 1 , 0P5 NYACK -ESSEX -PINNACLE S 1 O C O < 1 950 7 392 T Ar ft C A 1950-54 2 P 1 O C C CO 1 5 1960-64 3 10 1965-69 5 14 1970-74 13 612 1975-79 15 345 1 9 P0- P4 9 193 BLANKENSHIP BRIDGE AREA l 1954-54 0 0 i rb d — 5 y 3 53 1960-64 6 P7P 1965-69 7 498 1970-74 7 377 1975-79 46 1,415 1 y cU- c4 1 P 497 NORTH rOPK OF FLATHEAD RIVER (EXCLUDING POLEBRIDGE) ✓ TOCO < l y du 5 196 TOCO C A 1 y 5U-5 4 6 377 1 O C C CO iy55-5y 2 260 1960-64 9 535 1965-69 40 2,990 1970-74 54 2,436 1975-79 103 3,311 19P0-P4 112 P,749 TOTAL 5P4 2P,477 Source: (Jonkel 19P3b) 31 IV. DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT SELECTION A. Distribution Grizzly bear range in northwestern Montana is continuous with Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon, Northwest Terri- tories, and Alaska (Perrero 1 9 85). Evidence is also presented by Picton (In Press) indicating a sporadically occupied corridor of habitat between the NCDE and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The present distribution of grizzly bears in northwestern Montana (Figs. 3 and 4) is a small portion of the total North American Range. It is recognized that grizzly bears are occasionally found outside of these boundaries. B. H_abita_t Selection The process of habitat selection can be described as a stratification, with an increasing number of environmental constraints being imposed upon the grizzly bear from one level to the next (Johnson 1980). These four types of selection, described below, are referred to as available habitat, home range location, habitat unit selection, and food item selection. 1. Available Habitat: In grizzly habitat not all elevational zones are avail- able to the grizzly bear in all areas. Intermounta in valleys of Montana, such as the lower South Fork of the Flathead River have been drastically altered by man, and this segment of the NCDE population now has restricted opportunity to use river floodplain vegetation. Telemetry data from the South Fork (Mace and Jonkel 19P0) showed that grizzlies occupying areas to the west of Hungry Horse Reser- voir generally do not cross the Swan Crest to use the Swan River floodplain, although they are physically able to do so. Grizzly bears do not presently use bottomlands along the main stem of the Flathead River adjacent to the Mission Mountains, as they no doubt historically had (Servheen 1981). Bears in this region now confine certain seasonal activities to the low-elevation habitat units directly abutting the mountain front. Grizzly bear distribution at low elevations along the Rocky Mountain East Front (PMEF) (Schallenberger and Jonkel 1979, Aune and Stivers 1982) is likewise restricted by human activity and habitation. The North Fork of the Flathead River presents a different picture of habitat availability. In this area grizzly bears still have the opportunity to use low eleva- tion river bottom habitat. This undoubtedly reflects the relatively low levels of human encroachment into these habitats as compared to the other areas discussed. 32 Telemetry data from all areas of Montana show that, at least seasonally, grizzly bears use the lowest elevations permitted by man. This suggests that the riparian vegeta- tion of int. ermounta in valleys is of special seasonal impor- tance to bears. Analyses (Craighead et al., 1982) show the value of low-elevation habitats to the grizzly bear. Habi- tat analyses were divided into 3 climactic zones. The "temperate zone" (the lowest elevations) was found to have the highest habitat index of all. Craighead et al. (19P2) also found that the "subalpine zone" ranked higher than the "alpine zone", and concluded that "the plant energy resource of the subalpine zone is three to four times as great as the alpine zone, and thus is more critical to the welfare and survival of the grizzly bear." Thus, it may be assumed that maximum numbers of the grizzly bear can only be maintained if the species continues to have the opportunity to use both the temperate and subalpine climatic zones. Unfortunately, these 2 zones are highly used by man as well. 2. Pome Range Location Telemetry data (P. McLellan, pers. comm. University of Pritish Columbia, Vancouver; Servheen 19P1, Aune and Stivers 19P2) suggest that two home-range selection patterns exist in local population segments, those being: 1) some indi- vidual animals live almost exclusively (except for denning) in low-elevation habitats, and 2) other individuals maintain home ranges in more mountainous ("remote") locations. The extent of this latter pattern is unclear because most trapping efforts to date have taken place at lower elevations . There is evidence that grizzly bear reproductive success is tied to elevation. Preliminary data (McLellan, pers. comm.) show that adult females with established home ranges in low-elevation flood plain habitats have larger litters than females living in upper-elevation mountainous areas. If this finding holds for all areas with river flood plain habitat, then grizzly bear productivity in a given area may be determined primarily by the availability of lowland habitats . Crizzly bears are solitary animals. With the exception of family units and during the breeding season. However, a grizzly bear "society" does exist in a given area, and its members interact. The species has a highly developed behavioral hierarchy that tends to determine the distribu- tion and habitat-use patterns of individual bears. For black bears, displacement and dispersal of certain age and sex classes are keyed to both habitat, quality and behavioral interaction (Rogers 1977). Male grizzly bears generally have larger annual home ranges than females (Table P) . Home range sizes for all age and sex classes are larger in the Fast Front than other Table 8. Home range size for grizzly bears in the MT)F. South Fork Forth Fork Flathead Flathead River1- Fiver5 Fast Front3 Missions Age/Sex Class X SD N X SD N X SD N X SD N Adult Male 119 66 4 162 71 .6 7 213 44 4 236 167 2 Subadult Male 95 47 5 62.5 7.1 2 496 337 4 Mult Female 40 0 1 65 54 7 ]60 75 9 1]4 9P 2 Subadult Female 36 0 1 19 0 2 317 27 4 34 0 1 ^Mace & Jonkel (1979, 1980) JKLellan & Jonkel (1980) ^Aune 19P5, Aune et al. (19P4) 4Servheen (1981) areas. The species is not considered territorial as temporal and spacial overlap has been frequently observed. Within the limits of topographic opportunity, there are also constraints imposed by the seasonal availability of food. Thus, the home range of a grizzly bear may be com- posed of several, seasonally-separated ranges. While grizzlies may be found at many elevations, and in all available habitats, certain sites are preferred over others (Jonkel 1983b). The location of these seasonal ranges has been tied to the distribution and phenological stages of preferred food plants, and the distribution of prey and carrion (Pearson 1975, Pussell et al. 1979, Servheen 198], Craighead et al. 1982, Aune and Stivers 1982, Pamer and Ferrero 1983, Knight et al. 1984). 3. Habitat Unit Selection Specific habitat units selected by grizzly bears have been described both seasonally and annually for several areas of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Regional variation in habitat component use is a reflection of variable climate, landform structure, and human land-use patterns. These regional differences in habitat selection are closely reflected in the food habits data (Mace and Jonkel, In Press) . Statistical analyses of habitat use and habitat avail- ability have been conducted at the habitat component or cover type level in the South Fork of the Flathead Piver (Zager 1980), in the Mission Mountains (Servheen 1981), and in Yellowstone National Park (Knight et al. ]984). Habitat 34 use but not availability has been examined by McLellan and Jonkel (1980), the Border Grizzly Project (Jonkel 19P3), Aune et al. (1984), and by Kasworm (pers. comm., Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Kalispell). Several patterns in grizzly bear habitat-use arise from these analyses. It is possible to describe between 74 and 93% of all seasonal habitat use in terms of only 5 component groupings. In other words, although grizzlies use many habitat units throughout the year, only 5 appear to be disproportionately important in all areas studied. The data provided by the above authors were stratified by 2 seasons: spring-early summer and late summer-autumn (Table 9). Habitat use and habitat availability data are given by Servheen (1981) and Zager (1980). Table 9. Percentage of radio-fixes in each of 5 habitat component groupings by season (spring-summer/summer-fall). Timbe r Mes i c Site1 Po Trz Burn Talus Total Fast Front 32/46 22/13 30/26 0/8 84/93 South Fork 26/25 60/21 0/31 86/77 Miss ion 50/28 32/50 0/2 0/6 82/86 Mounta ins North Fork3 41m oai Z4/88 Average 35/41 39/24 30/26 0/15 0/7 82/86 l=includes swamps, seeps, creek bottoms, avalanche chutes 2=Populus tremulgides stands 3=from Pockwell et al. (1978). That habitat components not listed (Table 9) are unimportant to the grizzly bear is not suggested. However, these data do show that there are specific components impor- tant to bears in all regions, and these are timber, mesic sites, and burn shrubfields. The aspen component, espe- cially important in the East Front, is an ephemerally mesic component. Shrubfields created and maintained by natural fire are of great importance to grizzly bears throughout their range in Montana, because they produce high-energy fruits (Martin 1979). The mosaic of habitats produced by fire are felt to maintain optimum grizzly bear habitat (Schall enberger 1974, Martinka 1976, Pussell et al. 1979, Zager 1980). With current aggressive fire suppression, grizzly bear habitat, especially in the wilderness areas, will continue to degrade. Grizzly bears occasionally use areas altered by timber harvest but do not show a preference for them (Zager 1980). 35 Most timber harvest in the NCDF occurred in the 1960s and as such most cuts are only a few decades old. It is probable that as these cuts age, increased grizzly use will occur. Habitat quality has been assessed subjectively in several areas. Unfortunately, areas having the largest habitat data bases lack specific grizzly bear habitat-use information. Craighead et al. (19F2) provided detailed habitat quality evaluations for "ecological land units" in the alpine and subalpine ?,one of the Scapegoat Wilderness. The habitat quality rankings were based on random samples of habitat, chemical evaluation of food quality, and acreages of each ecological land unit. They further stratified habi- tat quality by 3 climactic zones. Mace (19F4) evaluated grizzly bear habitat components in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. Tn his analysis, habitat components were stratified by major "vegetation type". Fach of 2P vegetation types was then evaluated for seasonal forage (habitat) quality using food coverage values and preference ranks. Habitat component ratings were also developed for the Rattlesnake Wilderness Area by Tirmenstein (19P3). Habitat quality ratings using LAND SAT technology are being investigated in Glacier National Park (Martinka and Kendall, Tn Prep.). Craighead et al. (1982) outlined and discussed 7 essential environmental habitat characteristics, those being: space, isolation, sanitation, food, denning, vegetation types, and safety. 4. Food Selection: The grizzly bear forages on a wide variety of plant and animal species. Specific food items vary geographically (Servheen and Wo jciechowski 197P, Mace and Jonkel, Tn Press) and among individuals. Individual variation in diet can be attributed to preference and availability of items. Two major grizzly bear nutrient regimes are present within the NCDE with the Continental Divide separating them. Fach regime contains certain nutrients from which bears obtain most of their energy. East of the Divide and south into Yellowstone National Park, underground roots, tubers, berries, and bulbs are important as are the nuts of white- bark pine (Pinus a Ibicauiis) . West of the Divide, energy from fruit sugar is most important. While the grizzly bear may eat a wide variety of foods, several are disproportion- ately preferred over others (Mace and Jonkel 19P3, Knight et al. 1984) (Table 10). It is these major diet items that are most likely to explain habitat-use patterns. 5. Denning Fcology Grizzly bears in general spend from 5 to 6 months in winter dens (Nelson et al. 19P3). Den sites are usually in mountainous terrain above 6,600 ft. (Jonkel 19P3, 36 Table 10. Major foods of the grizzly bear in the NCDE. »r ; Name Part consumed Season0 Location s,sum, f Angelica spp. stems, leaves s , sum all Astragalus spp. roots s , sum, f 1 Qlaytonia spp. bulb s , sum, f all Eguis_etum spp. f ol iage s,sum, f all Liyth ron ium spp. corm s 1,2 F raga r ia spp. foliage, fruit s,sum, f all Fedysa rum spp. roots s,f 1 He ra_cleum lana t urn stems, leaves s , sum 1,2, 3, 4 Ligust icum spp. stems, leaves s , sum 1,2, 3, A Lorna t ium spp. roots sum, f 1,2, 3, 4, 5,6 Osmorhiza spp. stems, leaves s, sum 1,2, 3, 4 Qxyt rgpis spp. roots s,f 1 Pinus albicaulis nuts s,f 3,5, 6 Trifolium spp. f ol iage s , sum, f 1,2, 3, 4, 5 Ta_raxa.cu.in spp. f ol iage s, sum, f 1,2, 3, 4, 5 Amelanchier spp. fruit sum, f 1,2, 3, 4 Cornus stolonifera f ruit sum, f 1,2 Prunus spp. fruit sum, f 3 Fhamnus alnifolia fruit sum, f 1 Shepherd ia spp. f ruit sum, f 1,2, 3 Malus spp. fruit sum, f 4 Yaccinium globulare fruit sum, f all scgparium fruit sum, f 5 Grasses f ol iage s,sum, f all Animal matter meat s,f all s=spring, sum=summer, f=fall l=North Fork Flathead Piver (Mace and Jonkel In Press, McLellan 1982) 2=South Fork Flathead Piver (Mace and Jonkel In press) 3=Fast Front (Aune and Stivers 19P2) 4=Mission Mountains (Servheen 19P1) 5=Yellowstone National Park (Knight et al. 19P4) 6=Scapegoat Wilderness (Craighead et al. 1982) Servheen and Klaver 1983, Aune et al. 1984). Grizzly bears generally den from mid October to late November and leave the den in April or May of the following year. Grizzlies generally remain in the vicinity of the den for at least 1 week before seeking spring foods at lower elevations. Pesearch has shown that reproductive status and sex play a role in the time of den emergence (Craighead and Craighead 1972, Vroom et al. 1980). However, considerable variation among individuals occurs in all areas. 37 Data on the denning ecology of grizzlies in 2 areas of Montana are presented in Table 11. Of particular interest from a management perspective are the approximate dates when barren females, and those with young, leave the denning area in the spring. Information from the FMEF (Aune et al. 1984) and from the Mission Mountains (Servheen and Klaver 1983) show that females with young leave the denning area at ]ess predictable times than other age or sex classes (Table 12). 38 Table ]1. Information on denning behavior of grizzly bears in the NCDE. Reproductive Date of move- Date of move- Sex Agea status ment to den ment from den MISSION MOUNTAINS (Servheen and Klaver 1983) : F 14 s 11-15 < 3-31 F 15 P 10-14 5-4 F 16 W/Y 11-6 F 7 W/Y 10-10 5-4 F 8 W/Y 11-1 F CUP 11-15 4-4 F 1 11-8 F 2 11-19 F 2 11-8 F 9 S 11-17 ■ EASTFFN POCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT (Aune et al. 1984) : F 10 W/Y 11-18 3-2 8 F 19 W/Y 11-20 5-13 M 6 S < 10-6 4-7 F 11 P 11-13 4-2 8 F 20 P 11-22 5-15 F 3 10-30 4-19 F 7 s 10-2 8 4-2 M 3 11-8 4-27 F 21 W/Y 11-4 4-13 F 12 W/Y 11-4 3-26 F 8 P 10-25 4-18 F 4 S 11-2 4-21 M 2 s 11-5 4-1 8 F 10 W/Y 11-19 4-13 F 13 S 10-6 4-23 F 5 W/Y 10-12 4-11 F 2 S 10-12 4-30 F 22 W/Y 10-30 4-18 F 4 W/Y 10-30 5-4 F 9 S 11-3 3-27 M 7 S 11-28 4-9 M 4 S 11-22 4-21 M SA S 4-8 F 6 W/Y 4-1 F 24 W/Y 4-30 F A S 5-4 F A W/Y 4-30 F SA < 4-8 M A S 4-11 M SA s < 4-8 M A s 4-26 M SA s < 4-8 a: SA=Subadult, A=Adult b: S=solitaryr P=pregnant upon den entry-with cubs upon den emergence, W/Y=with young. 39 Table 12. A summary of spring den departure information9. Population Average Range Standard segment Date in Date Deviation Females with young: (n=17) 20 Apr il 26 March-15 May 15.7 Solitary females (n=7) IP April 27 Ma rch-4 May ] 3.3 Males (n = P) 16 Apr il 7 April-27 Apr il e.5 All females (n=24) 19 April 26 March-15 May 14.6 aData from Servheen and Klaver (19P3), and Aune et al. (19P4) 40 V. GRIZZLY BEAR POPULATIONS A. Densities Estimated ranges of grizzly bear densities (mi^/bear) in the NCDE for 12 units (Fig. 7) were based on similarity in habitat-use patterns, mortality patterns, home-range size and overlap, levels of human activity and encroachment, pooled expertise from professional biologists, and other factors (Appendix E). These estimates (Table 13) were developed utilizing known minimum densities from five study areas (Table 14, Fig. 7) within and adjacent to the eco- system and applying them to larger areas. Reynolds and Hechtel (19P0) reported that extrapolations of bear densi- ties from areas and habitats of intensive study give the best population estimates. Others (Zunino and Herrero 1972; Martinka 1974; Pearson 1975; Lortie 197P; Miller and Ballard 1982; Tompa 1984; van Drimmelen 1984) estimate population numbers using data extrapolated from intensive study areas. This procedure is widely used for other species (Schemnitz 1980). In areas where direct extrapolation was judged to be inappropriate based on habitat, human impacts, and pooled expertise of other professionals, we applied a lower conser- vative density. Table 15 compares our estimate of minimum density with those from other populations. Table 13. Grizzly bear density estimates for the NCDE. UNIT AREA DENSITY NUMBER (mi.2) lmiA-Zbear2. Min. Low High Low High Glacier National Park 1583 8 8 6 193 264 Red Meadow 215 15 10 14 22 Whitef ish 831 25 18 33 46 St. Mary 211 20 10 11 21 Badger-Two Medicine 323 20 16 16 20 Swan Front 7 80 30 20 26 39 South Fork 1624 19 15 10 108 160 East Front 1119 22 18 12 62 93 Mission Mountains 1044 56 45 25 23 42 Scapegoat 1903 28 30 18 63 106 TOTALS 9633 18 12 549 813 TOTAL 8050 23 15 356 549 (excluding Glacier National Park) a These densities are those reported in the literature or from re-evaluated data from research studies (Appendix E) . 41 GRIZZLY BEAR DENSITIES NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE AfltA. FLATHEAD RIVER B.C. RED MEADOW WHITEHSH GLACIER NATIONAL PARK BADGER • TWO MEDICINE SOUTH FORK EAST FRONT SWAN FRONT DENSITY NO. OF BEARS 1/6 - 3 M|2 27 - 42 1/15 -10 Ml2 14 - 22 1/2S- 18 M|2 33 - 46 1/8-6M|2 183 - 264 1/20-10 M|2 11 - 21 1/20 - 16 M|2 16 - 20 1/15 - 10 Ml2 108-160 1/18-12 Ml2 62 - 93 1/30 - 20 MI2 26 - 39 1/45 - 25 Ml2 23 - 42 1/30- 18M|2 63 - 106 CHOTEAU POLSON Q Occupied Grizzly Habitat [ I Intone! ve Study Araa MISSOULA Figure 7. Grizzly bear density estimates in the NCDE . 42 Table 14. Grizzly bear density estimates from study areas in and adjacent to the NCDE. UNIT AREA DENSITY NUMBER (mi. ) (mi./bear) Glacier National Park (Martinka 1974) Rocky Mtn. East Front (Aune et al. 1984) Mission Mtns. (Servheen 1981) South Fork (Mace and Jonkel 1980) Flathead River, British Columbia (McClellan 1984) 1583 689 301 128 163 8 193 11.5-22.2 31-60 19 16 10 13 3.4-6.0 27-42 Kasworm (1985) estimated a density of 1/17 mi^ for a small study area (Fig. 4) in the Montana portion of the CYE. However, sufficient information is not available to allow extrapolating this density to a larger area. Comments received on the preliminary draft EIS suggest that the intensive study areas from which density estimates were obtained are not representative of the ecosystem and were pre-selected because of unusually high numbers of grizzly bears. This, however, does not appear to be the case . The grizzly bear research study on the East Front (Aune 1985) was pre-selected to investigate the impacts of oil and gas exploration. The South Fork of the Flathead study area (Joslin et al. 1977) was pre-selected to investigate grizzly bear-timber harvest relationships. For the Mission Moun- tains, Servheen (1981) states: "The Mission Mountains in western Montana were chosen for this study because of recurring man-bear habitat conflicts in low elevation areas on both sides of the range, and increasing forest management activities affecting habitat quality and availability." Martinka (1974) used a representative study area in Glacier National Park to extrapolate to the remainder of the Park. McLellan's (1984) study area in British Columbia was pre-selected to complement Border Grizzly Project studies in the adjacent United States. 43 Table 15. Summary of grizzly bear population densities in North America, Europe, and USSR. DENSITY (mi2/bear) LOCATION REFERENCE 11.5-22.2 Rocky Nitn. East Front (NTT) Aune et a] . (1984) 19.0 M-joc-ion Monnta inc; (WT) Se rvheen ( ] 9 81 ) 3.9-6.0 Flathead River (PC) McClellan (1984) P. 2 Glacier National Park (NTT) Martinka (1974) 7.0-11.0 Glacier National Park (PC) Mundy and Flook (1973) 31.0-58.0 Yellowstone National Park Craighead et al. (1974) 33.0-39.2 Jasper Natl. Park (Alberta) Russell et al. (1979) 30.5-46.5 Banff Natl. Park (Alberta) Vroom (1974) 40.2-53.7 Swan Hills (Alberta) Nagy and Russell (1978) 8.8-10.5 Southwest Yukon Pearson (1975) 18.5 Northern Yukon Pearson (1976) 9.3-14.7 Mt. McKinley Natl. Park Dean (1976) 0.6 Kodiak Island, Alaska Troyer and Hensel (1964) 16.6 Western Brooks Ranqe (AK) Reynolds and Hechtel (1980) 57.0 Eastern Brooks Range (AK) Curat olo and Moore (1975) 110.0 Central Brooks Range (AK) Crook (1972) 39.0 Southern Norway Elgmork (1978) 2.0 Abruzzo Natl. Park (Italy) Zunino and Herrero (1972) 3.9 Northeast Siberia (USSR) Kistchinski (1972) 6.4 Kamchatka Peninsula (USSR) Ostroumov (1968) 44 There is no doubt that researchers in each area attempted to maximize capture success within each pre- determined area. This was usually accomplished by placing snares in the highest quality habitat within the study area. If these study areas had been selected based on high grizzly bear density, such a procedure would lend credi- bility to research and management's ability to make correct judgements on relative density and habitat quality in the absence of intensive research. If not, they may be considered representative of the NCDE. P. Density Estimation 1. Literature Review A review of 15 grizzly/brown bear density estimation procedures revealed that basically six methods have been used with some modifications to a few. Two studies (Zuinino and Herrero 1972, Flgmork 1978) have calculated densities based on a predefined study area and a population estimate derived from signs of bear presence. Two other studies (Dean 1976, Martinka 1974) employed a method which again involved use of a predefined study area and a population estimate based on unduplicated sightings of individual bears and family groups. One study (Troyer and Hensel 1964) used a census of bears employing the Schnabel technique (marked to unmarked animals) to estimate population size in a prede- fined study area. Miller and Ballard (1982) employed the Peterson Index (mark recapture) for a predefined search area (study area) following an experimental bear removal project. They adjusted the population estimate to reflect unequal capture probability of females with cubs and an unrepresen- tative sample of cubs. They did not employ the boundary strip (Otis et al. 1978) assuming instead that for each bear captured with a portion of its range outside the study area there was a bear not captured outside the study area with a portion of its range within the area. Five of the 15 studies reviewed (Russell et al. 1979; Pearson 1975, 1976; Curatolo and Moore 1975, and Servheen 1981) employed a technique using a predefined study area and a population estimate for the area including only marked and identifiable unmarked bears. Pearson (1976) differed from this only in that he used a known number of females and an assumed sex ratio of 50:50 to estimate the number of males. Reynolds and Hechtel (1980) used the same technique as these previous 5 studies with a modification. They subtracted from their population estimate the number of bears equal to the number of average home ranges derived from the portions of bear's home ranges that were outside the study area. One study (McLellan 1984) used only marked bears to determine population size for an area defined by the core area used by the marked bears. Only two of the 15 studies (Aune et al. 1984, Mace and Jonkel 1980) employed the technique of using 45 the composite home range of marked bears and a population based on marked and identifiable unmarked bears. In summary, only 2 (Troyer and Hensel 1964, Miller and Ballard 1982) of 15 studies employed formal estimation techniques and both studies were in high density areas. Four studies (Martinka 1974, Dean 1976, Flgmork 1978, Zuinino and Herrero 1972) employed population estimates based simply on either sign of bear presence or unduplicated sightings. Only one study (McLellan 19F4) used only marked bears to determine population size. Ten (Aune et al. 1984; Mace and Jonkel 1980; Curatolo and Moore 1975; Servheen 1981; Reynolds and Hechtel 1980; Miller and Fallard 1982; Russell et al. 1979; Pearson 1975, 1976; Troyer and Fensel 1964) of the 15 studies used marked and identifiable unmarked bears to determine population size. In 80% (12 of 15) of the studies researchers used a study area defined at the initiation of the study. 2. Systematic Estimation Techniques Commentary received on the preliminary draft of this EIS suggested that alternative density estimation techniques were more applicable. These suggested techniques have generally not been applied by bear researchers because they apply to closed populations (Caughley 1977, Otis et al. 197 8), DeMaster et al. 1980, Furnell and Schweinsburg 1984, Seber 1982). Closed population estimation usually involves the use of the Peterson estimate (mark-recapture) described by the above authors. This technique yields an accurate result only when the following four assumptions are met (Caughley 1977, p. 142): 1) the probability of capturing an individual is the same for all individuals in the popula- tion, 2) no animal is born or immigrates to the study area between marking and recapturing, 3) marked and unmarked individuals die or leave the area at the same rate, and 4) no marks are lost. Another underlying assumption of this technique is that trapping and observation are done in a systematic or random manner. Otis et al. (1978) reported that if recruitment and mortality occur during a study, the population estimate will be too high, and that any violation of the closure assumption biases the estimators they present. They further reported that estimators are significantly biased if the equal capture probability assumption is violated. DeMaster et al. ] 9 80 reported that the estimation technique they described and used (also used by Furnel] and Schweinsburg [1984]), results in imprecise estimates with sample sizes of less than 50, but is more precise with sample sizes above 150, given a proportion of marked animals in the population of between 0.1 and 0.2. Techniques described by Caughley (1977), Otis et a]. 46 (197P) and Seber (19P2) also require adding a boundary strip of 1/2 the average home range diameter to the area used by the estimated number of animals in a study area. This reduces the density estimate in an attempt to account for areas used by animals that are beyond study area boundaries. This technique also requires two assumptions: 1) the popula- tion has constant density, and 2) the range of movement is not too variable so that the average home range diameter is constant over the population area. Seber (1982) states, however, that "any marked departures from [these two assumptions] will lead to wide fluctuations in the estimates of [density and average home range diameter]". Strandgaard (1967) suggested that to use the Peterson estimate for roe deer (Capreolus capreglus) it is necessary to capture and mark at least 67% of a population to be sure that the sample is representative of the population. Begon (19P3) in a review of the uses of mathematical techniques in ecology, stated "It seems clear, therefore, that mathemati- cal sophistication does not, in itself, guarantee the practical utility of an ecological technique." He further indicated that the problems of population estimation using mathematical techniques will only be solved by "(a) studies that are so soundly based on an understanding of the study animal's biology that the assumptions are only marginally violated; (b) methods that are designed by statisticians to be robust in the face of violations which prove to be unavoidable; and (c) ecologists who are aware of the problem. Such sentiments are surely not applicable only to capture-recapture techniques." It has also been suggested in commentary on the preliminary draft of this EIS that statistical confidence intervals be calculated for our NCDE population estimate as well as for the five study areas. However, to place such intervals on the estimates also requires that several assumptions be met. Caughley (1977 p. 33) states: "Many books on sampling warn that the estimate of confidence limits from sampled counts is valid only when samples are taken at random. And so it is, within the restricted definition of "valid" favored by statisticians. A statisti- cal conclusion is valid only when the data on which it is based were collected according to the axioms underlying the appropriate statistical model. Axioms such as the normal distribution of variables, independence of observations and randomness of sampling underly most statistical tests, and on most occasions that these tests are used the axioms are violated, sometimes slightly, sometimes grievously." Of the five intensive studies within or adjacent to the NCDE, none employed a systematic or random population estimating procedure. In developing the population estimate for the entire NCDE, we applied densities to nine units based on density estimates from the five intensive study areas and iudgement of the factors discussed in Appendix E. 47 Therefore, it would be inappropriate and is not possible to derive statistical confidence limits for this estimate. Methods used by the original researchers from the five study areas within or adjacent to the NCDE, although not systematic, do require some assumptions: 1) if only marked bears are used then every bear has been marked, 2) all areas used by marked bears are accounted for, 3) if observed unmarked bears are included then all bears have been marked or observed, and 4) al] unmarked bears stayed within areas used by marked bears. As most assumptions for the systematic techniques discussed above can not be met for grizzly bears, neither are the above assumptions realistic. Certainly not al] bears in an area are marked or observed. Caughley (1977, p. 25) states that "Even highly skilled observers usually underestimate [absolute density]". Census efficiency for an ideal research opportunity in Yellowstone National Park was only 77%; (Craighead et al. 1974). McCullough's (1981) reevaluation of this data indicated only a 56% efficiency. In very open habitat on the North Slope of Alaska it has been suggested that only 80-95% of some grizzly bear populations have been accounted for (Reynolds and Hechtel 1980, Curatolo and Moore 1975). Data from Montana, Alaska, and Canada suggest that density increases as the duration of a study increases (McLellan, pers. comm.; Aune, pers. comm.; Mace, pers. comm, Reynolds and Hechtel 1980, Curatolo and Moore 1975, Pussell et al. 1979). It is evident (see Literature Review above) that there are techniques available which allow population estimation without requiring assumptions that are difficult or unattainable for grizzly bears. Most grizzly bear studies have had density estimates developed under this realization (Table 15, and Literature Review above). 3. Study Areas Re-analyzed Several commentors have suggested that the density estimates for the five intensive study areas discussed earlier were derived inappropriately because they followed techniques such as those discussed under Literature Review. Although these methods have merit and are applicable in many situations, in consideration of comments on our preliminary draft we chose to reevaluate the densities from the five study areas to make them consistent. To obtain minimum densities for these study areas we used only marked (i.e. radio-collared) animals and their composite home range derived from radio locations. A second density estimate (Method 2) was derived using the above method and adding identifiable but unmarked animals. The third technique (Method 3) we used was the same as the second with the addition of a boundary strip to the bears' composite home range (Table 16). It should be noted that the composite home range developed from data for the Fast 48 » 1 ■a l*-l m o •H 4-> • c g 0) •l-t rke CO 1-4 of be CO in © co in in CO CTi C CO CU c 33 O x: CO ^ co cu ■H GO — 0> CO cu J* c 9 s £ cu 3 (0 H CO CM CN r- CO in T3 CN co Cm +j m C co o oi »-i iH CU 4-J C co 3 36 CO 3 m 4-1 4-> CU CO CO 49 Front was modified slightly to reflect Aune's (pers. comm.) knowledge of the area and excluded habitat known to be uninhabitable by grizzlies (Fig. P) . The composite home range for the South Fork (Fig. 9) was not modified because it did not include areas uninhabitable by grizzly bears. The composite home range for the Missions (Fig. 10) excluded the home range of a male (also excluded from Table 16) which moved to the East Front. For all study areas, the boundary strip added under Method 3 excluded unoccupied habitat known not to be available to marked bears. Estimates from 2 of the 5 study areas were not re- evaluated. Martinka's (1974) estimate was derived from unduplicated sightings of unmarked animals and was not possible to reevaluate. McLellan's (19F4) data were not available to reevaluate, but were known to include only marked bears and their core area of use. Density estimates (D=N/A; where D=density, N=number of animals, A=area) always include some level of judgement on N or A or both. In deriving the densities for the NCDE we have attempted to keep these judgements both conservative and reasonable. In accomplishing this we utilized the pooled expertise of professional biologists from three separate reviews, comments from the public (both written and from public meetings), and input from special interest groups . Because confidence intervals can not be calculated for the study area or NCDE density estimates, the minimum density for each study area (Table 16 and Appendix E) is presented to provide for public evaluation of the Department's judgements. These judgements were consistent from each study area to the surrounding density unit. C. Reproduction Grizzly bear litter size has been determined for five study areas within the NCDE (Aune et al. 19P5; Jonkel, pers. comm.; Martinka 1974; McClellan 19P4; Bureau of Indian Affairs). Table 17 provides a comparison of this information with that from other populations in North America. Repro- ductive potential from the NCDE is more favorable than for those in less productive habitats with limited food sources (Pearson 1975, 1976; Reynolds 1976; Miller et al. 19P2). However, more information on reproduction would be desirable for the NCDE. The potential for compensatory reproduction has been observed by Reynolds and Hechtel (1980). They reported that three of five females that lost their cubs were observed during the breeding season and judged to be in estrous. Craighead et al. (1976) reported that maximum reproductive rates for grizzlies in Yellowstone were a result of compen- satory reproduction. 50 Figure 8. Composite home range map from the Rocky i'lountain East Front (Aune et al. 1983). 51 MINIMUM HOME RANGE Grizzly No. 1 71 (3.5 male) Grizzly No. 1 02 (2.5 - 3.5 male) - Grizzly No. 114 (4.5 male) Grizzly No. 119 (12.5 male) Grizzly No. 108 (1.5 male) Grizzly No. 129 (5.5 male) Grizzly No. 145 (9.5 male) Figure 9. Composite home range map from the South Fork of the Flathead River (Mace and Jonkel 19 79). 52 53 Table ]7. Reproductive characteristics of North American giiz.zl¥ _bea_r _Egp_u l&t ign s^, Mean litter Mean age at Litter Location and Source size of cubs first litter frequency iyea rs] Pocky Mtn. East Front (MT) 1 2.16 5.5 2.1 (Aune 19P5) North Fork Flathead1'4 2.66 5.0 River (MT) Mission Mtns. (MT)1'5 2.12 5.5 3.3 Flathead Piver, B.C.1 2.5 5.5a 3.1 (McClellan 19P4) Kodiak Island, Alaska1 2.23 4-5 3+ (Hensel et al. 1969) Eastern Brooks Range, Alaska1 1.77 9.9 3+ (Reynolds 1976) Western Brooks Range, Alaska1 2.03 P. 4 4+ (Reynolds and Hechtel 1980) Southwest Yukon1 1.6 7.P 3+ (Pearson 1975) Northern Yukon1 1.4-1. P 7.5 4 (Pearson 1976) MacKenzie Mountains, NWT1 1 . P3 Pa 3.P (Miller et al. 19P2) Glacier Natl. Park (MT)2'3 1.7 (Martinka 1974) Glacier Natl. Park (Canada)2'3 2.0 5+ 2.P (Mundy and Flook 1973) Yellowstone National Park2 2.24 5.P 3.4 (Craighead et al. 1974) Yellowstone National Park2 1.9 6.2 3.0 (Knight and Eberhardt 19P5) McNeil River, Alaska2 2.5 6 3.6 iQlenn_et_alJi._19I6_L ^Hunted population 2Onhunted population 3Missing data is not available jjjonkel, personal communication, University of Montana. bFlathead Indian Reservation, Bureau of Indian Af fa irs files aEarliest age observed 54 D. Age Structure Few age composition data are available for grizzlies in the NCDE. Data from the FN! EF (Aune et al. 1984) can be compared with other populations in North America (Table 18). Table 18. Age structures of North American grizzly bear populations. Location and Percent of Population Reference Cubs Yearlings Total Subadults Adults Total Focky Mtn. Fast Front (NT) 23.] 18.2 41.3 25.2 33.6 58.8 (Aune 1985) Flathead Fiver, PC 15.1 17.9 33.0 23.6 43.4 67.0 (McClellan 1984) Glacier Natl. Park (MT) 17.0 15.0 32.0 68.0 (Martinka 1974) Yellowstone National Park 16.5 12.2 28.7 24.0 47.3 71.3 (Craighead et al. 1974) Kodiak Island, Alaska 25.8 22.1 47.9 27.0 25.1 52.1 (Troyer and Hensel 1964) Eastern Brooks Fange, Alaska 7.9 10.9 18.8 15.9 65.3 81.2 (Feynolds 1976) Western Brooks Fange, Alaska 13.0 10.7 23.7 24.4 51.9 76.3 (Feynolds and Hechtel 1980) McNeil Fiver, Alaska 15.0 9.3 24.3 13.5 62.1 75.6 (Glenn et al. 1976) Southwest Yukon 7.3 17.1 24.4 31.7 43.7 75.4 (Pearson 1975) Northern Yukon 2 9 11 20 69 89 (Pearson 1976) MacKenzie Mountains, NWT 14.3 10.4 24.7 24.2 51.1 75.3 (Miller et al. 1982) Low productivity in the southwestern Yukon accounts for the low proportion of young observed (Pearson 1975). Pearson (1975) considered this a result of energy-poor habitat, but speculated it might also typify a stable popu- lation with low mortality and recruitment. In the northern Yukon, Pearson (1976) indicated the low proportion of young was due to high mortality in these age classes. 55 The low percentage of cubs reported by Reynolds and Hechtel (1980) was also due to high mortality. Data from Miller et al. (1982) is from a population they consider to be over-harvested. McLellan's (1984) reported age structure is similar to Aune et al. (1984) and is from an area exhibiting an increase in grizzly bear numbers. Troyer and Hensel's (1964) data are also from a population exhibiting high productivity. E. M_Qr.ta_lity_ Mortality rates by age class are not available for grizzly bears in the NCDE. However, of the mortality that has occurred, Aune et al. (1984) reports that 62.5% have been subadults and 37.5% adults, with an average of less than 1 female dying per year since 1977. Nonhunting mortality accounted for more than 50% of the total (Aune et al. 1984). The high subadult mortality may be due to sub- adult dispersal from an expanding population (Aune, pers. comm., Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Choteau). Martinka (1982) reported average annual losses of 3.5% to 5% for a region encompassing most of the NCDE, a rate indicated in the literature as an acceptable level (Cowan 1972; Reynolds 1976; Lortie 1978; British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch 1979; Sidorowicz and Gilbert 1981; Tompa 1984, van Drimmelen 1984). Martinka (1974) had no data on mortality rates within Glacier National Park, but stated that mortalities outside the park had little effect on the population within the park. Craighead et al. (1974) reported an average annual known mortality of 8.3% in Yellowstone National Park, with 41%, 41% and 18% of the annual mortality occurring in adults, subadults and unknown age bears, respectively. Mortality rates by age class from the literature (Craighead et al. 1974; Miller et al. 1982; Mclellan 1984; Bunnell and Tait 1985) are reported in Table 19. Kasworm (1985) reported an average of 1.8 grizzly mortalities per year from 1950-1978 in the CYE. Natural mortality is difficult to determine for grizzly bears but is considered low. The difficulty in determining this type of mortality comes from the fact that most of it probably occurs in cubs and, in other age classes from bears dying in their dens. These sources of natural mortality are difficult to determine, at best, without the bears being radio-collared. Therefore, we are not able to present any data on natural mortality in this EIS. F. Population Regulation The fact that grizzly bears have been exterminated from major portions of their original range suggests that human intolerance is the ultimate factor limiting grizzly popula- tions. Natural grizzly bear population regulating mecha- 56 nisms are not well understood. However, habitat, as it affects productivity, is probably the ultimate natural factor controlling most bear populations. It has been suggested that productivity of bears is density-independent and that population regulation is largely a result of nutri- tional condition (Bunnell and Tait 19P1). Bunnell and Tait (19P1) support this argument with evidence from Rogers (1976) and Stirling et al. (1976) showing that female black and grizzly bears not gaining sufficient weight prior to denning do not produce cubs. Others offering evidence for bear productivity being density-independent and nutri- tionally based are Beecham (19P0) and Hugie (In Press) for black bears, and Reynolds and Hechtel (1980) and Sidorowicz and Gilbert (19P1) for grizzlies. Jonkel and Cowan (1971) reported that black bear reproduction approached zero in years when huckleberries (Yaccinium spp.) were scarce. Table 19. Mortality rate (%) in each age class for several grizzly bear populations in North America. Location and Source Cubs Yearlings Subadults Adults Yellowstone National Park (Craighead et al. 1974) 30.3 21.7 23.4 10.1 Flathead River, BC (McClellan 19P4) 22 16 P 5 MacKenzie Mountains, M"JT (Miller et al. 19P2) 27.0 24.5 13.1 Estimated for grizzly/brown bears (Bunnell and Tait 19P5) 30-40 15-35 16. Pf, 23. 0b fSubadult and adult female mortality combined. bSubadult and adult male mortality combined. Social intolerance resulting in subadult dispersal is one of the proximal mechanisms controlling both black and grizzly bear populations (Stokes 1970, Kemp 1972, Martinka 1976, Beecham 19P0, Young and Puff 19P2), and probably bears in general (Bunnell and Tait 19P1). Beecham (19P3) suggested that "reservoir" areas where black bears are not heavily hunted may be important in supplying immigrants to heavily hunted areas. Similarly, Pearson (1975) noted emigration of grizzly bears from the Kluane Game Sanctuary into an adjacent hunted population in the Yukon. However, Knight and Eberhardt (19P5) reported the direction of sub- adult dispersal to be essentially random. 57 Martinka (1982) suggested that the Glacier National Park grizzly population may offset regional mortality through dispersal of grizzlies to habitats outside the park. Cowan (1972) had previously suggested that Glacier National Park was subsidizing the harvest outside the park. If this were the case, subadults should comprise a larger proportion of the mortality adjacent to the park. Such a finding has been reported by Pullianen (In Press) who noted that expansion of brown bears from Russia into Finland was accompanied by a large percentage of subadults in the harvest. However, mortality data from 1970 - 1984 in the NCDE show no signifi- cant (X2=5.046, P=0.17) difference in age structure of the mortality ecosystem-wide as compared to within 10 miles of the park (Table 20). Mortality data analyzed in this way do not indicate extensive dispersal of subadults from the Park. Table 20. Composition of total mortality61 in the entire NCDE and within 10 miles of Glacier National Park, 1970-1984. Cubs and Yearlings 2-year-olds Subadults Adults NCDE 22 (8.4) 26 (10.0) 82 (31.4) 131 (50.2) Within 10 miles of Glacier Natl. Park, MT 14 (16.7) 8 ( 9.5) 21 (25.0) 41 (48.8) ^Mortalities for which the specific location was known (345 of 414 total) . bNumber in parentheses is percentage of total mortality. Mortality caused by adult male grizzlies has been docu- mented and suggested as a possible population-regulating mechanism in grizzly bears (Egbert and Luque 1975; Glenn et al. 1976; Egbert and Stokes 1976; Pearson 1976; Craighead et al. 1976; Reynolds and Hechtel 1980; Stringham 1983). Young and Ruff (1982) observed a doubling of an unhunted black bear population (from 80 to 175) following removal of 23 adult males. They attributed the increase to improved subadult survival and ingress. Mortality caused by adult male grizzlies has not yet been observed in the NCDE. G. Population Status Our current estimate of the minimum population for the NCDE, based on the density estimates discussed earlier, is 549. Excluding Glacier National Park, the number is 356 grizzly bears. The Glacier National Park segment of this population has remained relatively stable at an average of 201 from 1967-1981 (Martinka 1982). Martinka (1982) further stated that the population in a region encompassing most of 58 the NCDF was viable and near the level of 500 proposed by Franklin (1980) as necessary for maintaining genetic variance. Shaffer (1983) reported that the minimum viable population size for the Yellowstone ecosystem was 50-90 grizzly bears. Although methods used in deriving the population esti- mates varied, it is possible to compare historical grizzly bear population estimates. Cooney (1941) estimated 112 grizzly bears in a portion of the Flathead and Lewis and Clark national forests. This estimate was based on miles of trail traveled per bear or bear sign observed. Cahalane (1952) reported an estimated 120 grizzly bears in Glacier National Park in 1951. Eased on the best information available, Hickie (1952) reported an estimate of 758 grizzly bears in all of Montana. Cooney (1953) reported a 1953 population estimate of 800 in Montana. Marshall (1955) reported an estimate of 700 grizzly bears for the entire state in 1954. He considered the harvest of 39 (5.6%) not to be excessive given the population estimate. Montana listed 439 grizzlies in 1955 in its population exclusive of national parks (Cooney 1956). Cooney (1956) also reported 100 for Glacier National Park. Hamlin and Frisina (1975) reported, based on a survey of professionals and user groups, that the grizzly population in Montana was at least stable and possibly increasing. Several researchers have pointed out the difficulties of trying to estimate grizzly bear populations (Martinka 1974; C-uimby 1974; Pearson 1975; Craighead et al. 1976; Reynolds and Hechtel 1980; Meagher and Phillips 1983). Although this information is valuable and should be obtained where feasible, inventories of grizzly bear populations are not Itauiied for management (Reynolds and Hechtel 1980; Archibald 1983; Johnson 1980). Further, to expect that carrying capacity can be determined at present, is unrealis- tic. Meagher and Phillips (1983) reported that the carrying capacity could not be determined for a population in Yellow- stone that had been studied for 24 years. Comparing historical information with our present estimates indicates the current grizzly bear population status in Montana is as high or higher than that reported 30-40 years ago. It appears that compensatory forces have allowed growth in Montana's grizzly bear populations. Factors which have probably contributed include acquisition of some key habitats, implementation of more conservative control programs, restrictions on hunting, and controls on predator poisoning. This growth has occurred in spite of habitat encroachment. It should be noted that there are problem areas within the ecosystems. Aune (pers. comm.) indicates that the Badger-Two Medicine area is a high-mortality area. Claar et al. (In Press) stated that the population segment in the 59 Mission Mountains is declining. These problem areas will need special management attention. A survey of our Department's biologists and wardens and our state's licensed outfitters was conducted to determine their assessment of the current trend of the grizzly bear population in Montana as well as its distribution. These surveys were designed simply to assess these groups' opinions. It was not meant to represent the state of the art in survey design, nor was it designed to be evaluated statistically. As discussed later in Section G, Trend Monitoring, this technique will be designed to provide for statistical evaluation if it is to be used in the future. These informal surveys indicated that the distribution and status of grizzly bears in the NCDE is stable to increasing. The results for the CYE indicated the popula- tion and distribution are likely stable to decreasing. This supports the contention that a strong recovery effort is necessary for the CYE population. It is difficult to use age data from hunter harvest to describe population status (Harris 1984a). This difficulty is a result of two possible but opposite interpretations of harvest age data. First, declining mean or median age of harvested bears over time may indicate that either the majority of older age animals have been harvested (i.e. overharvest) leaving mostly young animals to be harvested, or that underharvest has allowed the young age classes to increase. Secondly, increasing age in the harvest may indi- cate that underharvest is allowing increased survival and an increase in older age classes, or that overharvest has removed the majority of young age classes, leaving only older age classes for harvest (Glenn 1975, Swenson 1985, Bunnell and Tait 1985, Kolenosky In Press). It is impor- tant, therefore, that when using harvest age data to inter- pret population status, it should be considered in conjunction with other population and trend indicators. Population modeling efforts using mortality data for the NCDE have been conducted by Klaver (pers. comm., Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pablo, MT) and Harris (1984a). Both models were updated using the most current mortality data of Greer (1985). Both Klaver and Harris have aptly demonstrated the problems encountered when using sex and age data from mortality records. They have demonstrated the need for a measure of hunter effort. Harris (1984a) examined age and sex structure from simu- lated grizzly populations subjected to various harvest levels. He devised a statistical procedure based on harvest data to test the null hypothesis of overharvest, but con- cluded that the test was insensitive (power estimated to be less than 50%). When applied to 1970-1981 grizzly bear data from the NCDE, grouped by three-year blocks, the test was unable to reject the null hypothesis of overharvest at the 60 90% confidence level. However, when applied to 1982-1984 harvest data, the index indicated a 10% or less chance the population (for this time block) was declining (Harris pers. comm., University of Montana, Missoula). Klaver has modeled the 1970-1984 mortality data for the NCDE using the traditional methods of Gilbert et al. (197 8) and a simplified approach to the Fraser et al. (1982) method. This analysis shows that harvest rates have been declining in recent years and that population indices indi- cate a stable or increasing population (Klaver pers. comm.) Population trend information is available for three intensive study areas within or adjacent to the NCDE. The portions of the ecosystem in the PMEF (Aune, pers. comm.) and the British Columbia portion of the North Fork of the Flathead Piver (McLellan 1984) are both stable to increasing. Grizzly bear numbers in the Mission Mountains are reported to be declining (Claar et al. In Press). A task force appointed by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee met in 1984 in an effort to determine population size and trends in the NCDE. Their executive summary stated, "The available population data did not permit the task force to estimate total numbers of bears, to detect any significant trend or even to confirm population stability in the grizzly bear population of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem". However, they stated in the same summary, "While we are unable to eliminate the possibility of slow, long-term trends, we found no indication that current management threatens the population in this region" (emphasis added). Our review of the population and trend information also failed to show any indication of a general decline in the NCDE population (see Population Status). In fact, there are indications that the population is stable or increasing. Kasworm (1985) stated that there were 15 observations of females with young reported since 1975 in the CYE and that 8 of these have occurred since 1980 (Figure 11). He also developed a density estimate using the composite home range of 2 radio-collared bears and including a differentiation of track measurements which yielded 4 additional grizzlies. However, he indicated that this estimate could not be extra- polated to the entire ecosystem to estimate population size. This information and the results of the informal surveys discussed earlier indicate that the population in the CYE is stable to decreasing. 61 Canada Figure 11. Grizzly bear sightings in the CYE, 1950-1984. 62 H. Trend Monitoring To date, no direct method for monitoring grizzly bear population trends has been developed. Several methods have been tested including scent station indices (Ball 1980; Harris 1984b; Knight et al. 1984), surveys of concentration areas (Kendall 1985; Klaver and Claar 1985), scat counts (Poth 1980) and track and sign counts (Stockstad 1954, Marshal] 1955, Pognrud 1956). The scent station index has been suggested as being useful for black bears (Lindzey et al. 1977, Carlock et al. 1983). However, this technique has shown limited success for other species to which it is more easily applied (Conner et al. 1983; Linhart and Knowlton 1975; Roughton and Sweeney 1982). Harris (1984b) reported that unrealist ically large sample sizes would be required to detect even large differences in this index, especially if its initial value was low. He indicated that sample sizes for grizzly bears would be too small to allow scent-station indices to reflect changes in population abundance. Harris (1984c) discussed trend monitoring techniques for the grizzly bear and concluded that none were adequate for statistical precision. The difficulty, in addition to developing an appropriate direct trend monitoring technique for grizzlies, is that a reasonably accurate population estimate must be developed at the same time with which to compare the trend. To date no studies of this type have been initiated for grizzly bears. One widely used technique involves no direct research on the bear. This is the survey or interview of professional biologists, foresters, and outfitters, as well as the general public regarding their judgment of grizzly/ brown bear population trends and status (Stockstad 1954; Marshall 1955; Pognrud 1956; Hamlin and Frisina 1975; Dean 1976; Elgmork 1976, 1978; Poth 1972; Layser 1978; Bjarvall 1980; Buchalczyk 1980; Hoak et al. 1983). Upon subsequent review, these surveys have generally been determined to reflect known long-term trends. Clearly, this technique is not adequate by itself to accurately monitor populations. How- ever, in combination with periodic studies of population biology and other survey techniques, it could prove useful. I. Augmentation or Re int roduct ion Population augmentation or re int roduct ion has been considered, but to date has not been conducted by any agency. Jonkel (1983) and Kasworm (1985) recommend augmen- tation by reint roduction or cross-fostering of grizzly cubs with black bear sows to speed the recovery of the CYE grizzly bear population. To document the willingness of states and provinces with current or historic populations of grizzly bears to accept individuals for re int roduct ion, the Department surveyed 63 (Appendix F) 21 states' and provinces' wildlife management agencies including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Alberta, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Saskatche- wan, Yukon. With the exceptions of Alberta and British Columbia, no state or province would or could foresee the possibility of accepting grizzly bears for reintroduct ion. Alberta and British Columbia will accept grizzlies provided that, first, they pay little or no costs, and second, they be provided with a history on each bear so that they may accept individual bears at their own discretion. Clearly, if the Department wanted to consider supplying surplus or other animals for augmentation programs outside Montana, that option would not be open. Federal law prohibiting augmentation anywhere in the United States (U.S. Public Law 98-473 Section 316) has now been changed. It is likely that augmentation will be possible in the near future. In the past five years, seven individual grizzly bears have been added to the CYE population from other areas (Appendix D, Kootenai National Forest Plan 1985). These grizzly bears were moved to the CYE after causing nuisances and were not of the proper sex and age classes or behavioral characteristics to be selected for augmentation. Relocation efforts are significantly different in intent than are aug- mentation efforts. The Kootenai National Forest has identified and evaluated 5 augmentation alternatives for the CYE (Appendix D, Kootenai National Forest Plan, 1985): 1. No action: continue to manage the native population to achieve recovery on its own within the guidance identi- fied in the proposed action. 2. Augmentation with grizzly bears acceptable under existing relocation agreements; basically a continuation of past relocation efforts as has occurred since 1977. 3. Augmentation with specific bears of a predetermined sex and age placed into specific habitat conditions at the most opportune times. Essentially the type of augmenta- tion practiced with other wildlife species. 4. Augmentation by means of cross-fostering grizzly bear cubs with black bear mothers. This procedure has been successful with raptors and cranes and groundwork has been laid working with black bears. 5. A mix of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 dictated by grizzly bear availability, knowledge of potential surrogate black bear mothers, and the condition and availability of nuisance bears. 64 This Plan states: "with or without augmentation the identified grizzly habitat on the Kootenai National Forest will be managed according to the guidance contained in the proposed Forest Plan and supporting documents to ensure the opportunity for the existing grizzly bears to prosper". 65 VI. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW A. MQltalit^ QUCtS. Montana is the only state in the 48 conterminous states authorized to allow hunting of grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act. This authority is granted by Chapter 1, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 17, Paragraph 17.4, effective August 1, 1975 (Appendix D). The Department, a member of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, is the agency responsible for compiling grizzly bear mortality reports. These data are summarized, analyzed, and prepared in annual reports by the Department. Mortali- ties from all causes including hunting, control dispatches, transplants, illegal killing of marauding or menacing bears, and bears killed illegally for profit or mistaken identity (for black bears) are reported. The Code of Federal Regulations established the mortality quota of 25 grizzly bears for northwestern Montana (Fig. 12). At the time these regulations were being amended, the Montana Department of Fish and Game (Woodgerd 1974) felt a conservative mortality quota of 25 was appro- priate based on an average annual mortality of 28 (1967 through 1974). The Department elected to be more conservative in 1983 when it established a female subquota of 9 for the NCDE (6 west of the Continental Divide and 3 east of the divide). These quotas involve the total man-caused grizzly mortality, including illegal kills, accidents, control actions, and hunter harvest. Thus, hunter harvest is adjusted to reflect the other sources of mortality. In addition, quotas are reviewed annually to determine if they need adjustment. No other state or province which allows grizzly or black bear hunting, operates under a quota. Other management plans use harvest rates (Table 21). Although Punne] 1 and Tait (1980) suggest that quota systems are an insufficient regulatory device, Pearson (1975) suggested annual quotas were workable and could be changed in response to population status. However, he felt they were inappropriate for the Yukon. Indications are that the population of grizzly bears in the NCDE has been stable to increasing since the early 1970s (see Population Status in Section V). Thus, if the current estimate of the minimum population (356 exclusive of Glacier National Park) was applied in 1974, the 25 quota would represent a total mortality rate of 7.0%, a rate within the range reported in the literature (Table 21). 66 67 Table 21. Recommended and reported grizzly bear mortality rates. HUNTER HARVEST TOTAL MORTALITY Reference Total Male/Female Female Adult Total Reynolds 3% (1975) B.C. Fish and 60:40 5%a Wildl. Branch (1979) Tompa (1984) 2%a 3-5%a van Drimmelen 65:35 2%a 3%a (1984) Sidorowicz & 2-3% 4.5%a 10.5%b Gilbert (1981) Lortie & McDonald 3% 61:39 1977, Lortie 1978 B. Smith 4% (pers. comm) Yukon Wildl. Branch) Martinka (1974) 17%b Craighead et al. 8.2%a (1974) 14.4%b McCullough (1981) 30%b 13.2%b Cowan (1972) 5-7% Bunnell & Tait 10.7%b (1980) Harris (Unpublished) 6.4-b 6.6% Average annual mortality in the NCDE, 1967-1984 3% 59:41 4.5%b 6%b 6% a Rate includes only man caused mortality. b Rate includes all known causes of mortality. 68 P. Hunting Seasons Since 1967, the grizzly hunting season in the NCDE has coincided with deer and elk seasons (approximately mid to late October through late November, except in the wilderness areas where the season opened September 15). Table 22 summarizes the 19P4 season dates from other states and provinces. Hunting was discontinued in the CYE in 1974. Table 22. North American grizzly bear hunting seasons for 19P4. Season Dates3 State or Prov i nee Shortest Season Longest Season Montana Sept. 15-Nov. 25 3 weeks/fall 2.5 months/fall Wyoming*3 April 1 -June 30 Sept. 1 -Nov. 15 2.5 months/fall 3 months/spring Alaska April 1 - June 30 Sept. 1 -Dec. 31 July 1 -June 30 2 weeks/spring All year Alberta April 1 -June 4 Sept. 12-Dec. 1 6 weeks/spring 2.5 months/fall British Columbia April 1 -June 15 Sept. 1 -Nov. IP 4 weeks/spring 2.5 months/spring and fall Northwest Aug. 15 -Oct. 31 Territories 2.5 months/fall 2.5 months/fall Yukon Territory May 1 -June 15 Aug. 1 -Oct. 31 6 weeks/spring 3 months/fall aData represent the range included if all areas and seasons (spring, fall, all year) are considered. bSeason dates are for 1974. Grizzly bear season was closed after 1974. Season dates have a large influence on the sex ratio of bears harvested. Early fall and late spring seasons result in a higher percentage of females in the harvest (Troyer 1961, Pearson 1975, Stirling et al. 1976, Hugie In Press). The composition, by week, of the hunter harvest in the NCDE is presented in Table 23. Analysis of the hunter harvest 69 CN r IT) d o CN d fH ro Co b B d IS g s a a s o G i § o d Oi rH d d "tf ro CN ro CN o o G ■ CO £2 CN 86 in G CN Co d s J 9 1$ LO < — < to *4 § V (6.3) © • -« (7.1) © (6.3) © • r-H rH CN rH CO rH . * — s . fo • CO «5 d rH CXi — ■ g CN rH G rH cr. R ro CN VO Of\ CN 1 R 8 • r-H Ob d B o § o • CN Co CN m ro CN w R Ln i • s rH 2?; • in ^ — - in G r- 1 fo B CN 3 © • a s CN rH a Co CN ro G as CN i9 7j CN shows a sex ratio of 59% males to 41% females, a ratio similar to those recommended or reported in the literature (Troyer 1961, Pearson 1975, Lortie and McDonald 1977, British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch 1979, Johnson 19P0, Lindzey and Meslow 19P0, Kolenosky In Press). Harvest data for the spring season in the Kootenay region of British Columbia indicated a harvest composition of 67% male and 33% female (DeMarchi pers. comm. British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, Cranbrook). Chi-square analysis indicates that significantly (X^=5.13, P=0.02) more females are shot before October 20 than after. Troyer (1961) stated that since fall hunting produced a heavier harvest of females and the earliest part of the fall season is the most productive, seasonal restrictions would have the best results by limiting the early fall season. Spring hunting success was higher than that of the fall and produced a higher percent- age of males (Troyer 1961). Stirling et al. (1976) based on modeling, suggested fall seasons may be detrimental to grizzly populations due to increased vulnerability of females. However, they didn't indicate season dates. Presumably, they used an early start for the fall season. Pearson (1975) reported a decreasing proportion of females in the total kill as the fall season progressed in the Yukon. He also suggests that opening the fall season after female grizzlies have denned is a management option to reduce female mortality. Reynolds (pers. comm.) stated that fall-only seasons in Alaska were used where harvest sex and age data indicated some caution was necessary. C. Female Protection Since 1983 the hunting program in Montana has protected females through a female subguota of 9, and by prohibiting the taking of females accompanied by cubs (since 1947). Restricting the fall season might further reduce female mortality if the season opened on a later date, nearer the time when most females have denned. A spring-only season might also reduce current female mortality if the closing date were earlier than in other states or provinces (Table 22). Further protection might be provided by prohibiting 1) the shooting of females accompanied by §ny_ young, or 2) the shooting of any bear in a group. These alternatives will be evaluated later in this EIS (see Regulations in this section). Current grizzly hunting regulations in other states or provinces do not include female subquotas. All include protection of females with cubs and some extend protection to females with yearlings or any young (Table 24). Some female protection is also provided by season opening and closing dates (Table 22). 71 Table 24. Summary of protection provided female grizzlies in states and provinces with current or historic grizzly bear hunting seasons3. State or ElQte_ctig_Q_fei_Fe_ma_le_s Province None With Cubs With Yearlings With Young Montana X Wyomingb X Alaska X X Washington0 X Arizona" X Idahoe X NWT X Yukon XXX Alberta X X British XXX Columbia fBased on correspondence from the indicated states and provinces. Prior to 1975 - grizzly hunting stopped in 1975. J;Prior to 1969 - grizzly hunting stopped in 1969. dAfter 1929 until last record of a grizzly in 1935. ePrior to 1946 - grizzly hunting stopped in 1946. D. Closure Authority The MFGC has the authority to close a hunting season at any time. Since 1975 grizzly bear hunting regulations provided for closure of the season at such time as the total mortality by human causes equalled 25. Beginning in 1983, the season would be closed on 48 hours notice west of the Continental Divide when 6 females have been killed by human causes, and east of the Continental Divide when 3 females have been killed by human causes. Since the quota was initiated in 1975, the season has been closed twice because total or female mortalities were approaching the quotas. In 1975 the season closed two weeks before scheduled because total mortality was approaching the quota. In 1984 the season closed one month before scheduled because female mortality was approaching the quota. Since inception of the quota, it has been recognized as improbable but possible that these quotas could be reached before the hunting seasons opened. In 1983 the scheduled season in hunting district 140 was not held because 4 mortalities due to mistaken identity (grizzlies killed that were mistaken for black bears) occurred prior to the opening. Alaska and the Canadian provinces and territories also have closure authority but not based on a quota system. 72 e. Qth_e_i Esguls.tiQHs Figure 13 shows grizzly bear hunting district boundaries for 1984. These boundaries change with management needs. Since 1967, hunters killing a grizzly have been required to report the kill within 48 hours to an officer of the Department. Then, they are required to present the hide and skull within 10 days to an officer of the Department for purposes of inspection, tagging, and recording the kill. Evidence of sex intact on the carcass or skin was also required. It was also prohibited for any person to remove any portion of a grizzly bear from the Montana without first obtaining a trophy license. Since 1947, the annual limit per grizzly bear licensee has been one grizzly bear of either sex. Taking of cubs, or females with cubs, has also been prohibited since 1947. Cubs were defined as young of the year. Alaska, Alberta, British Columbia, and the Yukon and Northwest territories all have regulations similar to Montana, with variations based on population status. Montana hunters have been required to purchase specific grizzly bear licenses since 1967. Since 1971, these licenses had to be purchased before August 31. Since the hunting season has not opened prior to September 15, this regulation eliminates the possibility of a hunter killing a grizzly bear and then buying a license. License fees have increased periodically since 1967. These increases usually result in decreased license sales (Fig. 14). F. Hunter Surveys. Hunter questionnaires have been distributed periodically to grizzly bear licensees to obtain information on hunter occupation, dates hunted, areas hunted, observations of bears, and hunter comments on regulations, seasons, etc. (Greer 1972, 1974a). G . Trophy License Summary As stated, all successful grizzly bear hunters must apply for a trophy license. Analysis of these mandatory licenses show that between 1967 and 1984, 96% of the hunters have harvested only one bear, 3.5% have harvested 2 bears, and 0.5% have harvested 3 bears. These results suggest that the grizzly bear harvest is well distributed among hunters and that there is no small core of successful hunters. H. Season Setting Process This discussion describes the process used by the MFGC in setting a grizzly bear hunting season. To begin with, recommendations are presented to the Commission at their January meeting in Helena, by the Wildlife Division of the Department. Following discussion and debate a tentative season is set by the Commission at this meeting. Following 73 75 this meeting, from January to March, each Pegion holds public meetings to solicit public input on the tentative recommendations. In March the MFCC holds a public meeting in Helena, to receive testimony on the tentative recommen- dations. One week after this meeting the MFCC adopts a final season structure. 76 VII. GPIZZLY PEAR MORTALITY IN THE NCDE A. Total Man Caused Mortal ity Grizzly bear mortalities from 1967 to 19P4 (Greer 1967- 19P5) are presented in Table 25. Prior to the quota of 25 mortalities from all human causes (1975), the average annual mortality was 2P grizzly bears. Since 1975, an average of 19 grizzly bears have been killed annually. Mortalities since 1967, stratified by hunting and nonhunting, are presented in Figure 15. The average propor- tion of hunting to nonhunting mortality during 1967-84 was 56:44%. Reported nonhunting mortality has exceeded hunting mortality in 5 of IP years. Male grizzly bear mortality exceeded female mortality in 14 of IP years (Fig. 16). The ratio of male to female mortality averages 5P:42% for the entire period (Table 25). When sexes are combined, the ratio of adult to subadult mortality is 51:49% (Table 25). Ages of female grizzly bears in the total mortality are given in Figure 17. In all years, the average female taken was an adult (5 years of age or older). The average ratio of adult to subadult females for all years is 74:26%. Males in the total mortality are younger (x=5.Pl years, P=0.01) than females (x=7.PP years). An average of 49% of the males since 1970 have been adults. The distribution of male ages from 1970 to 19P4 are given in Figure IP. F. Eunting Mortality From 1975 to 19P4 the average annual hunting mortality has been 10.6 individuals (range = 5-17) of which an average of 4.2 individuals (40%) are females (Table 25). Males in the hunter harvest are younger (mean = 5.83 years, P=0.03) than females (mean = P.20 years) (Fig 19). The ratio of adult to subadult animals in the hunter harvest, when sexes are combined, is 51:49% (Table 23, Fig. 20) . Adults comprise a greater proportion of female legal harvest than do subadults (Fig. 21). During the period 196P-19P4, adult females have constituted 54% of the total female harvest. From 1975 to present, this adult female take has increased to 5 8% and the median age female has been 5 years old. For males, an average of 47% have been adults (Fig. 22), and their median age has been 4 years old. 77 Table 25. airmnary of total known mortality of grizzly bears in the N3E, 1967-19P4. Year 67 6P 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 7P 79 R) Fl £2 8 f4 Total Average met 22 9 2P 9 13 14 14 17 13 11 5 7 11 11 11 17 P 12 232 12.9 Nrirtnt IP Pll 9 9 16 10 20 912 7 6 P 12 6 7 7 P1P3 10.2 Total 40 17 39 IP 22 30 24 37 22 13 12 13 19 23 17 24 15 20 415 23.1 Bnt Male 16 5195375126626 P6PF77136 7.6 FlBTBle 6494 10 7957531353915 96 5.3 Hrhrt Male 6311 P6 10 3741675546 8 4.9 Parole 2 6 4 3 5 3 7 6 5 2 5 2 5 1 13 2 62 3.6 Unknown IP 245313 1 1 Rnt Adult 1155P957652379 5 P26 102 6.0 Stbadult 4P455997634426956 96 5.6 thkrcwn 4 5 1 Nnhtnt adult 5 4 1 3 5 4 9 4 5 3 3 5 9 3 1 3 3 70 4.1 SLbadult 3 6 6 3 10 4 11 5 7 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 5 £4 4.9 Irtoxvn 3 1 2 1 1 1 Rnt Adult M 0 11 3 1 4 2 4 3 2 1 2 5 5 3 4 2 3 55 3.2 PAAt F 1 4 2 7 6 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 4 2 6 0 3 51 3.0 triknowi 4 1 N3TTU± A±0t M 4 0 0 1 2 4 4 0 2 5 1 5 6 3 3 1 2 43 2.5 PAUt F 1 4 1 2 3 1 4 4 3 1 2 1 4 0 1 2 1 35 2.1 Ihknown 1 3 1 3 1 1 Total Male 16 11 22 6 4 15 11 22 9 13 6 7 14 13 13 13 11 13 219 12.2 Total Fenale 6 6 15 P 13 12 12 12 13 10 5 6 5 10 4 10 4 7 15P P.P aSame individiBls vvere not classified by sex, but vere included in totals. 7P 79 AinVJLUOIAI IVIOI 80 81 82 83 O LO O LO O LO o t- CO C\J C\J t- T- 60 1S3AUVH £ 84 aov 85 HI O < o LU 5 I I CD CM CM CM CM i O CM OV CM CO 0) O CO 0> CO 0> CM O) o CO O) < LU Q O 43 CI •H •u CO CD > CO 43 M > H N N •H M 00 0) GO CO o •H • 3 00 43 CT> iii iii r~ t ~ r~ CO (O ^ CM O CO (O ^ CM O CM CM OJ M 00 •H 39V 1. Distribution of Hunting Mortality by Hunting District Information on the grizzly bear harvest by hunting district since 1973 is presented in Table 26. Several districts were combined as they represent similar ecological areas (Figure 13). Table 26. Distribution of hunting mortality by hunting district (1973-1984). Hunting District No. Harvested Percentage of Total 101 5 3.6 110 16 11.6 130 10 7.2 140-141 28 20.4 150-151 53 38.6 2 80-2 81 12 8.7 400 series 13 9.4 The Bob Marshall Wilderness Area and the upper Middle Fork of the Flathead Fiver (districts 150 and 151) have provided the greatest number of legal harvests since 1973 (39%). Approximately 20% of the legal kill has occurred in the lower South Fork of the Flathead Fiver and much of the Great Bear Wilderness (districts 140 and 141). Sixteen of 137 (12%) legal kills since 1973 occurred in the North Fork of the Flathead Fiver (district 110). Pelatively few grizzly bears have been harvested in the Scapegoat Wilderness Area (districts 280 and 281). 2. Temporal Distribution of Legal Harvest In the wilderness hunting districts (150, 151, and 280), the grizzly bear hunting season opens approximately four weeks before other districts in the NCDE. Since 1973, 43% of the total legal harvest of grizzlies in the NCDE has occurred during this early season in these three districts. Only 5% of the total harvest since 1973 has occurred in these districts during the general hunting season, a result of early fall snows and difficult access. C . Effect £ of Hunting This section discusses population influences resulting from hunting. Effects on population parameters such as age structure, sex ratio, and reproductive characteristics are used in evaluating hunting (Bunnell and Tait 1980, Troyer 1961, Stirling et al. 1976, Lortie and McDonald 1977, Miller et a], 1982, Swenson 1985). 87 Mean litter size of the nonhunted populations of Glacier National Park and Yellowstone National Park are similar to, but somewhat lower than, hunted populations in the NCDE (Table 17). However, differences in habitat and research methods exist among these populations, complicating the interpretation of hunting influences. Tn the NCDE the largest unhunted area is Glacier National Park with a mean litter size of 1.7 (Martinka 1974). The hunted areas, including the East Front, North Fork Flathead Fiver, Mission Mountains, and the Flathead Piver, BC, have litter sizes of 2.16, 2.66, 2.12, and 2.5, respectively (Aune et al. 1984, McClellan 1984 and data provided to the Interagency Grizzly Pear Committee Task Force on population and trends in the NCDE, 1984). These data suggest that hunting may increase survival and recruitment of young bears. Lindzey et al. (1983) considered that the resiliency of a black bear population in Pennsylvania was due to the heavy hunter harvest which stimulated productivity. The sex ratio of the hunter harvest, if skewed toward females, may have a negative influence on population productivity by reducing the number of reproductive females. The ratio for 1967-1984 in the NCDE (59% male, 41% female) indicates this has not been the case and that hunting pressure on females has not been excessive. Bunnell and Tait (1985) suggested that the sex ratio of the harvest approaches 1 as hunting pressure increases. That hunters are selective toward males and males are more vulnerable (Miller and Ballard 1982; Bunnell and Tait 1985; Pearson 1975; Lindzey and Meslow 1980; Erickson 1962, 1963) is further evidence that an even ratio in the harvest is indicative of heavy hunting pressure. Evidence suggests that reducing the number of adult males in a population increased survival and recruitment (see Population Regulation in Section V). Because males have constituted 59% of the harvest since 1967, subadult mortality and dispersal caused by adult males may have been reduced. If this is true, subadult survival and recruitment may be increasing. Declining mean age in harvest data has been a suggested indicator of overharvest or underharvest (Glenn 1975, Swenson 1985, Bunnell and Tait 1985, Kolenosky In Press). The mean age of the harvest in the NCDE is compared with other populations which are known not to be over harvested (Table 27). Age structure information from the PMEF (Table 18) indicates that this segment of the NCDE population is healthy and productive. Mean litter size for hunted portions of the NCDE presented earlier (Table 17) and the sex ratio of the harvest (59% male, 41% female) are also indicative of a stable or increasing population in the NCDE. 88 Table 27. Mean age of grizzly bears harvested from the NCDE, Alaska, and British Columbia, 1969-19 84. __ ALASKA3 BRITISH COLUMBIA0 (GMUb20) (Kootenay Region) Number Mean Number Mean Number Mean Year of bears age of bears age of bears age 1969 23 7.8 1970 9 6.8 20 6.4 1971 13 7.2 22 8.2 1972 14 7.4 29 6.3 1973 14 7.2 26 5.9 1974 16 6.1 28 7.7 1975 13 6.5 24 7.6 23 9.1 1976 11 5.4 23 5.3 1977 5 6.0 21 7.6 44 7.9 1978 7 9.1 32 6.4 38 9.9 1979 11 8.6 37 6.3 36 9.1 1980 11 11.2 42 6.7 26 7.1 1981 11 5.1 56 7.3 51 8.6 1982 17 6.5 49 10.2 40 6.4 i o on 1983 7 A A 4.4 57 7.4 o o 3c "7 1 /._ 1984 12 5.3 66 6.7 TOTALS 171 6.9 555 7.1 296 8.1 aData are from H. V. Reynolds (personal communication, Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Fairbanks). 'Game Management Unit. !Data are from R. Demarchi (personal communication, British Columbia Fish & Wildlife Branch, Cranbrook) . It would be expected that if a grizzly bear population were declining, hunter success would also decrease (Pearson 1975). Furthermore, hunter effort would be expected to increase. The data for grizzly bears in the NCDE (Table 28) indicate there has been no such decline in success, which has remained relatively stable, increasing only slightly with changes in license price. Since most grizzly bear hunting in Montana is incidental to the hunting of other big-game species (Greer 1974a), it is possible to estimate the grizzly hunting effort from the big-game hunter effort. Hunter effort for elk in 4 hunting districts within the NCDE is directly correlated to the number of licensees afield and has remained stable since 1971 (Table 29). This suggests that overall grizzly hunting effort has also remained stable or has possibly declined with declining license sales. 89 Table 28. Grizzly bear hunter success for the NCDE, 1967-1984. HUNTER LICENSES HUNTER YEAR HARVEST SOLD3 SUCCESS (%) 1967° 24 1 ,165 2.1 1968 12 1 , 2 86 0.9 1969 33 1,638 2.0 1970 13 1 ,980 0.7 1971° 22 965 2.3 1972 14 944 1.5 1973 15 810 1.9 1974 18 918 2.0 1975 13 9 86 1.3 1976° 11 513 2.1 1977 5 513 1.0 197 8 7 616 1.1 197 9 11 5 84 1.9 1980 11 660 1.7 1981® 11 799 1.4 1982f 17 699 2.4 19 83 8 598 1.3 1984^ 12 523_ 2.3 TOTAL 257 16,197 1.6 aBecause licensees could hunt in southwestern Montana until 1975 all licensees in Montana were included, thus hunter success for the NCDE prior to 1975 may be different than indicated. ^Resident license $1.00, nonresident $25.00 ^Resident license increased to $5.00, nonresident increased to $35.00 "Resident license increased to $25.00, nonresident increased to $125.00 ^Resident license $25.00, nonresident increased to $150.00 ^Resident license $25.00, nonresident increased to $175.00 ^Resident license increased to $50.00, nonresident increased to $300.00 Hunter harvest may also reduce the need for nuisance control actions. Mysterud (1980) stated that selective hunting reduced domestic sheep losses in Norway. Troyer (1961) reported that the hunting season around the town of Kodiak, Alaska, was longer than elsewhere on Kodiak Island to aid in the control of brown bears. Greer (1976b) stated that the elimination of hunter harvest may allow for an increase in nuisance bear situations. Poelker and Parsons (1976) reported that hunting to control black bear damage in forests was effective and was preserving bears in nondamage areas. Craighead (1976) stated that grizzly bear management though aimed at preservation should include means of control, that hunting could accomplish this control, and that hunting is a sensible approach to preserving yet regulating grizzly populations. 90 Table 29. Number of elk hunters, days afield, and grizzly licenses sold, 1971-1983. Avg. No. of Total Days Spent Grizzly Year Elk Hunters Days Afield" Hunting Lie. Sales 1971 5,509 31,287 5.68 965 197 2 5,356 28,304 5.28 944 1973 2,418 13,850 5.73 810 1974 3,549 21,369 6.02 918 1975 6,268 36,182 5.77 9 86 1976 6,220 38,115 6.13 513 1977 6,094 38,490 6.32 513 197 8 6,724 39,019 5.80 616 1979 5,712 30,671 5.37 5 84 19 80 5,716 27,062 4.73 660 19 81 4,529 26,789 5.91 799 1982 4,448 27,268 6.08 699 19 83 4..182 . Z1*ZQ1 598 b ^Highly correlated to elk hunter numbers (r=.9435) bStatewide figures cData from elk hunting districts 140, 141, 150, 151 No direct evidence of the effects of hunting on bear behavior is available. However, a certain amount of indirect evidence is available from studies on remnant popu- lations (Mysterud 1977, Elgmork 1978). It indicates that bears survive because of genetic selection and learned behavior in avoiding confrontation and withdrawing from human contact. Other indirect evidence comes through experiences of researchers who indicate that hunting keeps bears wary of man (Jonkel 1975, Servheen 1981). Stokes (1970) indicated that national parks are valuable for research because their wildlife is less wary than where animals are hunted. Bunnell and Tait (1980), in population modeling, assumed that some bears are by virtue of their behavior more likely to be shot than others and continue to exhibit this behavior until they are shot. They suggested that average vulnerability of a cohort decreases with age due to learning or loss of more vulnerable animals. Picton (per. comm., Montana State University) indicates that suppression of grizzly attacks by hunting is explained by the Peid dominance hypothesis which suggests that bears may avoid humans who "broadcast" dominance signals. If bears are trained to ignore this dominance by habituation to humans, the attack rate will increase. This theory better explains avoidance behavior than does the killing of bears alone. This hypothesis, in technical terms, is consistent with Morton's (1977) "Motivation-Structural" theory which suggests that vertebrates have common features in their sounds which allow interspecific communication. 91 Ferrero's (19P5) findings that expression of dominance diminishes the possibility of attack even under immediate threat condition, supports Picton's (pers. comm.) Peid concept. Further support comes from the finding that observability of hunted elk was 2% as compared to 32% for unhunted elk (Taylor 1979). Additional evidence suggesting that protected grizzly bear populations are less wary than hunted ones is provided by Herrero (1985). He has shown that serious injury to humans and number of incidents are greater in national parks than elsewhere (Table 30). Some caution is necessary when interpreting these numbers because the actual rate (Number incidents/Number people) of incidents and injury is not ava ilable . History shows that banning hunting has reduced but not eliminated mortality. Wyoming stopped grizzly bear hunting in 1975, and hunting was also discontinued in the Montana portion of the Yellowstone Ecosystem in 1975. However, this has not reduced either the number of nonhunting mortalities or the potential for bear/human conflicts. Arizona, Idaho and Washington either stopped or limited the hunting of grizzly bears in 1929, 1946, and 1969, respectively. These actions did not stop mortalities of grizzly bears nor their extermination from Arizona and near extermination from Idaho and Washington. Colorado established a nonhunting reserve for the grizzly in 1954 which was in place through 1964. This also failed to prevent the elimination of the grizzly in Colorado. In Arizona and Colorado, the bans on hunting may have occurred to late to prevent extermination. The province of Alberta stopped hunting grizzlies in their southern units adjacent to the NCDE in 1970. While bear numbers did increase, there was a concurrent increase in conflicts and illegal kills. After a human was fatally mauled in 1979, the season was reopened in 1982. Subse- quently, the population has remained stable to increasing while the number of illegal kills has declined (Pussell, pers. comm., Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Lethbridge). Inukai (1972) reported that a brown bear population in Japan remained high despite the loss of 750 bears per year and that no effective method to diminish the number of bears had been found. Johnson (1980) provided harvest data from an Alaska population estimated in 195 8 to be 1800 animals and in subsequent studies was found to be stable. He stated the management goal was to provide an annual harvest of 60-80 bears not because of concerns for the population, but because of concerns for aesthetic hunting conditions. He suggested the population could sustain a greater harvest level. D. Nonhunting Man-caused Mortality in the NCDE Since 1975, an annual average of 8.2 grizzly bears (range = 6-12) have been lost from the population for 92 Table 30. Human injuries resulting from bears. (Herrero 1985) . MONTANA (exclusive of National Parks) DECADE NO. OF PEOPLE INJURED NO. OF INCIDENTS 1950-59 3 3 1960-69 4 3 1970-79 0 0 Totals 7 6 GLACIER NATIONAL PARK 1950-59 1 1 1960-69 12 8 1970-79 10 7 Totals" ~23~ 16~ YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK 1950-1959 1 1 1960-1969 24 24 1970-1979 13 11 Totals 38 36 ALBERTA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA (Exclusive of Parks) 1960-69 6 6 1970-79 1 1 Totals 7 7 NATIONAL PARKS (Alberta and British Columbia) 1950-59 3 1 1960-69 9 5 1970-79 20 17 Totals" ~32~ ~23~ reasons other than hunting (Table 25). Figure 23 presents the distribution of nonhunting mortalities in the NCDE from 1970-84. These include illegal and control deaths as well as live transplants from the NCDE. 93 Figure 23. Location of nonhunting kills of grizzly bears in the NCDE , 1970-1984. 94 Male grizzly bears are more prevalent in the nonhunting mortality than females (Table 25). During the period 1968- 1984, females have constituted an average of 3G% of the man- caused nonhunting mortality. This percentage of females has increased to 39% in the recent decade. When sexes are combined, subadults comprise 52% of the nonhunting mortality (Table 25). The distribution of male and female ages is given in Figures 24 and 25 respectively. There is no significant (P=0.17) difference in age of male (x=5.8 years) or female bears (x=7.5 years) in the nonhunting mortality (1975-1984). Nonhunting mortality has been stratified into five major categories which allow accurate interpretation of nonhunting mortality patterns in the NCDE. 1. Defense of life or property: a. Marauding situations: a grizzly bear dispatched by a citizen for killing livestock or otherwise damaging personal property. b. Menacing situations: a grizzly bear dispatched by a citizen acting in self-defense. c. Nuisance situations: a grizzly bear dispatched when a citizen feels annoyed or uncomfortable with the bear's presence or when the bear is foraging on garbage or other human food sources. d. Control situations: a grizzly bear dispatched by state or government officials following a citizen complaint. e. Relocations: a grizzly bear removed by agency officials from the Ecosystem or to an unfamiliar part of the Ecosystem following a citizen complaint . 2. Mistaken Identity Deaths: a grizzly bear mistakenly, but illegally killed by a black bear hunter . 3. Vandal or Poaching Deaths: a grizzly bear illegally killed for maliciously or for profit. 4. Vehicle Collision Deaths: a grizzly bear accidentally killed after being struck by a motorized vehicle. 5. Handling Deaths: a grizzly bear accidentally killed by agency personnel during transplant or research operations . 95 DC < LLI 30V Q o B 00 E3 iH w C =1 ■£! C O c cn 0) 00 E o 0) oo KM O c o •H - ■u N I (D I to CO 0> CO 00 CM CO O) CO 0) o CO 0> 0> ,N O) CO h- 0) r- o> CO 0> o> T" CO I i I CO CM t- O < UJ >■ o •H >-i •u oj •H T3 bO CS •H ■u CJ 3 oj 03 CO 0) CO QJ ,a • > oo i-l i—l m o « w QJ Q &0 CJ co a 30V N VI031AI c cO •H 13 QJ s CN QJ •H 103 significant (Masnn-Whitney: p=.007) difference in male ages between bears harvested in wilderness (mean=4.0 years, SD=2.4, median=4.0) and nonwilderness areas (inean=7.6 years, SD=6.45f median=5). We also tested for age differences in grizzly bear harvest during the early bugle season and the general hunting season in the wilderness units. When sexes were combined there was no significant (Mann-Whitney: p=0.62) difference in age between bears harvested during the bugle season (mean=5.5 years, median=4.0), and during the general season (mean=6.4 years, median=5.0). There was no difference (Mann-Whitney: p=0.43) in the age of females harvested during the bugle season (mean=4.1 years, median=4.0), and general season (mean=4.5 years, median=5.0). Also, there was no significant (Mann-Whitney: p=0.60) difference in male ages for the bugle season (mean=7.0 years, median=4.0), as opposed to the general season (mean = 8.0 years, median=8.0). These data suggest that while there are no significant differences in male and female ages between the bugle and general season, older animals of both sexes are harvested in the later general hunting season. F. Mortality Summary The Department has attempted to document all sources of man-caused grizzly bear mortality in the NCDE. The analyses show that an average of 26 grizzly bears are either killed or transplanted each year (Table 34). Table 34. Summary of average annual man-caused mortality the NCDE, 1975-1984. Hunting mortality: 10.6 bears in Nonhunting mortality: Defense of life or property 4.1 Known poaching/vandal 2.6 Unreported 6.P Mistaken identity 1.0 Vehicle .5 Total 25.6 bears/year 104 VIII. DAMAGE CONTROL Control of nuisance grizzly bears is a necessary part of management. Grizzly bears that damage property, and threaten human life, must be removed from the area of conflict. The authority to deal with damage control complaints rests with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Animal Damage Control) and the Department. After legitimate complaints are verified by either agency, an operational plan for control of the animal is initiated. Regardless of which agency handles a control situation, all actions must be reported to the Department. If an animal is dispatched, its carcass must be sent to the Department Research Laboratory. This operational plan (Appendix G) was developed through an interagency effort (USDI FWS 1982). The plan outlines the conditions under which an animal will be relocated, released on site, or destroyed. Each situation is evaluated on the basis of conflict severity. All animals that inflict substantial human injury or loss of life will be dispatched. Bears committing lesser infractions are given a maximum of three infractions, depending on the age, sex, reproductive status, and conflict severity. If a decision is made to relocate the animal to another area, the operational plan outlines the sequence of events and agency contacts. An interagency agreement is then made as to which of several pre-selected release sites will be used . The operational plan does not address measures to reduce the potential for conflicts. In many instances, only the symptoms are treated. If the number of control actions are to be reduced, it may be necessary either to remove the source of the problem or to initiate effective deterrent programs . There are three management tools to deal with property damage situations: 1) preventive measures and aversive conditioning, 2) animal removal, and 3) damage compensation. Preventive measures are generally the preferred approach. Such measures include bear-proofing homes, corralling livestock at night, carrion removal, pasture selection, use of guard dogs, and electric fencing (Boggess et al. 1980). Hunt (1984) indicated several aversive training and deterrent techniques that may be tested in the field. Although testing in both the laboratory and the field identified promising agents, to date no effective long-term conditioning techniques have been developed. 105 Several agents still require further evaluation with marked bears to determine their effectiveness. Bears have shown remarkable abilities to learn from past experiences. It is possible that if the attractions (e.g. food) are strong enough, then deterrents may become less effective with frequent use. If conditioned to flee from humans, treated grizzly bears may lose the parts of their home range where humans are present. Over time, aversive conditioning may cause reduction in overall habitat. Long-term field studies are necessary to test aversive condition techniques. It will be important to differentiate between habituated and unhabituated bears. These studies cannot be incorporated into other ecological grizzly bear research because behavior will be altered, and other data sets will be compromised. Animal removal may include agency dispatch, live transplants from the area, or legal hunting to reduce grizzly bear densities in recurrent problem areas. The success rate of relocated grizzly bears has not been adeauately documented for the NCDE, although preliminary analyses were completed by Thier and Sizemore (1981). Mace and Riley (In prep) analyzed data on grizzly bear reloca- tions in the NCDE from 1975 to 1984 to evaluate their success. Successful relocations were those where the individual was not known to resume conflict activity for 2 years. Forty-two individuals were moved 45 times. Of these relocations, 31% were adults, 49% were subadults, and 20% were cubs. Twenty-five (56%) of the 45 relocations resulted in success. Brannon et al. (In prep.) reported that relocation was 51% successful in preventing an individual from causing another nuisance. Relocations of males in the NCDE were 43% successful whereas those of females were 65% successful. However, this difference was not significant (X2=1.99, p=0.15). Brannon et al. (In prep.) reported that relocation was 42% and 47% successful for males and females, respectively. In the NCDE relocations were 57, 59 and 54% successful in preventing further nuisances for adults, subadults and cubs respec- tively. The mean distance bears were moved in successful attempts was 74 miles. For unsuccessful attempts, the mean distance was 56 miles, but this difference was not signifi- cant (P = 0.16). Brannon et al. (In prep.) reported that there was no difference in distance transplanted between relocations preventing further nuisance and those not, but that returning bears "were transplanted a shorter distance than nonreturners. 106 Haroldson and Mace (1984) provided a literature review and identified those population segments least likely to cause further problems. If relocations are to continue, measures should be taken to radio-instrument and monitor relocation attempts. Damage compensation may be provided in several forms. Livestock indemnity programs compensate producers for all or part of predator losses. Beehive damage compensation has also been instituted in several states and Canadian provinces. The states of Minnesota and Pennsylvania and the province of Alberta all have livestock indemnity programs which appear to be unsuccessful in reducing damage caused by bears or wolves (Joselyn, pers. comm., Minn. Dept. of Nat. Pes., St. Paul,; Warner, pers. comm., Penn. Came Commission, Harrisburg; Cunson, pers. comm., Alb. Fish & Wildlife Div., Edmonton). However, each program does have at least limited success in preventing landowners from handling damage situ- ations themselves (Gunson, Warner & Joselyn, pers. comm.) Warner (pers. comm.) stated that 1985 has shown approxi- mately a 1/3 reduction over 1984 in damage claims by bee- keepers. He attributes this success primarily to fencing provided to beekeepers by the Game Commission. Joselyn (pers. comm.) stated that there may be a noticeable reduction in the number of instances in which landowners resolve wol f -1 ivestock damage situations themselves. He stated this was due to an active U.S.F.W.S. program in which complaints are acted on quickly (within 12-24 hours). Sorenson (pers. comm.) stated that although the government of Norway's compensation program pays as much as twice the value for livestock losses, even if only suspected of being lost to wolves or bears, livestock owners still want the nuisance animal (s) controlled. It appears that the best approaches to grizzly bear- livestock damage situations are first, to provide rapid response (preferably within 12 hours) and action, provide fencing to beekeepers to prevent beehive damage, and use animal husbandry practices which reduce the potential for livestock-grizzly bear interact ions. At this time, Montana has no compensation program for grizzly bear damage. A compensation bill introduced to the Legislature in 1983 was not passed. At present, private organizations are raising funds for this cause. 107 IX. HUMAN INTERACTIONS A. Ha_bita_t Encroachment The immediate and long-term effects of human activities and habitation within grizzly bear habitat have been well documented. In Europe, for example, deforestation, road building, illegal harvest, and housing have displaced brown bears from all but the most remote habitats in the Pyrenees of France and Spain (Poben 1980), in Norway (Elgmork 197 8), and in the Estonian Soviet Republic (Kaal 1976). Improved access and development activities serve to reduce the acreage of secure habitat. Thus, these factors increase vulnerability and probability of conflict (Bunnell and Tait 1980, Nagy and Russell 1978, Claar et al. 1983, Jonkel and Demarchi 1984). As Pearson (1975) points out, the grizzly is capable of living in proximity to human development and can only be eliminated by human predation. Pearson further suggests that where economic and social demands justify human occupa- tion, grizzly bears can still be maintained at lower densi- ties. However, the control of nuisance animals becomes a management necessity in these situations. Land development along the periphery of Glacier National Park has accelerated rapidly in recent decades, and over time poses the possibility of turning the Park into an ecological island (Martinka 1982). Similar patterns of habitat isolation can be seen in segments of the grizzly population living in the Cabinet and Mission mountains of Montana. Furthermore, because the NCDE is a peninsular population, habitat encroachment in southern British Columbia and Alberta could ultimately influence interchange within the ecosystem. High levels of direct human/bear interaction have led to a modification of bear behavior in the national parks (Herrero 1985). Grizzly bears in some areas of Glacier National Park have become habituated to hikers, and the number of direct confrontations has increased in recent years (McArthur Jope, 1983). While historical confronta- tions normally involved females with young, recent observa- tions show single adult and subadult grizzlies are charging and approaching humans with greater frequency. This behavior modification of park bears suggests that frequent interaction between bears and people can result in nuisance bears even in the absence of food reinforcement (McCullough 1982). Conversely, Blanchard (1978) found that most grizzly bears in the Hilgard Mountains of Montana (4 miles from Yellowstone National Park) fled from hikers. Comparisons of bear attacks in and outside of United States and Canadian parks are given in Table 30. 108 P. Fire Suppression Fire is a natural ecological element in the northern Rocky Mountains (Howe 1976). Fire creates openings in the forest canopy and maintains a mosaic of habitats important to many wildlife species. Fire-induced shrubfields are primary summer and fall foraging habitats for the grizzly bear (Martin 1979). However, in the early 1900s it was recognized that fire reduced the commercial timber base and posed a threat to human safety and developments. Thus fire suppression programs were aggressively instituted during the 1930s (Arno 1980). Since the early 1900sf 647 natural and man-caused fires have occurred on the Flathead National Forest; all but three were suppressed (U.S. Forest Service files, Flathead National Forest). Although policies to let fires burn have been developed in recent years, and fire management plans have been drafted, most fires are still suppressed. As succession moves shrubfields towards a climax stage, prime grizzly bear habitat decreases. As human developments increase in grizzly habitat so will the need to protect these habitats from fire. Because grizzly bear reproductive success is tied to nutrition (Harestad and Bunnell 1979), loss of serai shrubfields may reduce the number of grizzly bears in the ecosystem (Zager et al. 1983) . C. Ye get at ion Manipulations Certain logging practices may create environmental conditions similar to those after a fire, and may partially offset the effect of fire suppression (Zager et al. 1983). However, documented grizzly bear use of logged sites has been minimal (Zager 1980, McLellan and Mace 1985). Archibald (1983) suggests that hunted grizzly bear popula- tions are less likely to use logged and other open sites than nonhunted populations. Holland (In press) has described U.S. Forest Service habitat improvement activities in the South and Middle forks of the Flathead Fiver. Between 1978 and 1984 the Spotted Bear and Hungry Horse ranger districts have conducted prescribed burns on over 1.230 acres of winter ranges on which grizzly bears obtain carrion. Holland (In Press) also described clover (Trifolium spp.) seedings along closed roads and cutting units, aspen (Populus spp.) and browse plantings, and lodgepole conversions . Hillis (In Press) has suggested strategies for creating forbfields and shrubfields on the Lolo National Forest. Grizzly bear foods produced in the processes described are considered "transitional", yet could be sustained over time by long term harvest planning. Holland (In Press) described habitat improvement techniques in the South Fork of the Flathead Fiver. These techniques include road closures, enhancement of ungulate habitat, prescribed fires, and mechanical food planting. Other than these studies, there 109 has been little research conducted on grizzly bear habitat improvement. Such investigations are encouraged and should include habitat features such as space and isolation in addition to food production. D. Disturbance, f r_om Motorized Activities. Lyon et al. (1985) clearly demonstrated that elk lose a portion of effective habitat near roads, and suggest mitigative strategies to reduce such loss. Similarly, Zager (1980) found loss of grizzly bear habitat adjacent to open roads. McLellan and Mace (1985) found that grizzly bears were only minimally displaced by vehicular activities in British Columbia, Canada, and that displacement was restricted to daylight hours. The relationship between vehicular traffic and grizzlies in the East Front is as yet unclear (Aune et al. 1984). Mace and Jonkel (In Press) have shown that timber harvests displaced grizzly bears from a portion of their home range, at least during the period of logging activity. Brannon (1984) reported that bears avoid areas close to roads, but habitat preference is a confounding factor in this relationship. Road access has also been suggested to influence mortality. In an attempt to evaluate this possibility we plotted all hunting and nonhunting mortalities (Figs. 27, 24) for which the location was known. Locations were recorded by legal descriptions. Unless the specific location was recorded we plotted each kill at the center of the Section designated. The shortest distance from each location to the closest road was determined and tabulated for analysis. Each kill location was then categorized by this distance (Table 35). The influence of road access on grizzly bear mortality is shown by the fact that 32% of hunting mortality and 4 8% of total mortality, for which locations were known, occurs within 1 mile of roads. Clearly, road access management is an important part of grizzly bear management and restrictions can reduce mortality. The effects of oil and gas exploration and development activities on grizzly bears has been investigated by Aune and Stivers (1983) and Aune et al. (1984). Bears appear to be displaced from areas adjacent to wells. A 1/2-mile radius may be excluded from a bear's use during drilling and development. Individual bears may be displaced further where topographic or vegetative screening is scarce. Grizzlies monitored by Aune et al. (1984) avoided seismic activity. Although older bears appeared more tolerant, most bears were either displaced from key foraging areas or altered their activity patterns. Conversely, McLellan and Mace (1985) observed minimal reaction to seismic activity in southern British Columbia. ■ 110 Ill Table 35. Hunter kills and total known mortality within IP miles of roads in the NCDF, 1970-1984. Distance in Miles Hunter Harvest9 Cumulative Percentage 0.5 38 22 1 16 32 2 13 39 3 16 49 4 6 52 5 15 61 6 14 69 7 12 77 8 P PI 9 10 P7 10 6 91 11 3 92 12 2 94 13 1 94 14 3 96 15 4 98 16 2 99 17 99 IP 1 100 Distance inMiles Total Mortality0 Cumulative Percentage 0.5 100 39 1 22 48 2 19 55 3 16 61 4 7 64 5 17 71 6 IP 77 7 13 P2 P 10 86 9 12 91 10 7 93 11 4 95 12 2 96 13 1 96 14 3 97 15 4 98 16 2 99 17 99 IP 1 100 The correlation of hunter harvest with distance to road is r=-0. P0 'The correlation of total mortality with distance to road is r=-0.61 112 E . Publ ic Perceptions Public attitudes and perceptions of the grizzly bear and its management are probably the most critical factors for successful management of the grizzly bear. The Department is seeking public comment on this document, because it believes grizzly bear management will benefit from the opinions and experiences of Montanans. Research has been conducted to determine the attitudes and opinions of the public toward wildlife. Kellert (1976) and Mihalic (1973) indicate that city dwellers have protectionist attitudes toward wildlife and that rural people have non-protectionist (or utilitarian) attitudes. Kellert (1979) found that 60% of the people polled in a national survey disa_gre_ed_ with the statement that wildlife would be better off if government officials did not attempt to control their populations. Of the people polled from the Pocky Mountains, 59% agreed to the protection of the grizzly bear even if it resulted in the loss of some timber-related jobs and building material. Sixty-five to 85% of those surveyed nationally, supported hunting for recreation and meat . Locally, Frost (1985) surveyed the attitudes of Mission Valley residents toward the grizzly bear. She reported that residents were aware of the differences between grizzly and black bears, but not that the grizzly was classified as "threatened" in Montana. She also reported that only 18% of those polled knew the correct number of grizzlies presumed to live in the Missions. Fifty-four percent of the people surveyed were uncertain or disagreed that the grizzly bear was in danger of disappearing from the Missions, while 46% agreed with this statement. when asked what should be done with grizzly bear numbers in the lower 48 states and the Mission mountains, 47% and 45% respectively, responded that populations should be left as they are. When asked about bear research, hunting of grizzlies, relocation of problem bears and killing of problem bears, 5 8%, 3 8%, 6 8%, and 65%, respectively, responded that these activities should remain the same or increase. Thirty-seven percent of the respondents felt hunting should be decreased. Asked if they would be comfortable with grizzlies on their property, respondents indicated they would be all of the time (13%), most of the time (24%), sometimes (21%), and never (34%). Frost (1985) also found that 76% of respondents would be encouraged to protect habitat on private property if they received rapid response to grizzly problems. Ninety-eight percent would kill a grizzly if it was threatening them or a family member, 51% if it was killing livestock. A majority of respondents wanted to "get rid of" or "decrease numbers" of grizzlies when their nuisance problem hadn't been solved and wanted to "leave as is" or "increase numbers" when their problem had been solved. 113 A petition expressing sentiment against grizzly bears, circulated in communities along the East Front by East Front residents, received public support. A petition opposing augmentation of grizzlies in the Cabinet Mountains, circulated by N.E.E.D. (Northwest Energy, Employment, and Development) in Libby, Montana, received overwhelming support . 114 X. RESEARCH PROGRAM Intensive grizzly research was begun by the Department in 1975. Reasons for the research included the grizzly's pending classification as "threatened" (ESA 1973), and anticipated grizzly habitat and population impacts from land development. Prior to 1975f morphological studies of mortalities were conducted by the Department. The program primarily to provided information for the annual season- setting process beginning in January of each year. In 1974 the Department and the University of Montana signed an agreement initiating the Border Grizzly Project (BGP). During the subsequent 10 years this project has researched grizzly bear habitat use and distribution, bear repellents and deterrents and black/grizzly bear interrela- tionships. Much of this research was done by graduate students. Results of this project include dissertations (Zager 1980, Servheen 1981), theses (Jorgensen 1979, Lloyd 1979, Martin 1979, Cushing 1980, Miller 1980, Sizemore 1980, and Sherwood 1981), and published papers (Schallenberger 1977, Cushing 1980, Jorgensen 1980, Martin 1980, Servheen 1980, and Zager 1980). Many other aspects of the project have been reported in PGP Annual Reports, PGP Special Reports, and other published reports. At present the Department is conducting grizzly bear research along the RMEF and in the Cabinet Mountains. Both these studies are conducting impact evaluations on oil, gas, and mineral development. Both studies have collected grizzly population information and habitat use and distribution data. The RMEF investigation has compiled the most extensive information concerning population status and trends yet gathered for an area in the NCDE. On a statewide basis, grizzly management and research has been ranked 13 of the 19 species or groups of species priorities in Montana by the Department (Appendix H) . Emphasis in the past for management and research has thus been directed toward other big game species such as deer, elk and antelope. Even with this emphasis, in fiscal year 1985 the Department will spend about $198,000 (includes only expenditures from state hunting license sales income) on grizzly bear management and research. This compares with grizzly license receipts totaling approximately $32,000 in 1983 and $39,700 in 1984 (Table 36). The Department currently is spending over five times the amount of license dollars currently received from hunters on the grizzly bear management and research program. In addition to state license revenue, Department grizzly bear research has been supported by private organizations, public land management agencies, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Due to a federal solicitor's opinion, Montana has been ineligible to receive federal Section 6 115 Table 36. Montana grizzly bear license receipts, 19P3 and 19P4. Yea r Resident Grizzly Nonresident Grizzly Grizzly Trophy Total 19 83 12,]00 (484) 19,775 (113) 200 ( P) $32,075 19842 $23,500 (470)3 $15,900 (53) $325(13) $39,725 Resident Grizzly = $25; Non-resident Grizzly = $175; Grizzly Trophy = $25 Resident Grizzly = $50; Non-resident Grizzly = $300; Grizzly Trophy = $25 Dollars Received (Number of Licenses Sold) funding under the Endangered Species Act. The opinion indicates that Montana's current law allowing a person to kill a grizzly bear in defense of human life or protection of property is in conflict with the Endangered Species Act. The Act prevents killing a grizzly bear to protect property except by a state or federal government agent. This conflicts with an individual's right to protect life and property guaranteed by Montana's Constitution. A secure and substantial funding source is required to initiate an active and progressive program for grizzly research. The Section 6 funding source under the Endangered Species Act was established to serve this purpose. The Department has, therefore, annually requested a reversal of the solicitor's opinion. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has chosen not to contest that opinion. At present, these requests have proved fruitless and a secure funding source is not available. The Department has actively solicited funding from other sources including private conservation groups, the oil and gas industry, mining companies and other federal land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. These sources are not secure and, therefore, funding is limited and highly variable . For the Department to comply with the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI 19P2) regarding determination of population viability and recovery, it is necessary to document attainment of population goals and/or monitor reproductive parameters and mortality patterns for a minimum of six years. Such monitoring efforts require a secure source of research funds. Clarification in the recovery plan is also needed to establish the number of areas within the NCDE from which these population data are needed to document recovery. 116 Department priorities for future grizzly research have been identified as follows: 1. PMEF Monitoring Study (continuation through fiscal year P7). A study to develop population trend moni- toring techniques and guidelines for oil and gas development activities. 2. Cabinet Mountains Grizzly Study (continuation through fiscal year PP). A study to validate Forest Service cumulative effects analysis and to develop guidelines for mining activities in the Cabinet Mountains of Montana. 3. Northwest Grizzly Study (population trend and status study to be initiated in FYP6). The Northwest Grizzly Study will emphasize population trend and status information. Habitat use and distribution will receive secondary emphasis. Methods to monitor popula- tion trends in west side habitats will be a major objective. Correlation of hunting and nonhunting mortalities to popula- tion levels will also be attempted. The study will require a long-term commitment (possibly ten years) of funding and personnel . It has been suggested that the Department develop differential harvest strategies (involving several mortality rates) in several of the Bear Management Units to test and then contrast the effects of these strategies on grizzly bear demographics. Because harvest data may give somewhat ambiguous results (Harris 19P4a), experimental designs of this type would also require a long-term, intrusive research program. Such research must be conducted within the legal constraints of the Endangered Species Act. One frequently discussed aspect of research is the possible negative influence from frequent handling of wild- life to obtain biological information. Little information is available on this subject. Current Department research studies have detected no major influence (i.e., altered home ranges, etc.), but these studies were not designed to deter- mine such impacts. The handling of wildlife for research purposes should be limited to only necessary projects. With this assumption in mind, the Department opposed requests to gather research information on grizzly bears in all occupied areas. Instead, reliance on extrapolation from intensively studied areas to areas of similar habitat has been used. This technique is widely applied in wildlife management and eliminates the need to study and handle all population segments. There are also ethical questions raised concerning the value of tagging and instrumenting wilderness animals. 117 A. Confidence Limit Fequi rements Commentary on the preliminary draft of the EIS has suggested that population estimates should have 95% confidence. To illustrate the requirements of such a confidence limit we present scenarios of the requirements for estimating two populations one of 50 (a typical study area populat ion) and another of 356 grizzly bears (our current estimate of the minimum for the NCDE exclusive of Glacier National Park). We approximate these confidence limits as +2SE, where SE is the standard error of our population estimates. The formula for this SE is given in Caughley (1977, p. 143) for the population estimator using direct sampling (where the number of marked individuals to be recaptured is not decided prior to recapturing). To use the unbiased estimator would require predetermining the number of marked individuals before recapturing, and recapturing would continue until this number of marked individuals is caught. As difficult as bear trapping is, predetermining and then capturing the number of marked bears to be recaptured would be unfeasible. If we have a study area population estimate of 50 grizzly bears of which 30% are marked (15) and 25% of the population is subsequently captured (13), including 25% (4) of the marked bears being recaptured, then our population estimate is 50 ± 27 (a confidence interval of only 54%). If 90% (45) of this estimated population is marked and 90% (45) of the population is subsequently captured, including 90% (41) of the marked bears being recaptured, then the confi- dence interval is still only 80% (50 ± 10). A 90% confidence interval on our current estimate of the minimum (356) for the NCDE (exclusive of Glacier National Park) would require marking 60% (214) and subsequently capturing all 356 and recapturing all (214) of the marked bears. A somewhat more practical approach of marking 30% (107) and subsequently capturing 25% (P9), including 25% (27) of the marked bears being recaptured, produces a 30% confidence interval (356 + 106). These exercises indicate that deriving statistically confident grizzly bear population estimates are not practical for study areas let alone entire ecosystems. Nevertheless, we believe that we can have reasonable confi- dence as managers. This confidence is based on the manner in which the estimate of the NCDE minimum population was derived (Appendix E). IIP XT. ENFORCEMENT Department enforcement efforts concerning grizzly bears are focused in three areas including patrols of both wilder- ness and nonw ilderness areas, damage control, and poaching invest igat ions . Wilderness and nonwilderness areas are patrolled during the general hunting season and at other times. Hunter camps are checked for harvested game and compliance with outfitter regulations. Fesponse to nuisance bear complaints involves all Department personnel in some capacity, although enforcement division personnel are frequently the first on the scene. Department enforcement personnel investigate and prosecute all violations involving illegal mortality. Cases are processed through the county attorney's office or turned over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when they appear to involve interstate movement of grizzly bear parts. The Department also coordinates with federal officials in undercover operations. The Enforcement and wildlife divisions also respond to specific problem situations. For example, in 1985 the Department temporarily closed a portion of Hunting District 141 to black bear hunting. Closure of this district is designed to prevent mistaken identity kills of grizzly bears feeding on spilled grain along a railroad right-of-way. 119 XII. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION A comprehensive public information campaign regarding the grizzly bear was initiated in the spring of 1984. The purpose of this effort was to assist hunters in distin- guishing between black and grizzly bears. The goal of this effort was to reduce or eliminate m ist ak en- ident i ty killings. The following is an account of the Department's public information and education effort. Examples of publi- cations, releases, public service announcements, scripts, etc., are included as attachments in this EIS. A. £t§tew_ide Act iv it ies_ 1. Special Publications Bear identification posters (Attachment 1) and a brochure (Attachment 2) were sent to all license agents and sportsmen's clubs in Montana. Purchasers of bear licenses also received the brochure. A "Bear Us in Mind" brochure was produced in cooperation with the federal Forest and Park Services, and the Idaho and Wyoming Departments of Fish and Game (Attachment 3). Special bear-hunting regulations were produced by the Department. Black/grizzly bear identification character- istics were included (Attachment 4). Identification infor- mation on the two species was included in the Department's in-house newsletter. The Department's magazine, Montana Outdoors is distributed to approximately 35,000 subscribers. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 people see each issue of the magazine. Specifics on grizzly/black bear identifi- cation were included in the March-April, September-October, and November-December 1984 issues (Aderhold 1984, O'Gara 1984, Anonymous 1984). A bear identification information bulletin (Attachment 1) was also distributed to all of Montana's approximately 600 outfitters. 2. Media Effort A news packet distributed to 272 media outlets in early spring of 1984 included information on black and grizzly bear characteristics and the need for hunters to pay special attention to the mistaken identity problem. The Department received excellent response to the packet. The state's two largest newspapers, The Great Falls Tribune and The Billings Gazette, carried front page pictures of black and grizzly bears, mentioned the mistaken identity problem, and provided further detail on their outdoor pages. 120 Public service announcements describing black and grizzly bear identification characteristics (Attachment 5) were sent to 43 radio stations in the state in both spring and fall. At the same time, two television public service announcements were released to 11 television stations in Montana . Video footage, including pictures of black and grizzly bears and identification characteristics, was supplied to the Montana Television Network (the state's only statewide network), just prior to the spring bear season, for use on the evening news. 3. Signs and Posters The National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wyoming and Idaho Departments of Fish and Game cooperated with the Department in producing and placing identification posters at trailheads in grizzly country prior to the spring and fall black bear seasons. A poster was also produced in an attempt to heighten the public's awareness of the grizzly (Attachment 6). Roadside signs were placed at four locations in areas with previous problems of mistaken identity (Attachment 7 is a copy of the sign requisition detailing the type of sign erected) . The Audubon Society initiated a reward program in 1982 (Attachment 8) . The Department was also involved in publi- city and information gathering. 4. Additional Statewide Efforts A 30-minute, 16-mm film documentary titled "Room to Live", previously produced by the Department, discusses the grizzly, its needs, and characteristics. It was booked by 100 different groups in 1984, and viewed by an estimated 50,000 people. An exhibit displayed at the 1984 State Fair in Great Falls included life-size mounts of black and grizzly bears, and identification posters and brochures. This exhibit reached over 35,000 visitors. Hunter Education classes were expanded to include a big- game identification slide series, including pictures of black and grizzly bears. In addition, the Hunter Education text included identifying characteristics of the black and grizzly bears, and the need for special attention when hunting bears. Approximately 6,000 students received instruction in 1984. ]21 Two slide series were produced by the Department. One targeted northwestern Montana, where the mistaken identity problem had been worst. The second was produced in conjunction with the Forest Service, Park Service, and Wyoming and Idaho Departments of Fish and Game, for use reg i onwide . Each spring the MFGC sets tentative season and bag limits for that fall's big game seasons. Sportsmen from throughout the state participate. The 19P4 session included a presentation outlining plans for our public information effort pertinent to the mistaken identity problem. P. Regional Efforts In addition to the efforts undertaken to distribute information statewide, the seven Department regions throughout the state were involved in a variety of other activities targeting the need for increased awareness of the mistaken identity problem and publicizing the different characteristics of the two species. The following is an accounting of the specific activities undertaken in our regions during 19P4. Region One Programs given: Public meeting - grizzly bear LDS Church Youth Group - grizzlies Flathead Chapter Montana Fowhunters Association - grizzly bear management Northwest Energy & Employment Development Inc. - grizzlies Wilderness Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Panch - grizzly identification Arche ryHunt e r SafetyClass- grizzly identification League of Women Voters - grizzly forum and answering questions Conrad Lutheran Father/Son Banquet - grizzlies Wildlife Society - black bear seasons Northwest Energy & Employment Development Inc. - grizzly recovery Media Contacts: 1 radio spot on grizzly update 2 radio spots on black bear season 1 radio spot on Libby grizzly meeting 1 radio spot on grizzly bear recovery 3 television public service announcements on grizzly identification 122 1 news release on adding grizzlies to the Cabinet populat ion Region Two Programs given: Western Montana Fish & Game Association - program on bear identification Archery Club - program on bear identification Anaconda Hunter Education Instructors - program on bear identification Pavalli County Hunter Education Instructors - bear identification Media Contacts: 1 radio spot on bear identification 1 radio spot on bear identification 2 radio spots on bear identification 2 rad io spot s on bear ident if icat ion and bear season ltelevision program - statewide (MTN) on bear ident i f icat ion 1 television spot on bear identification lpress release toall media on bear identification 1 article on bear identification larticle on bear i.d. for Hunting and F i shing. News Region Three Programs given: 4-H Camp - program on bears Media Contacts: 1 radio spot to 8 stations on black bear season 1 radio spot to 8 stations on black bear hunting season to open 1 press release on black bear hunting lpress release on black bear hunting season to open Region Four Programs given: Lewistown Lewis & Clark School - program on grizzly bear Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks personnel- beartrappingandtranquilizing session 123 Great Falls Lewis & Clark School - program on grizzly and black bears Teton County Sportsniens Club - program on grizzly & black bears Upper Missouri Break Audubon Club - program on grizzly & black bears Conrad Sportsmans Club - program on grizzly & black bears Sun Piver Game Range Tour - program on grizzly & black bears SimmsFigh School Wildlife Biology Class - program on grizzly & black bears Chouteau Kiwanis Club - program on grizzly & black bears Media Contacts: 1 radio spot on grizzly bears 1 radio spot on black and grizzly bear character- istics 1 television spot on grizzly bears and Audubon reward Region Five Media Contacts: 1 news release on black bear season starts in mid- April Region Eight (LOCAL) Programs given: Mountain Bell - program on bears Helena Outdoors Club - program on bears and man Mountain Bell - program on bears Kalispell Flathead Wildlife - program on bears Cascade County Medical Society - program on grizzlies Valier Sportsmen Club - program on bears Media Contacts: 1 radio spot on bears 1 radio spot on bears 1 television program on bears Our regional efforts totaled: 24 programs given at meetings, banquets or workshops 17 radio programs 124 6 news releases and informational materials distributed to local newspapers 7 television interviews/programs In addition, numerous radio, television and newspaper interviews were given which resulted in additional media coverage . C. Results and Plans In 19P4 there were no grizzly mortalities due to mistaken identity, and so far in 1985 there has been only 1. Because the Department's information effort has been effective in keeping this mortality source at a minimum, a similar effort will be continued in the future. 125 XIII. RECREATION MANAGEMENT Many recreational activities take place in grizzly bear habitat. Some activities, such as hiking, berry picking, or cross-country skiing, receive little direct management. Others are more closely managed. These include public campgrounds, groomed snowmobile trails, and outfitted fishing, hunting, and backcountry trips. Approximately 44 primitive campgrounds developed by the Forest Service, and four Department recreation sites exist in grizzly bear habitat. These sites usually provide picnic tables, parking spurs, and vault latrines. Each site is "bear-proofed" according to its location in grizzly habitat and its history of bear use. Most sites located several miles off main highways are posted as pack-in-pack-out for garbage. Garbage cans are not present and miscellaneous litter is picked up. If appropriate, a poster is displayed explaining techniques to avoid attracting bears into the sites . More highly developed campgrounds provide garbage cans. If a site has a history of bear use, the cans are fitted with bear-proof lids and the garbage is collected frequently. Regulations prohibit dumping waste on the ground, leaving food out of hard containers, allowing pets to be unleashed and leaving campsites unattended. Visitors are also informed of the presence of bears at many trailheads . Four snowmobile trail-grooming projects are in grizzly bear habitat. Cooperative agreements are signed between the Department and the land management agency (usually the U.S. Forest Service) to groom the trails from mid-December through March. The grooming season and trail routes are approved by Department biologists to avoid conflicts with grizzly bear dens, hibernation periods, and spring emergence. Section 23-2-633, MCA, prohibits using a snow- mobile to drive, rally or harass any game animal, including grizzly bears. Snowmobile laws are enforced by Department wardens . Approximately 12 hunting or fishing outfitting businesses are operating in the CYE, and 40 in the NCDE. These businesses are required to have a license, and are responsible for fish and game law violations that their clients commit. Outfitters must pass a standard examination which tests their knowledge and ability to perform the services efficiently and safely. The exams also test the applicant's knowledge of related subjects including infor- mation about grizzly bears. Outfitter compliance is monitored by the land management agencies and Department wardens . 126 XIV. LAND MANAGEMENT A. Department Lands. Department lands where grizzly bear management programs are in place include the Sun River, Ear Mountain, and Blackleaf Wildlife Management Areas, and the DePosier Unit of the Kootenai Wildlife Management Area. On the DeRosier Unit, roads are closed in the spring to exclude traffic when elk, deer, and grizzly bears are using the area. The Sun River, Ear Mountain, and Blackleaf Wildlife Management Areas are all along the RMEF. Grizzly bears use all three areas to some extent. Management of the grizzly bear on these three wildlife management areas follows the Interagency Rocky Mountain Front Management Guidelines (Appendix I). These guidelines regulate human activities to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to grizzly bears. The grizzly bear guidelines have been developed in conjunction with an ongoing bear research project along the Pocky Mountain Front. B. Established Department Policies Study results documented to date along the RMEF are the basis for the development of management guidelines for the grizzly bear and its habitat. During the period from 1977- 1979, research was carried out by the Border Grizzly Project under contract with the Bureau of Land Management. Since 1980 the Department has assumed the intensive grizzly bear monitoring work with funding continuing from the Interagency Monitoring Group, private industry (American Petrofina, Williams Exploration, Sun Exploration), and the Nature Conservancy. These guidelines (Appendix J) are considered tentative and subject to revision. When followed, they will mitigate, but not eliminate influences of human activities on grizzly bears and their habitat. C. Coordination With Other Landowners Because the vast majority of grizzly habitat is on public land, it is crucial that any activity planned for these areas be designed, permitted, and implemented in a manner that will have minimal impact on the bear and its habitat. Therefore, the Department makes a major effort to influence activities proposed for occupied bear habitat. These efforts vary from attempting to influence national policy and land allocation issues to making recommendations on specific activities. The 1985-2030 Resources Planning 127 Act Program provides the nationwide foundation for the forest planning process that is now being completed. The Department thoroughly reviewed this program and submitted comments through the Governor's office. A number of these comments described roadless or "minimum level management" as being the most appropriate course of action for our threatened and endangered species. The Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) process and subsequent Montana Wilderness Bill are other examples of land allocation issues in which the Department invested major efforts. Wilderness, both classified and de facto, is a critical component of grizzly bear habitat. Attempts to protect unclassified areas from encroachments proposed by federal agencies and industry is a never-ending effort. Closely tied to the wilderness allocation process are the forest plans which are now being developed for all national forests in Montana. Commentary on these plans included efforts to keep occupied wildlands wild, and to develop and implement standards and guidelines for the protection of bears in habitat that has roads. The Department responds to local land management actions which may have an impact on grizzly bears. These include grazing, timber sales and associated roads, oil and gas exploration, hard-rock mining and exploration, small-scale hydro-electric developments, ski resorts, land exchanges, and off-road vehicles (snowmobiles, ATVs, and motorbikes). There are opportunities to influence the extent and timing of these activities on federal lands, although the federal agencies are somewhat reluctant to do so. On private and industry lands, these opportunities are available only when landowners are cooperative. In some instances, Department personnel are invited to participate on "Interdisciplinary Teams" which are formed by federal agencies to consider and analyze certain land-use proposals. When not provided with these opportunities, Department personnel respond to environmental impact state- ments, environmental assessments, land reports, allotment management plans, travel plans, and other documents prepared by federal and state agencies. In summary, management of the grizzly bear is vested in the state of Montana under guidelines established by the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. This arrangement is complicated because little occupied bear habitat is under the management of either agency. There- fore, an important aspect of the Department's bear manage- ment program is the effort to influence land-use activities permitted and promoted by other land managers. 12P D. Northwest Power Act--£r i Bear Mitigation In 1980 Congress passed the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act. Its purpose is: (1) to restore the region's fish and wildlife resources through appropriate mitigation, protection, and enhancement actions, and (2) to develop the region's electric power and conser- vation plan. The act also specified that the Bonneville Power Authority must uses all its funding and legal resources to implement the purposes of the act. The Department, in conjunction with other entities and agencies, assessed wildlife losses and developed mitigation and enhancement plans for five hydroelectric projects in northwestern Montana. These projects were in Libby, Hungry Horse, Noxon Rapids, Cabinet Gorge, and Thompson Falls. Impacts to the grizzly bear were identified for all five facilities with the greatest documented for the Hungry Horse project (Casey and Yde 1984, Mundinger and Yde 1984, Wood and Olsen 1984). For each of the five dams, specific projects for wildlife mitigation (including those to benefit grizzly bear) have been recommended. However, before these projects can be implemented, they must be approved and funded by the appropriate federal or private entity or both. 129 XV. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION Montana is currently a member of the Interagency Grizzly Pear Committee (IGPC) (Appendix K). The committee meets at least twice a year to coordinate all the grizzly bear management and research activities of agencies involved with the grizzly bear. Three management subcommittees (Yellowstone, Northern Continental Divide, and Northwest) and one research subcommittee were formed to implement the actions outlined by the IGBC. These subcommittees also meet at least twice each year. Department personnel spend 20-30 man-days per year attending these various committee and subcommittee meetings. Additional time is spent responding to proposals for action presented to the committees. In addition to the IGBC, the Department meets at least once annually with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to coordinate activities and resolve management problems. The Department has 3 wildlife biologists participating in the interagency cumulative effects process. The Department also coordinates with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through their local Endangered Species office and grizzly bear recovery coordinator. This coordination primarily involves Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) consulting on development activities for public land, and responding to nuisance grizzly complaints. Section 7 consulting procedures begin with a federal determination that a particular activity may affect the grizzly bear. The federal aqency then requests an opinion from the USFWS. The Endangered Species office formally requests informa- tion from the Department pertaining to the particular development activity and bear population. The Department provides the pertinent information and the Endangered Species office develops the recommendation. This recommen- dation indicates whether the project will likely jeopardize the grizzly bear. If a jeopardy opinion is rendered, the recommendation must include a list of measures that can allow the project to continue if implemented. The federal agency initiating the consultation then denies the project unless the measures listed are met by the developer. Because no legal authority is granted the Department in these consultations, our role is primarily to provide infor- mation and suggest action. Since 1978 there have been 104 Section 7 consultations on threatened or endangered species in Montana, resulting in 16 jeopardy and 86 no jeopardy decisions, and 2 decisions that the action would promote conservation of the species. Seventy (67%) of these consultations have involved the grizzly bear. Thirteen (19%) of which resulted in jeopardy 130 decisions, 55 (79%) resulted in no jeopardy and 2 (3%) resulted in a determination that the action would promote conservation of the grizzly bear. Of the 16 jeopardy decisions for all species, 13 of which were for the grizzly bear, 13 (81%) and 10 (77%), respectively, were subsequently determined as no jeopardy either because the developers decided not to proceed with the activity or mitigative measures were met by the developers. In summary then, only 3 (3%) of 104 Section 7 consultations ultimately resulted in USFWS jeopardy decisions. Nuisance grizzly complaints are coordinated with the USFWS through their grizzly bear recovery coordinator. Nuisance grizzly guidelines have been developed for use in the NCDE and CYE (Appendix G). Current procedures require a conference call between involved agency contacts prior to any action. The Department has authority to determine the fate of the bear if agreement cannot be reached between the agencies. Department personnel or USFWS Animal Damage Control agents implement all relocation of or control of grizzly bears outside national parks and Indian reserva- tions. Felocation of a grizzly bear requires prior approval of the appropriate landowner (usually USFS). As discussed earlier in Land Management, Section XIV, cooperative management guidelines have been developed for the FMEF. Guidelines for hardrock mining activities are also being developed in the Cabinet Mountains through a coordi- nated research study in that area. 131 XVI. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Management alternatives for the NCDE and CYE are discussed in this section. Two major alternatives are possible. One uses hunting as a management tool, the other excludes the use of hunting. Within each of these alterna- tives, five management options are presented. These options vary depending on population density. Management direction under each option is the same whether using the hunting or nonhunting alternative. Management techniques, though, do vary between these alternatives. In this manner, present and future Department management direction can be identified and evaluated. Many of the factors which directly affect grizzly popu- lation status and trends are not under Department control. Some examples include habitat acquisition, levels of recre- ational visitor use in grizzly habitat, road access, resource exploration/development activities, timber harvest activities, recreational development activities, domestic livestock grazing, natural fire policies, and the harvest of grizzly bears by Native Americans for religious purposes. The Department recognizes that unlimited grizzly bear population growth is socially unacceptable in both the CYE and NCDE. The optimum goals for both ecosystems were based on both biological and social parameters. Because the optimum goals are ecosystem-wide, there may be localized areas of high or low densities. The optimum for both the CYE and NCDE, established by the Department, are at or above the recovery goals listed in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI 1982). In the discussion of options to follow, it should be recognized in interpreting the following charts that as the population status moves from the optimum, more or less restrictions as appropriate will be required to bring the status back to the optimum. Population status C then, is the status the Department recommends managing for in both ecosystems whether using the hunting or nonhunting alterna- tive. The Department's management goals in the NCDE are, first, to manage for a recovered grizzly bear population, second, to maintain distribution in the management area as defined in Fig. 3 and third, seek to maintain the habitat in a condition suitable to sustain the grizzly population (excluding Glacier National Park) at an average density of 1 bear/30 mi2 to 1 bear/15 mi2. (The bears in Glacier National Park have been excluded from the Department's management program. The Department has no management jurisdiction within the Park and without more sufficient information on dispersal considers it inappropriate to consider dispersal from the Park in justifying a management 132 program.) This density range is represented as the "Optimum" in the following chart. NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE ECOSYSTEM (NCDE) POPULATION STATUS (BASED ON MINIMUM DENSITY EXCLUDING GLACIER NATIONAL PARK) I II II NUMBER OF BEARS o BEARS/MI' ° i B i I I 200 280 —I (— I I 540 — I — 1/40 1/30 1/15 D l E i i i 700 800 1 i- 1/12 1/10 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION OPTIMUM MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The goals in tho CYE are to manage for a recovered grizzly bear population, to maintain distribution in the management area defined in Fig. 4, and seek to maintain the habitat in a condition suitable to sustain qrizzly populations at an average density of 1 bear/40 mi^ to 1 bear/30 mi . This density range is represented as the "Optimum" in the chart below. CABINET YAAK ECOSYSTEM (CYE) i I I POPULATION STATUS I A I B I C i i ill NUMBER OF BEARS o eo 90 125 ieo 200 1 1 1 1 -I • BEARS/MI2 0 1/60 1/40 1/30 1/20 1/18 OPTIMUM MANAGEMENT DIRECTION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION A. Management Alternative lx No Qr iz^ly Bear Hunting This section presents the options available under the nonhunting alternative with respect to each population status. Management under each status would use management tools excluding hunting to move the population towards status C. 1. EeeulatioQ status al a. The Department would seek to e_lim.in,a_te_ all man- caused mortality. This would serve to increase the number of grizzly bears in the ecosystems. 133 b. An aggressive aversive conditioning/deterrent program would be necessary before eliminating control action mortality. A reevaluation of the most current "control action guidelines" would be necessary to reduce control dispatches. Transplant of nuisance bears out of the eco- systems would be eliminated. c. Black bear hunting in grizzly bear management areas may be modified if appropriate. Black bear hunters would be required to complete a hunter education course detailing the identification and habits of the two bear species . d. To eliminate the loss of grizzly bears in defense of personal property, it would be necessary to implement severe penalties for mortalities due to this cause. However, this policy is inconsistent with Montana's constitu- tion permitting defense of life and property. It may be necessary to evaluate this constitu- tional right in regard to the level of mortality from this cause. In addition, a compensation program would be required to reimburse those suffering damages due to grizzlies. e. An active public relations program would be initiated to inform people of ways to eliminate man-caused mortality. f. An active augmentat ion/ re int roduct ion program would be recommended. All bears lost to man- caused mortality would be replaced as soon as possible. g. The Department would seek through coordination with state, federal, private, and corporate organizations to minimize or eliminate human activities destructive to the bear in remaining habitat . h. The Department would substantially increase enforcement activities and seek increased penalties to eliminate illegal mortalities. Population £t§.tus Bj_ a. The Department would seek to substantially reduce all man-caused mortality. This might allow an increase in grizzly bear numbers in the ecosystems . 134 b. An aversive conditioning/deterrent program would be necessary before reducing control action mortality. In addition, current "control action guidelines" would be re-evaluated to reduce control dispatches. Transplant of nuisance bears out of the ecosystems would be minimized. c. Some modification of black bear hunting in grizzly bear management areas may be required to reduce mistaken identity kills. d. To reduce the loss of grizzly bears in defense of personal property, a compensation program may be initiated. e. A public relations program would be initiated to suggest measures to minimize man-caused mortal it ies . f. The Department would seek to minimize habitat impacts through coordination with state, federal, private and corporate organizations. g. The Department would increase enforcement activities directed at bears to assist in reducing illegal mortalities. 3. Population Status Ci a. The Department would seek to miQ.im.ize_ man-caused mortality. This would allow the population to stabilize or increase. b. An aversive conditioning/deterrent program would be applied in selected cases. Transplant of nuisance bears from the ecosystems would be acceptable . c. Few, if any, modifications would be placed on black bear hunting. d. Damage compensation by private conservation groups would be encouraged. e. A public relations program of moderate intensity would be initiated suggesting measures to minimize man-caused mortality. f. The Department would seek through coordination with other agencies to modify human activities in bear habitat in such a manner as to minimize impacts on bears. g. Enforcement activities would continue at a moderate level. 135 h. The Department would evaluate implementing the hunting alternative. 4. EQDUlation £ta_tus Di a. The Department would not seek to minimize all man-caused mortality. This may serve to reduce the number of bears in the ecosystems. b. A reevaluation of "control action guidelines" would be necessary to increase control dispatches . c. Transplant of nuisance bears from the ecosystems would be encouraged. d. A public relations program would be initiated to inform people on how to live with higher bear populations . e. A compensation program by private groups would be encouraged for limited areas, as costs become increasingly higher. f. The Department would develop methods to deal with higher grizzly numbers through coordination with other agencies. Pestrictions on human intrusions would be less severe. g. Enforcement activities would be at a low level. h. The Department would evaluate implementing the hunting alternative. 5. Population Status E: a. The Department would encourage man-caused mortalities (other than sport hunting). This may serve to substantially reduce grizzly bear numbers in the ecosystems. Encouraged man- caused mortalities would include primarily the shooting of depredating grizzlies. b. The Department would need to dispatch nuisance or depredating bears in all management areas. c. An active public relations program would be necessary to suggest measures to reduce loss of life and personal property. d. The cost of a compensation program would probably be too high to justify its continuation. 136 e. Restrictions on human activities in management areas would be minimized. f. The Department would develop methods to deal with higher numbers through coordination with other agencies. Restrictions on human intrusions would be less severe. g. Enforcement efforts would be at a very low level . h. The Department would evaluate implementing the hunting alternative. B. Management Alternative 2: Grizzly Bear Hunting This section presents the management options available under the hunting alternative with respect to each po- pulation status. Management under each status would use management tools including hunting to move the population towards status C. 1. Population Status A: a. Grizzly bear hunting season closed. 1) It is likely that prohibition of hunting would reduce total annual mortality. Average annual mortality reported from 1970- 1984 in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Knight, unpublished data) decreased from 29.8/year prior to 1975 to 10.1/year since 1975 when hunting was prohibited in Wyoming and Montana. 2) If hunting mortality is additive, its elimination may allow an increase in the populations . 3) In addition, what little potential exists for mortality due to crippling by hunters, would be eliminated. b. The Department will evaluate implementing the nonhunting alternative. c. Black bear hunting in grizzly bear management areas may be modified if appropriate. Black bear hunters would be required to complete a hunter education course specifically designed for bear hunting and the identification and habits of the two bear species. 137 d. The Department would seek to eliminate all man- caused mortality. This may serve to increase the number of grizzly bears in the ecosystems. e. An aggressive aversive conditioning/deterrent program would be necessary before eliminating control action mortality. A reevaluation of the most current "control action guidelines" would be necessary to reduce control dispatches. Transplant of nuisance bears out of the ecosystems would be eliminated. f. To eliminate the loss of grizzlies in defense of personal property it would be necessary to implement severe penalties for mortalities due to this cause. However, this policy is inconsistent with Montana's constitution permitting defense of life and property. It may be necessary to evaluate this constitutional right in regard to the level of mortality from this cause. In addition, a compensation program may be required to reimburse those suffering damages due to grizzlies. g. An active public relations program would be initiated to inform people of ways to eliminate man-caused mortality. h. An active augmentat ion/re int roduct ion program would be recommended. All bears lost to man- caused mortality would be replaced as soon as possible. i. The Department would seek through coordination with state, federal, private, and corporate organizations to minimize and/or eliminate human activities negative to the bear in remaining habitat. j. The Department would substantially increase enforcement activities and seek increased penalties to eliminate illegal mortalities. Population £tatu§. B_: a. Limited grizzly bear hunting season. Option 1: Spring season (limited entry, limited harvest) : 1) A limited entry hunt would reduce hunting mortality if the number of permits issued 138 served to restrict the number of hunters in the field. 2) A spring season would concentrate hunters and hunter harvest in small areas because weather conditions and snow accumulations during the spring restrict accessibility. 3) Hunting success would be high because of vulnerability of bears. Troyer (1961) and Cooney (1953) reported a higher success rate for spring brown bear seasons than for fall seasons. Also, without the option available during the fall of taking a bear incidental to deer or elk hunting, only those hunters actually hunting a grizzly bear would be licensed. With hunting efforts concentrated on bears, success would likely be high. 4) Female mortality would be low. Troyer (1961), Pearson (1975), and Stirling et al. (1976) reported spring seasons produced a low percentage of females in the harvest. Protection of females with cubs or other young by regulations would also serve to keep female mortality low. 5) Population segments inhabiting wilderness areas may increase. A large portion of the total hunter harvest in the NCDE since 1967 has come from wilderness areas (Fig. 27) during the early fall season. Access to wilderness areas is very restricted in the spring due to weather conditions and snow accumulations . 6) Hunter opportunity would be reduced with a "limited-entry" permit because the opportunity to hunt would be reduced to successful applicants. Option 2: Hunt in alternate years (limited harvest) : 1) It is likely that prohibition of hunting in alternate years would reduce total annual mortality at least temporarily. Average annual mortality reported from 1970-19F4 in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Knight, unpublished data) decreased from 29.8/year prior to 1975 to 10.1/year since 1975 when hunting was prohibited in Wyoming and Montana. Reynolds (pers. comm.) reports that Alaska uses the regulation of hunting in alternate years in areas of high hunting 139 pressure to reduce harvest without going to permit hunts. 2) If hunting mortality is additive, its elimi- nation in alternate years may allow an increase in the populations. 3) Eliminating the hunting season in alternative years would erase the potential for mortality due to crippling by hunters. b. The Department would seek to substantially reduce all illegal man-caused mortality. c. The Department would evaluate implementing the nonhunting alternative. d. An aversive conditioning/deterrent program would be necessary before reducing control action mortality. In addition, current "control action guidelines" would be re-evaluated to reduce control dispatches. Transplant of nuisance bears out of the ecosystems would be minimized. e. Some modification of black bear hunting in grizzly bear habitat may be required to reduce mistaken identity kills. f. A compensation program may be required to reduce the loss of personal property caused by grizzly bears . g. A public relations program would be initiated to suggest measures to minimize man-caused mortalities. h. The Department would seek to minimize habitat impacts through coordination with state, federal, private and corporate organizations. i. The Department would increase enforcement activities directed at bears to assist in reducing illegal mortalities. Population Status Cl a. Grizzly bear hunting season open. Option 1: S_pr_inq S_e_a_s_on (unlimited entry, limited harvest): 1) Hunting success may be high because of vulnerability of bears in the spring. Troyer (1961) and Cooney (1953) reported a higher success rate for spring brown bear 140 seasons than for fall seasons. Also, without a fall season concurrent with the ungulate season only those hunters actually hunting a grizzly bear would be licensed. With the hunting effort concentrated on bears, success would likely be high relative to a fall season. Greer (1972, 1974) reported that 90% in 1971 and 93% in 1973 of successful grizzly hunters were primarily hunting elk. Pearson (1975) reported that most grizzlies in the Yukon are taken inci- dental to hunting other big game. 2) Female mortality would be low. Troyer (1961), Pearson (1975), and Stirling et al. (1976) reported spring seasons produced a lower percentage of females in the harvest than fall seasons. Protection of females with cubs or other young by regulations would serve to keep female mortality low. Females which wean their young in the spring aro protected during spring seasons, but are vulnerable the following fall. 3) Population segments inhabiting wilderness areas may increase. A large portion of the total hunter harvest in the NCDE since 1967 has come from wilderness areas (Figure 27) during the early fall season. Access to wilderness areas is very restricted in the spring due to weather conditions and snow accumulations . 4) Eliminates the opportunity to legally harvest problem bears in the backcountry during general hunting seasons. From the hunting season in 1971, 2 grizzlies were shot in hunter camps (Greer 1972). In 1973, one grizzly bear was killed in a hunter camp (Greer 1974). Knight and Eberhardt (1984) also discuss grizzly bear/ outfitter problems . 5) A spring season would concentrate hunters and hunter harvest because weather conditions and snow accumulations during the spring restrict accessibility. Option 2: Fall Season 1) A fall hunting season provides an oppor- tunity to legally harvest grizzly bears depredating hunter camps or harvested game, and bears involved in other bear/human incidents. From the hunting season in 1971, 141 2 grizzlies were shot in hunter camps (Greer 1972). In 1973, one grizzly bear was killed in a hunter camp (Greer 1974). Knight and Eberhardt (19P4) also discuss grizzly bear/ outfitter problems. 2) Female mortality may be high unless restricted through regulations. Troyer (1961), Pearson (1975), and Stirling et al. (1976) reported fall seasons produced a higher percentage of females in the harvest than spring seasons. Females which wean their young in spring, but may have been protected during a spring season would be vulnerable during the fall when unaccom- panied by young. 3) Hunting success may be lower than a comparable spring season. Troyer (1961) and Cooney (1953) reported a lower success rate for fall brown bear seasons than for spring seasons. In the NCDE most grizzly hunting has been done incidental to elk hunting (Greer 1972, 1974a) and has resulted in low success . b. The Department will seek to minimize non-hunting man-caused mortality. This may allow the population to stabilize or increase. c. An aversive conditioning/deterrent program may be applied in selected cases. Transplant of nuisance bears from the ecosystems would be acceptable . d. Few, if any, modifications would be placed on black bear hunting. e. Damage compensation by private conservation groups would be encouraged. f. A public relations program of moderate intensity will be initiated suggesting measures to minimize man-caused mortality. g. The Department would seek through coordination with other agencies to modify human activities in bear habitat in such a manner as to minimize impacts on bears. h. Enforcement activities would continue at a moderate level. 4. EQEUlat ion Status D: 142 a. Liberal grizzly bear hunting season. 1. SDlit season (spring and fall, limited harvest) : a) When compared to any single season option or to the historic hunting program in Montana, this option would provide a greater opportunity for hunters in Montana to harvest a grizzly bea r . b) With greater hunting opportunity this option would allow a high mortality. High success in the spring and high female vulnerability in the fall (relative to spring) would be operative (Troyer 1961, Cooney 1953, Stirling et al. 1976, Pearson 1975). b. The Department would not seek to minimize all man -caused mortality. This may serve to reduce the number of bears in the ecosystems. c. No aversive conditioning/deterrent program would be necessary. A reevaluation of "control action guidelines" would be necessary to increase control dispatches. d. Transplant of nuisance bears from the ecosystems would be encouraged. e. A public relations program would be initiated to inform people on how to live with increased bear populations. f. The value of a compensation program may be questioned as costs become increasingly higher. g. The Department would develop methods to deal with higher numbers through coordination with other agencies. Restrictions on human intrusions would be less severe. h. Enforcement activities would be at a low level. Population Status E: a. Liberal grizzly bear hunting season. 1) Full year season (unlimited entry, limited harvest) : a) This alternative would provide maximum hunter opportunity. 143 b) High hunting success would occur because of hunter opportunity and the vulner- ability of bears in all seasons. Troyer (1961), Cooney (1953), Pearson (1975), and Stirling et al. (1976) discuss the differential in hunter success between seasons and the vulnerabilities by sex for various hunting seasons. c) The high hunter success and increased vulnerability of all bears, especially females, would result in high mortality by hunters and would lead to the desired decline in the populations. b. The Department would encourage man-caused mor- talities. This may serve to substantially reduce grizzly bear numbers in the ecosystems. Encouraged man-caused mortalities would include primarily the shooting of depredating grizzlies. c. Aggressive agency control action dispatches would be necessary throughout the ecosystem. d. An aggressive public relations program would be necessary to suggest measures to reduce loss of life and personal property. e. The cost of a compensation program would probably be too high to justify its continu- ation . f. Restrictions on human activities in management areas would be minimized. g. The Department would develop methods to deal with higher bear numbers through coordination with other agencies. Restrictions on human intrusions would be less severe. h. Enforcement efforts would be at a very low level . C . REGULATIONS It should be recognized that as the status of the populations move away from the optimum the following regula- tions will need to be evaluated and modified. 1. Bag limit of one grizzly bear in a lifetime. a. The regulation would have the effect of distri- buting hunter opportunity more evenly among Montana's hunting public. 144 b. Hunters might be more selective if they were limited to one in a lifetime (Pearson 1975). This selectivity would probably have the following consequences: 1) Total mortality may be reduced if hunters don't shoot the first bear they see. Greer (1972) reported that 14 of 19 successful hunters in 1971 killed the first bear they saw. In 1973, 13 of 13 successful bear hunters shot a bear from the first group of bears they saw (i.e. 10 shot single bears and 3 saw 2 bears at the time of shooting) (Greer 1974a). 2) High hunter selectivity for large bears (males) would keep the female proportion of the harvest low (Bunnell and Tait 19P5; Miller and Ballard 19£2; Lindzey and Meslow 1980; Pearson 1975; Erickson 1962, 1963). 2. Prohibit the taking of young and females accompanied by young. Young are defined as two-year-olds or younger . a. This would result in low female mortality as a high proportion of females would be protected each year. 3. Base the trophy fee on sex of harvested bears. a. A differential trophy fee may provide greater protection to females. The Yukon Territory requires successful hunters to purchase a $750 trophy fee for females and $500 for males, and the managers there are pleased with the program (B. Smith, pers. comm., Yukon Territory Wildlife Branch, Whitehorse). To further protect females, managers in the Yukon are experimenting with a point system for outfitters in which they are allotted a number of points which serves as their bag limit. A female counts three points toward their total and a male scores one point (Smith, pers. comm.). b. It is possible that some female mortalities may go unreported. However, this potential has not been discussed in the literature. 4. Require all bear (either species) hunters to parti- cipate in a bear education program before hunting. a. Improves awareness of hunters as to species identification, bear habits, and shot location. 145 b. May reduce mortality due to mistaken identity and crippling loss. 5. Limit daylight hours during which hunters may shoot bea rs . a. This may reduce mortality due to mistaken identity and cripple loss because visibility would be better. 6. Limit black bear hunting along roads or request road closures . a. This regulation might help reduce mistaken identity mortality. Most mortality of this source has occurred near roads. 7. Permit the use of baiting and dogs to hunt grizzly bea rs . a. This may cause high hunter harvest. Roop (pers. comm.) stated that four grizzly bears were shot over black bear baits in 1982 leading to a ban on black bear baiting in grizzly habitat. Kohn (1982) and LeCount (1982) reported that a large proportion of black bears harvested in Wisconsin and Arizona, respectively, were taken with the use of baits. Kohn (1982) stated black bears in Wisconsin were harvested primarily by the use of hounds or bait. b. The use of dogs may result in a high proportion of females in the hunter harvest. LeCount (1982) reported the use of hounds to be a very successful hunting technique for black bears and that females were more vulnerable to this technique than males. Kohn (1982) and Poelker and Hartwell (1973) also reported dog hunting to be selective toward females. c. Baiting may result in a high proportion of males in the harvest. LeCount (1982) reported that the use of baiting in Arizona was very selective toward male black bears. 8. Close black bear hunting in grizzly bear habitat. a. This may reduce mortality of grizzly bears from mistaken identity for black bears. In 1983 four grizzly bear mortalities in the NCDE were caused by mistaken identity. Wyoming has recorded nine mortalities in this category since 1972 (Poop, pers. comm). 146 9. Prohibit the taking of other than male bears. a. Total and female mortality would be reduced. This regulation may be enforceable, but it is unrealistic. Even the most experienced observers find it difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the sex of a free-ranging bear. 10. The grizzly bear hunting season will close on 48 hours notice when the total mortality quota is reached, or it will be closed in areas where female subquotas have been met. a. This provides control over the allowable mortal ity. 11. Hunters must retain the hide and head from each grizzly bear taken. Evidence of sex must remain intact on the skin or carcass. 12. Prohibit all persons from removing any portion of a grizzly bear from the state of Montana without first purchasing a trophy license. 13. Hunters taking a grizzly bear must report the kill within 4P hours to an officer of the Department and must personally present the hide and skull within 10 days to an officer of the Department for purposes of inspection, tagging and recording of kill. a. This regulation as well as (11) and (12) provide the Department with information from hunter kills which is required for management purposes. 14. If appropriate, adjust the total or female mortality quota the year following any year they are exceeded. a. This provides a greater opportunity to regulate total mortality with added caution. 15. Increase resident and nonresident license fees. a. This provides additional revenues for grizzly bear management. b. This may reduce the number of grizzlies shot by hunters incidental to the hunting of other species . c. This may cause hunters to be more selective with the possible result of a low proportion of females in the harvest. 16. Pequire successful hunters to take a warden to the kill site, if requested. 147 a. This may improve law enforcement capabilities. b. This may also serve to reduce illegal hunting mortalities. 17. Request that hunters not shoot any bear in a group. a. This may reduce female mortality as most groups are family groups. Griz_z_ly Bea^r Management Units 1. Base management units on deer/elk hunting districts (Fig. 13). a. This presents the problem of requiring manage- ment information that is not feasible to obtain for small areas. b. There is risk of overharvest in small units because of the inability to collect population information for these units. c. If population data were available for these small areas, management could be more tightly controlled . 2. Divide the NCDE into two management units separated by the Continental Divide (Fig. 28). a. This is an arbitrary division of the ecosystem which does not consider available information. b. The harvest may be concentrated in a few easily accessible areas, thereby ove rha rvest ing some areas and underharvest ing others. 3. Base management units on large areas of similarity in habitat quality, habitat use, mortality patterns, home-range size and overlap and other ecological factors (Fig. 29). a. This provides more management flexibility because precise information for small areas is not required. b. Population information currently available (Martinka 1974, Mace and Jonkel 1980, Servheen 1981, McClellan 1984, Aune et al. 1984) may be applied to such areas (Zunino and Herrero 1972, Pearson 1975, Lortie 197 8, Reynolds and Fechtel 1980, Miller and Ballard 1982, Tompa 1984, van Drimmelen 1984). c. Because these unit boundaries cross wilderness 148 and non-wilderness boundaries it may not be possible to open the grizzly bear hunting season in wilderness areas at the same time as the deer and elk season. If the wilderness areas open as late as the general deer and elk season, the grizzly bear harvest in wilderness areas may be very low. The limited accessibility of wilder- ness areas, because of the later opening date, may limit hunter opportunity in wilderness areas. A later opening date will eliminate opportunity during the early deer and elk season . 149 CANADA Figure 28. Two grizzly bear management units in the NCDE divided by the Continental Divide. 150 CANADA Whitefish BEAR MANAGEMENT UNITS KALISPELL DUPUYER POL SON C South Rork Missions East Front ) SUN RIVER N GAME 'phi serve Scapegoat CHOTEAU 0 1 111 S C A I f MISSOULA ure 29. Grizzly bear management units divided into ecologically similar units. 151 XVII. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The management program preferred by the Department is the hunting alternative (Alternative 2). This is the preferred alternative for both the NCDE and the CYE. However, the difference in population status in the two ecosystems demands a different management option for each. The preceding portions of this EIS indicate that the present status of the NCDE is stable to increasing at an estimated minimum of 356 (excluding Glacier National Park). This indicates that a regulated hunting season under Population Status C should be recommended. Further, the Department recommends that this hunting season be conducted under a total mortality quota and a female mortality subquota, both of which would apply only to the NCDE. A hunting season is recommended for the following reasons: 1. An average of 11 grizzly bears are legally harvested annually in the NCDE. There is no evidence in the population structure or population trend data to suggest this level of legal harvest is detrimental to the population. 2. Hunters might legally harvest problem bears and bear/human conflicts could be reduced through such harvest . 3. Hunting may reduce the need for agency control of problem bears. Troyer (1961), Greer (1976b), Mysterud (1980), Poelker and Parsons (1980), and Waddell and Brown (1984) all indicated that hunting can reduce the need for control actions. 4. Hunting may cause bears to be wary of humans. Evidence is provided by Mysterud (1977) and Elgmork (1978) who reported wariness in brown bear popula- tions long exposed to human exploitation. Herrero (1985) provides evidence that bear/human incidents are more frequent in unhunted than hunted bear popu- lations . 5. Hunting grizzlies may increase cub survival and recruitment providing for population increase (Lindzey et al. 1983, Inukai 1972, Young and Puff 1982, Troyer and Hensel 1964, Glenn et al. 1976, Pearson 1976, Reynolds and Hechtel 1980, Stringham 1983) . The status in the CYE indicates that the recommended management action there should be listed under Population Status A (i.e. grizzly hunting season closed). The Department recommends that future management actions in each ecosystem be based on the status of each of the populations as determined by reviewing the following 152 criteria. It should be recognized that population status will be determined not by any one_ of these criteria, rather, a collection of the best available information from these criteria will be used. Very few of these criteria allow for determination of population status in the short term (i.e. 1-5 years). They are more appropriate for determination of long term (i.e. 10 years) changes in status . A. Criteria for. Determining Population Status. Several important factors have been identified in this EIS that will be evaluated by the Department when determining population status. These criteria and a brief description of each are given below. 1. Federal Restrictions: Federal laws and regulations may have major influence on Department regulations. Specifically, the Endangered Species Act, the Cod.e of Federal Regulations, and the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan will be consulted. 2. Results of population trend surveys: A systematic method to survey public and professional sectors will be developed. Results of the most recent survey will be consulted. 3. Professional opinions will be gathered at an annual meet ing . 4. Public opinions and perceptions from annual tentative season meetings will be solicited and evaluated . 5. Results of population and habitat research will be consulted. Specific changes in age structure, illegal mortality from marked bears, population densities, habitat use, and habitat quality will be considered . 6. Major changes in human use of management areas will be evaluated. Because Montana's grizzly bears are linked to those in Canada, Canadian land-use changes will be tracked as well. 7. Changes in the population status in Canada and U.S. and Canadian parks will be gathered through discussions with the appropriate management agency. 8. Changes in federal road closure policies will be evaluated because they influence the number of grizzly bears susceptible to mortality. 9. The realized or perceived changes in the price of grizzly bear parts will be evaluated. Such changes 153 may affect the level of profiteering. 10. An attempt will be made to document grizzly bear range expansions or contractions through data gathering. This data will help evaluate changes in the population status. 11. Based on all available evidence, changes in management areas or management unit boundaries will be evaluated. 12. The number of control actions will be determined annually. If a trend is apparent in 4 or 5 years of analysis, then the program will be re-evaluated. The number of transplants from or into the ecosystems will be documented. 13. Grizzly bear management policies in Glacier National Park, the Flathead Indian Reservation, and the Blackfeet Indian Reservation will be evaluated in relation to Department policies. 14. As further information is accumulated on transplant success, the opportunities and limitations of the technique will be evaluated. Scrutiny of population augmentation as an effective management tool will also be conducted. 15. Evaluation of hunter harvest statistics will be conducted. The following mortality statistics are of particular importance: a. Male/female sex ratio. b. Mean age of harvest: mean ages should be calcu- lated separately for males and females. c. Determine total mortality: trends in total number of bears should be evaluated in conjunction with other population statistics to determine if changes in mortality quotas are needed . 16. Monitor litter sizes: litter sizes throughout the ecosystems will be recorded and evaluated annually. 17. Evaluate hunter effort: the annual hunter question- naire recommended later in this EIS will be evaluated. Changes in hunter effort, number of shots fired, location of hunt, etc. will substantially aid interpretation of population statistics. Regulations Because the recommended management of the CYF population 154 comes under Population Status Ar with a closed hunting season, no hunting regulations will be recommended for the CYE at this time. However, because the NCDE population is judged as being under Status C with the grizzly bear hunting season open, some hunting regulations should be recommended. The regulations recommended include: 1. Pag limit of 1 grizzly in a lifetime. 2. Prohibit the taking of young and females accompanied by young. (Young are defined as two-year-olds or younger . ) 3. The grizzly bear hunting season will close on 4 8- hours notice when the total mortality quota is reached, or it will be closed in areas where female subquotas have been met. 4. Hunters must retain the hide and head from each grizzly bear taken. Evidence of sex must remain intact on the skin or carcass. 5. Prohibit all persons from removing any portion of a grizzly from the state of Montana without first purchasing a trophy license. 6. Hunters taking a grizzly bear must report the kill within 48 hours to an officer of the Department. Furthermore, the hunter must personally present the hide and skull within 10 days to an officer of the Department for inspection, tagging, and recording of kill . 7. If appropriate, adjust the total or female mortality quota the year following any year it is exceeded. 8. Request that hunters not shoot any bear in a group. The justifications for these regulations were discussed previously (see Regulations under MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES). It should be noted that regulations 3-6 are already in place . C. Grizzly B_ear Management Units (PMUs) The Department prefers to treat the entire CYE as one management unit. Little population or habitat information is available to recommend any other alternative. Research currently in progress (Kasworm 1985) may provide information that would change this recommendation. Within the NCDE the Department recommends establishing the 5 BMUs presented in Fig. 29 and described in Appendix L. These will provide the areas within which the Preferred 155 Alternative for the NCDE may be applied. If necessary, adjustments to the unit boundaries will be made as informa- tion accumulates. D. Pe.com mended Mortality Pa_te_ £g_r. the NCDE The annual know_n total mortality in the NCDE since 1975 has averaged 19 bears, or a rate of 5% based on the current estimate (356) of the minimum population exclusive of Glacier National Park. Estimated unreported man-caused mortality averages 7 bears a year, based on this population estimate, for a total mortality of 26 bears or 7% of our estimate of the minimum population. Considering the park population in our estimate would reduce this rate considerably (to 5%). In other areas, recommended or reported hunter harvest, total known man-caused, and total known man-caused and natural mortality is 3-7%, 3-8.2%, and 10.5-14.4%, respec- tively (Table 21). Hunter harvest, total known man-caused mortality, and total known man-caused and estimated unreported man-caused mortality have averaged 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, in the NCDE since 1975. The mortality rates of 8.2 and 14.4% reported by Craighead et al. (1974) for recorded and total mortality are from a population they reported to be increasing at an annual rate of 2.4%. McCullough (1981) re-evaluated Craighead et al.'s (1974) findings, deriving a population estimate of 312. Using this estimate and the annual known mortality of 18.9 bears per year reported by Craighead et al. (1974) yields an annual mortality rate of 6.1%. Sidorowicz and Gilberts' (1981) mortality recommendations are based on modeling efforts with very conservative assumptions. Some of these assumptions include, but are not limited to: 1) age at first reproduction of 7 years, 2) 2 litters per female (4 cubs per female lifetime), 3) fertility of females is from 7-15 years old, 4) all animals die at age 18. Slightly relaxing some of the assumptions in the modeling effort might increase sustainable mortality rates. Individual age class mortality rates for grizzly bear populations in North America (Table 18) are 5-23% for adults, 8-35% for subadults, 16-22% for yearlings and 22-40% for cubs. Harris (unpublished data) has indicated that an annual mortality rate of 6.5% is sustatinable based on efforts designed to model the NCDE population. The assumptions, methods, results, and interpretations of this stochastic, density-dependent model are presented in Appendix M. The current population status in the NCDE, the apparent trend of this population in relation to past mortality rates, and the recommended and reported mortality in the literature indicate that a proposed total man-caused 156 mortality rate (known and unreported) of 6.0% (21 bears) will not be excessive for the NCDE population and should allow for a continuing increase in numbers. Because the model presented by Harris (Appendix M) is a trackable method for determining the sustainable mortality rate for the NCDE population, the Department recommends using this model for future mortality rate determinations. Furthermore, the Department recognizes the use and limitations of this model given the data available at present . As more data accumulate on grizzly bear demography, it will be possible to refine this mortality rate determination. It is also recommended that the proportion of females in the total known man-caused mortality not exceed 40%. This ratio is based on recommended or reported male: female ratios from 60 : 40 to 76: 24 in the literature (van Drimmelen 1984, B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch 1979; Lortie and McDonald 1977 ; Harris (Appendix M) ; DeMarchi, pers. comm.) , as well as the past ratios in the NCDE. While it is important to keep female mortality at a minimum, and the Department is taking action to keep it at a minimum, it does not need to be entirely eliminated. Proposed harvest restrictions on females and relocation guidelines regarding females should reduce female mortality from that of previous years. 157 XVIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. Unavoidable Environmental Effects 1. Air The dust and exhaust from vehicles involved in hunting activity cannot be avoided. These effects will be short- term in nature and are not considered major consequences in view of present levels of hunter participation. Hunter campfires in narrow mountainous valleys will create a local source of air pollution that will be difficult to remedy. If it becomes a problem of major order, it can be minimized or avoided by stringent regulation. It will not be possible to avoid all accidental fires. Records do indicate these are a minor factor at present. 2. Soil and Vegetation The major impacts associated with soil and vegetation can be avoided or minimized through education and enforce- ment programs. Local damage will occur due to the negli- gence of careless or uninformed people. The major effects will include destruction or disturbance of the resources by vehicles, riding, and pack animals. Fires which denude vegetation, could create a significant adverse impact in some areas. The spread of noxious weeds by vehicles and pack animals would occur in some areas. 3. Water It is anticipated that the adverse environmental effects of hunting seasons on rivers and streams will be short-term and insignificant. A possible exception could be stream siltation from soil and vegetation disturbance, if such disturbance is severe and has long-lasting effects. 4. Appearances The presence of hunters, their vehicles, camping equip- ment, animal carcasses, and gut piles are not considered a significant adverse impact because they are gone in a short time. Disturbance to soil and vegetation by hunter activity could present some long-term visual effects. Littering by hunters cannot be completely eliminated and could be an eyesore. Some litter will be visible for long periods, but most can be removed if it is disturbing enough. 5. Sounds and Smells The sounds and smells of vehicles, firearms, and other activity associated with hunting cannot be avoided. Smells from improper garbage disposal cannot be totally eliminated but can be minimized to acceptable levels through adequate enforcement of litter laws. 15P 6. Human Health Gun accidents, death due to excessive physical exertion, and other accidents are an adverse effect that is inherent in hunting. Education efforts such as the Hunter Safety Program are showing success in reducing the gun accident rate. The other forms of death or injury can be influenced by education programs but will not be eliminated. The benefits of hunting are far greater than the adverse effects . P. Irrev_e rsible and Irretrievable. Resource Commitment The level of recommended mortality, outlined in this EIS, will not result in any irreversible commitment of the resource. Because these levels of removal can be regulated or eliminated on an annual or even shorter time basis (should data indicate that to be prudent), the management program poses no threat to the species. In fact, more precise active management should be of benefit to the species . Conversely, subdivision, energy development, and other "land development" programs are slowly but steadily altering grizzly habitat. For example, logging, clear-cutting in key areas, and the associated road-building, hauling, and clean- up can make bears more vulnerable or may disrupt the ranges and social hierarchies of bears (Kemp 1976). Recreational developments in grizzly habitat can also threaten the bear with loss of habitat (Jonkel 1975). Such action may in fact set in motion irreversible destruction of habitat that will be detrimental to the bears. C. Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts A short term impact of grizzly bear hunting is that bears will be temporarily displaced from some habitat, due to hunter activity (hunting, camping). However, the area open to hunting is large and the number of hunters is relatively low. Therefore, the displacement of grizzlies by hunters will not be of much magnitude nor for more than a short time. As human populations in grizzly habitat increase, so will the number of conflicts between man and bears. Unless human use of grizzly habitat is restricted in the short- term, present conflicts may become chronic problems to the detriment of bears. D . Worst Cas_e Scenario Several comments on the preliminary draft of this EIS suggested that the Department discuss the "worst case 159 scenario" of what might become of the NCDE grizzly bear population. In consideration of comments, we have included the following discussion. Because it has been suggested by some commentors on the preliminary draft of the EIS that the current population may be as low as 200, we chose to use this population as the worst case. The mortality data since 1975 indicate that an average of 19 known mortalities have occurred each year and that this mortality has been 5 P% male and 42% female. It has also been suggested in comments on the EIS that unreported mortality is 4-5 times the level of legal mortality. From the mortality summary in Table 34, legal mortality has averaged 15.1/year since 1975. For purposes of the worst case, we chose to use a level of unreported mortality that is three times (45) the legal mortality. In total, then, the worst case indicates that 65 bears die each year out of a population of 200. Because the Department has decided to use Harris' model (Appendix M) to track future mortality in the NCDE, we also used this model to project the results of the "worst case scenario." The parameters of this model remained the same as those in Appendix M except where altered to reflect the worst case as discussed above. Ten simulated initial age structures were produced for each of 6 population sizes: 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 900. These 60 populations were then subjected to an annual harvest of 65 individuals. In this way, it was possible to simulate the expected annual change in bear numbers for each population size given a fixed number of annual deaths. When simulated populations of 200 were subjected to an annual mortality of 65 bears, the populations decreased rapidly at an average annual loss of 45.9%. The initial population of 200 grizzly bears decreased to an average of 30 bears by year 3. Populations of 300 grizzly bears harvested at an annual rate of 21.6% showed an average annual loss of 35.4%. These simulated populations had decreased to an average of 76 bears by year 5. Simulated populations of 400, 500, and 600, harvested at an annual rate of 16.2%, 13.0%, and 10.8% respectively, each declinced in numbers. The populations of 900 all increased to an average of 1214 individuals by year 10. If there were currently only 200 grizzly bears in the NCDE population (exclusive of Glacier National Park), then according to this "worst case scenario" the population would have been somewhere between 600 and 900 ten years ago. It 160 is our judgement that a decline of this magnitude would have been detectable. At present, we have no indication of a decline. In fact, the IGPC task force on the NCDE grizzly bear population trend found no indication of decline, increase, or stability. This IGBC task force also reported that there was no indication that current management threatened the population. The present status of the NCDE population, as discussed in this EIS, indicates that the projection from the "worst case scenario" is not realistic but is representative of what could be expected if the "worst case" were fact. Because the projection from the worst case is not realistic at present, there is no reason to believe that these projections will be realized in the future, given the grizzly bear management program as proposed in this EIS. E. Current Management Program In order to assist us in evaluating the program as recommended in this EIS, the Department used Harris' (Appendix M) grizzly bear population model to assess the effects of different annual mortality rates on simulated populations of approx iamt ely 356 animals (although we recognize that biologically the population in the NCDE excluding Glacier National Park is not an isolated population) . Specific model parameters and assumptions are given by Harris (Appendix M). Nine unique simulated age structures of 350-360 animals (at time 0) were each subjected to annual mortalities of 2 to 26 individuals in increments of 2. The populations were then run for 20 years after which annual percent change in numbers were calculated. The difference between this simulation effort and Harris' (Appendix M) is that he ran the model for 20 years (to obtain a stable age distribution) before doing any simulations. His results were based on years 20 through 60. The results from our effort were based on years 0 through 19. All simulated age structures, annually harvested between 2 and IP animals, increased in numbers during the initial 20 years. Annual mortalities of 20 and 22 both showed the possibility of slight declines in some years. However, these populations did increase over the 20 year projection. Simulations exceeding 22 mortalities per year all showed a population decline. The mean annual percent change at various mortality levels are presented in Table 37. These results indicate that, according to Harris' model, an annual harvest of 22 (6.2%) from a population of 356 grizzly bears will allow for an increasing population but a harvest of 24 (6.7%) will cause a decline. These figures (2 animals difference or 0.5% difference) indicate the extreme sensitivity of population models. In practice, we have no evidence that grizzly bear populations respond with this 161 level of sensitivity to minute changes in mortality. However, the model does provide a framework to illustrate and evaluate the mortality rate recommended in this EIS. Table 37. Observed changes in simulated grizzly bear populatons subjected to variable annual mortality (base population of 350-360 bears) . Annua 1 Mortal ity Mean Annual Percent Change Standard Error 2 +0.73 0.13 4 +0.7 9 0.09 6 +0.64 0.09 8 +0.67 0.11 10 +0.59 0.10 12 +0.60 0.13 14 +0.5 8 0.15 16 +0.37 0.21 IP +0.24 0.17 20 +0.21 0.22 22 +0.03 0.22 24 -0.52 0.11 26 -1.05 0.22 162 XIX. DISCUSSION OF EXTRAORDINARY CASE Conservation as defined in the ESA includes the following, "and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved may include regulated taking." Because the grizzly bear is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, the Department must demonstrate that the extraordinary case does exist before authorizing the taking of grizzly bears. Based on the review for this FIS, it is our judgement that the extraordinary case does in fact exist in the NCDE at this time. However, it is extremely important that the public realize that not only are biological considerations involved with the extraordinary case, but social concerns as well. Grizzly bears are extraordinary in that they do come into direct conflict with people (i.e. they do kill people and livestock). Therefore, it would be inappropriate to manage them in the same way, as for example, a peregrine falcon (also listed under the ESA), or under the same definition of extraordinary case applied to other species under the ESA. People will tolerate falcons in close proximity (in fact they nest on sky scrapers). However, the same cannot be said for grizzly bears. Most people are very uncomfortable in close proximity to grizzly bears, or become very antagonistic where livestock depredation occurs. It is this underlying social difference that dictates different management strategies for different species listed under the ESA. A program which utilizes the best available biological and social information, allows for the species to exist into the forseeable future, allows for a continuing increase in numbers, and is designed to achieve recovery goals, does in fact meet the requirement of the Endangered Species Act and the test of the extraordinary case. With these thoughts in mind, some of the important specifics are addressed below: A. Carrying Capacity It has been suggested that to demonstrate that the NCDE is experiencing excessive population pressure it is necessary to document that the carrying capacity of the land has been met or exceeded. Carrying capacity is a theoretical concept that has not been clearly demonstrated for any wildlife population (Moen 1973). To measure carrying capacity requires extensive data on the bioenerget ics of all age and sex classes (e.g. Kcal expended per day) and an indepth measurement of habitat quality (e.g. Kcal available in the environment). In an area as large and rugged as the NCDE and with an animal as elusive as the grizzly bear, it is not possible in the foreseeable future to measure carrying capacity with any reasonable accuracy. Picton (19P3) has developed an index to ecological carrying capacity utilizing climate. However, it does not include 163 human influences. Obviously, humans are part of the NCDE and influence carrying capacity. Also there is some indication that a population slightly below carrying capacity may be in a better situation biologically than one at carrying capacity (Caughley 1977). A population at carrying capacity must be reduced before a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is possible without causing a population decline (Caughley 1977). Managing a grizzly bear population for MSY provides for increased productivity as well as flexibility to remove bears for control purposes, augmentation, and hunter harvest. Popula_t 1QQS In addition to knowing carrying capacity it has been suggested that it would be necessary to precisely determine existing population numbers. Wildlife management does not rely solely on precise determinations of populations but instead commonly utilizes professional judgments based on the best data available. Some critics are asking for a high level of statistical confidence on population estimates that is in fact unattainable. Although it appears that statistical confidence is not possible in grizzly bear research, it is possible to have reasonable confidence as managers using the approach described in Appendix E. It does not appear that grizzly bear population pressure (or lack of pressure) can be biologically demonstrated at present or in the immediate future. The management and research tools necessary to document this are simply not available. Excessive population pressure depends on defini- tions and is basically a s_ocia_l consideration, not a biological one (some people feel 1 bear is excessive while others feel 100 bears are not). Therefore, the problem is really a social one in that we must balance bear numbers with what society (especially those living with the bears) will accept, at the same time attaining recovery levels to meet the requirements of the ESA (see Public Perceptions Section IX). Newspaper articles, meetings, and individual letters have expressed concerns about grizzly bear population pressures along the East Front. Although the value of carrying capacity enumerations are recognized, the Department does not expect carrying capacity or population numbers will be precisely determined in the foreseeable future. B. An annual increase in the number of control actions, as has occurred in parts of the NCDE, also indicates population pressure. This potential index may be confounded by an increase in the number of people occupying grizzly bear habitat. An unmeasurable change in grizzly bear behavior (e.g. habituations) may a]so serve to increase conflict situations without a change in bear numbers. Also, changes 164 in management strategies for controlling conflict situations tend to mask real changes in grizzly bear population status. As long as bears and people coexist there will always be a potential for conflicts. Therefore, management flexibility is needed to successfully deal with these conflicts. C. An increasing distribution of a species is also indicative of population pressures. General distribution of grizzly bears in the NCDE appears to be increasing. Pears have been observed in areas where they have not been seen for literally decades. The interpretation that this represents an increase in grizzly bear distribution could be confounded if the number of potential observers has increased or the area they are observing has increased. Most of the bears that have made unusual movements have been subadult males (Aune, pers. comm.). This could indicate that population pressures in the ecosystem are such that subadults can't establish home ranges near their natal home range. D. When population pressure or environmental conditions are such that bears begin to move into socially unacceptable areas (i.e. farmland and back yards) the extraordinary case applies. A limited harvest may moderate this dispersal. E. The limited sport harvest applies only to a portion of the ecosystem (approximately 55%). The remainder is closed to any sport harvest (Glacier National Park, Sun River Game Preserve, Mission Mountains, Blackfeet Indian Reservation, and portions of the Scapegoat and Swan Front density units) . F. The limited harvest and regulatory changes suggested in this EIS, when implemented, will deal with the social and biological concerns for the grizzly bear. These changes include the protection of females with young, female mortality subguotas, a bag limit of one grizzly in a lifetime, reducing the mortality quota the year following any year it is exceeded, the request not to shoot any bear in a group, and not dispatching females involved in control actions. Further, the recommendations in this EIS place the species at minimal risk and should allow for a continuing population increase. G. The Department is committed to utilizing some or all of the surplus bears in the NCDE to augment populations in other areas or to reintroduce this species where recovery areas have been identified. The Department is firmly committed to recovering this species. 165 XX. RECOMMENDATIONS Several recommendations are presented that should make the Department's management program more effective in the future . A. Eafeitat Eiese nation j_ Improvement^ and Land Acquisition The key to the continued survival of grizzlies in Montana lies in the amount and quality of habitat which remains available to this species. Therefore, it is recommended that the Department, first, take the lead in designating areas that will be required for grizzly bear survival; second, monitor changes in these habitats; third, pursue habitat acquisition, easement, and improvement in key areas; and fourth, work with federal, state, and local agencies to preserve key habitats. The Department supports an interagency program whose personnel would work routinely with federal land management agencies to integrate Department goals into federal programs. Although such coordination currently exists for all wildlife species, the Department supports an increase in priority for this program. Identified areas of key importance are: 1. CYE (primarily along the Bull Piver Valley). 2. Pocky Mountain East Front. 3. North Fork of the Flathead River. 4. Swan River Valley. 5. Area between the towns of East Glacier and west Glacier along Highway 2. 6. The Mission Front. The Department will also encourage private conservation groups to acquire habitat and obtain conservation easements in these areas. B . Management Area Changes The Department recognizes that grizzly bears can and do live outside the boundary of management areas defined in this EIS. The presence of bears outside these boundaries will be encouraged as long as conflicts with humans do not develop. If a conflict occurs, the bear responsible will either be transplanted to another area or dispatched. If sufficient numbers of grizzlies begin to occupy land outside current management area boundaries, without conflict with humans, then the Department will evaluate modifying the boundary to include the newly occupied area(s). If new areas are incorporated, the Department would seek the necessary changes from federal agencies which would allow implementing the management program. 166 C. Intensive Research Research on grizzlies is difficult and requires a long- term commitment of funds. Therefore, the Department is committed to long-term (10 years or more) efforts in grizzly research. However, the Department will need a stable funding source such as Section 6 funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. D. Population Tre_nds_ An important aspect of grizzly bear management is the ability to document long-term population trends. The Department will assist in the development and evaluation of new trend monitoring techniques, including systematic subje- ctive surveys of professionals* and various user groups' judgements of population status. Surveys should be developed by professional surveyors to ensure statistical val idity . F. Da.ma.ge Control Inevitably, there will be marauding or dangerous bears that will have to be dispatched. Therefore, we recommend that there be a minimum of 2 Department employees available in each region to deal with damage control. These personnel would be specially trained to deal with damage situations and bear handling. Fesponse to any grizzly bear damage complaint should be rapid. Grizzly bear complaints and conflicts must be recorded accurately. The Department also recommends that other agencies expand the area into which relocation of bears may be permitted. The Department further recommends that if aversive conditioning of grizzly bears proves effective in preventing conflicts, then it should be adopted as a management tool. In addition to these recommendations the Department recommends establishing a limited entry damage hunt for problem grizzlies. This hunt would be conducted anytime of year a damage situation occurred. In the event of a damage situation hunters successful in drawing a permit would be escorted by Department personnel to the nuisance site for the purpose of shooting the nuisance bear(s). F. Mortality Report ing It is important that all known mortalities be reported and records maintained at one source. The Department should remain the sole mortality coordinator to which all mortali- ties for the state from any agency or cause are reported. The Department further recommends that the same form (Appendix N) for recording mortalities be used by all agencies . 167 G. En£g]:ce_me_nt Efforts Enforcement efforts by all agencies should be concen- trated in those areas with the greatest potential for problems. These areas include the Mission Mountains, Badger-Two Medicine, and the North Fork of the Flathead River. In addition, enforcement efforts should be directed toward roaded areas in the spring and summer, and to back- country areas during the fall. Continued enforcement is important to keep bear parts market profiteers at a minimum. Further, the Department recommends that a civil penalty for the illegal taking of grizzly bears be evaluated. This penalty would serve as an additional deterrent to potential poachers . H. Unreported Mortality The importance of this factor dictates that this source of mortality be periodically evaluated. Information from research projects, grizzly parts values, rumored problem areas, etc. will be reviewed in these evaluations. Major changes in the level of unreported mortality would dictate changes in the management program. I • Hunte r Surveys The Department recommends that all hunters obtaining a grizzly bear hunting license be surveyed on an annual basis. Information obtained from these surveys should include primarily hunter effort but also the number of bears or bear sign observed, dates hunted, areas hunted, hunter comments on regulations and seasons, etc. Evaluation of these surveys will substantially aid in setting seasons and interpreting population data. J. Eea r Relocations All relocated grizzly bears should be collared and monitored for 2 years to determine transplant success. A thorough review of this technique will improve our under- standing of its viability. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should support this effort until all grizzly bear populations are recovered. As with mortalities it is important that a_H nuisance complaints as well as relocations or other control actions be reported and records maintained at one source. The Department should be the coordinator to which all such actions in the state by any agency and for any cause are reported. Further, the Department recommends that all agencies use the same form (Appendix O) for recording such actions . 16P K . Augment at ion Two approaches to population augmentation are available. The first involves the transplanting of individuals from areas with a population surplus. In the past, transplants have proven unsuccessful largely because they have involved problem bears (Brannon et al. In Prep., Thier and Sizemore 1981, Cole 1976, Craighead and Craighead 1976). To increase success, transplants should involve bears in particular sex and age groups that have no history of conflicts (i.e. not nuisance bears) and are from remote areas. A second approach involves cross-fostering of grizzly cubs with black bear sows. Grizzly cubs, obtained either from areas with a population surplus or from zoos, could be placed in the maternal dens of black bear females in March or April. Other approaches for this technique are also available (Alt and Peccham 1984, Alt 1984). Successful fostering of orphaned black bear cubs to surrogate black bear females has been reported (Alt and Beecham 1984, Alt 19P4) . The Department recommends that augmentation, through the use of transplanting or cross-fostering, be used to speed grizzly bear recovery in other identified ecosystems. Further, these bears should be rad io- inst rument ed and monitored for an extended period. Bears removed from the NCDE for augmentation could constitute a portion of the NCDE annual mortality quota. Augmentation will require close coordination with land management agencies and extensive public review before implementation. L. Sale of G_riz_zly_ Bear Parts The Department should have the option of selling grizzly bear hides at public auction. This action is currently prevented by Federal regulation. Hides are obtained each year from bears lost to control actions, illegal mortality, accidents, etc. By selling these hides when appropriate (after the needs of schools, museums, etc. are met), the illegal market could be reduced. M . Fires from Natural. Ca_ug.es The Department will encourage land management agencies to allow fires to burn in wilderness and other appropriate areas within our management areas to maintain the habitat in a condition best suited for grizzly bears. N. Legal Management Boundaries There is a clear need to modify the boundary, established in the Federal Register, within which the Department may conduct grizzly bear hunting (i.e. Flathead National Forest, Bob Marshall, and Mission Mountains Wilder- 169 ness Areas). The Department requires flexibility to imple- ment seasons when and where appropriate within and adjacent to the present boundary. It is therefore recommended that the Department petition the USFWS to change these boundary restrictions to conform with the management areas defined in this EIS and that the mortality quota apply only to the area within this boundary. 0. Focy.s. Con.ce.r_n for the £r_iz.z.ly £e_ar to Other Ecosystems It is the Department's position that an effort be made to focus concern for the grizzly to other ecosystems identified in the grizzly bear recovery plan. To accomplish this will require the cooperation of all agencies dealing with grizzly bear management as well as the public. The Department feels this is important because biologically the grizzlies in the NCDE are least vulnerable due to the size of the current population and its proximity to the rest of the population in Canada. In addition, the status of bear habitat is much more secure in the NCDE due to the land already established as National Park and wilderness. The same situation is not true of other ecosystems or bears in those areas. Populations in other areas are much lower and tend to be more isolated from areas with healthy populations and habitat in a much less secure status. If agencies continue to focus so extensively on the NCDE (largely a result of the limited sport harvest allowed), then the opportunities to recover the bear in in some of the other ecosystems may be lost. The record is clear that once grizzlies are totally eradicated from an area the support for their re-establishment is minimal. Also, the more progress made toward recovery in other ecosystems the greater will be the flexibility for management and the greater will be the public's support. It is very important that the public recognize that continued focus on grizzly bears (a species that is not biologically threatened with extinction) increases the risk to other species which a_re in fact endangered with extinction. The time, money and resources which are expended on grizzly bears removes the same from those species which are truly endangered. In order for the public to make valid decisions on grizzly management, they need to be aware of this biological risk. P. Management Plans by Area In order to fine tune the management of grizzly bears the Department recommends that management plans be developed for each of the bear management units (FMU) established under the preferred alternative. These management plans will identify specific problems and problem areas on a local level and develop strategies to deal with them. In this way 170 the program for the ecosystem can be more responsive to changing local conditions and needs while still maintaining the overall direction recommended in this EIS. These plans should address such things as land ownership patterns within the area, percentage of the area which is roaded, general habitat maps, problem areas, management zones for dealing with conflict situations, density goals, and local enforcement problem areas. These plans should then be subjected to local review and comments in order to generate support for bear management at the local level. Ultimately these plans will enable us to monitor changes in habitat and local problems more efficiently. 0. Fr ajnew.gr k for Evaluation It is recommended that any new information be evaluated annually and incorporated into the management program. A limited review of the EIS every 5 years should serve to incorporate new information. At these 5 year intervals indications of a change in population status for either the CYF or NCDE will be evaluated to determine if management should be based on a different population status. Every 10 years the EIS will be completely reviewed and updated and a determination of population status in both the CYE and NCDE will be made. In this way the document will be as current as is practical and the management program based on it, as effective as possible. The Department, after reviewing input from the public, wildlife professionals, etc., has the option to amend this EIS at any time in the future as is appropriate to better manage grizzly bears. 171 XXI. LITERATURE CITED Aderhold, M. 1984. Know your bears. Montana Outdoors 15(2) :36-37. Alt, G.L. 19P4. Cub adoption in the black bear. J. Mammal. 65:511-512. Alt, C.L. and J.J. Beecham. 19 84. Re int roduct ion of orphaned black bear cubs into the wild. Wildl. Soc. Pull. 12:169-174. Anonymous. 1984. Black or grizzly bear? Montana Outdoors 15(5) :12. Archibald, W.R. 1983. Problem analysis: grizzly bears and coastal development with particular reference to intensive forestry. Fish and Wildlife Bull. B-26. Wildlife Habitat Research Publ. WFR-5. Arno, S. 1979. Forest regions of Montana. USDA For. Serv. Inter. Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Sta. Ogden, Utah. 39 PP. . 1980. Forest fire history in the northern Rockies. J. For. (78) :460-465. Aune, K., and T. Stivers. 1 9 82. Rocky Mountain Front grizzly bear monitoring and investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 143 pp. . 1983. Rocky Mountain Front grizzly bear monitoring and investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 180 pp. . T. Stivers, and M. Madel. 1984. Rocky Mountain Front grizzly bear monitoring and investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 239 pp. . 1985. Rocky Mountain Front grizzly bear monitoring and investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 138pp. Ball, R.F. 1980. Time-lapse cameras as an aid in studying grizzly bears in northwest Wyoming. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:331-335. Beecham, J. 1980. Some population characteristics of two black bear populations in Idaho. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:201-204. . 1983. Population characteristics of black bears in west central Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 47 (2) : 405-41 2. 172 Begon, M . 1983. Abuses of mathematical techniques in ecology: applications of Jolly's capture-recapture method. Oikos 40:155-158. P ja rvall, A. 1 980. The brown bear in Sweden - distribution, abundance, and management. Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 4:255-257. Blanchard, B. 1978. Grizzly bear distribution in relation to habitat areas and recreational use-Bilgard Mountains. M.S. Thesis. Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 74 pp. Brannon, B.D., K.R. Greer, and A. P. Dood. 1985. Nuisance grizzly bear relocations in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildl. and Parks. In Prep. Brannon, P.D. 1984. Influence of roads and developments on grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study, Montana State University, Bozeman. 52 pp. British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch. 1979. Preliminary grizzly bear management plan for British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Victoria. 25 pp. Buchalcyzk, T. 1980. The brown bear in Poland. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:229-232. Bunnell, F.L., and D.F.N. Tait.1980. Bears in models and in reality-implications to management. Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 4:15-24. . 1981. Population dynamics of bears-implications. Pages 75-98 in Smith, T. D. and C. Fowler (eds.). Dynamics of large mammal populations. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 1985. Mortality rates of North American bears. Journal Arctic (In press). Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. Montana's forest products, industry:. a descriptive analysis- 1981, Keegan, Jackson, Johnson . Cahalane, V.B., 1952. Wildlife resources of the National Park system . . . 1951. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 135 pp. Carlock, D., D. Conley, J. Collins, K. Johnson, S. Johnson, and M. Pelton. 1983. The tri-state black bear study final report. Unpubl. 173 Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley: London. 654 pp. Claar, J., P. Klaver, and C. Servheen. 1983. Grizzly bear management on the Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conf. on Bear Research and Management. Grand Canyon, AZ. Cole, G.F. 1972. Preservation and management of grizzly bears in Yellowstone National Park. Intern. Conf. Pear Res. and Manage. 2:274-288. Conner, M . , R. F. Labisky, and D. R. Progulske, Jr., 1983. Scent-station indices as measures of population abundance for bobcats, raccoons, gray foxes, and opossums. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 11 (2) : 146-150. Cooney, R.F. 1941. Grizzly bear study progress report. Pittman-Robertson job completion report. Mt. Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena. 23 pp. . 1953. Thars bar in them thar hills. Montana Wildlife 3:3:15-18. . 1956. Wilderness monarch. Montana Wildlife 6(1):14- 17. Cowan, I. M. 1972. The status and conservation of bears (Llisidae) of the world-1970. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 2:343-367. Craighead, F.C and J.J. Craighead. 1972. Data on grizzly bear denning activities and behavior obtained by using wildlife telemetry. In the. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 2: 84-106. Craighead, F.C. 1976. Grizzly bear ranges and movement as determined by rad iot rack ing. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:97-109. Craighead, J.J., and F.C. Craighead. 1972. Grizzly bear-man relationships in Yellowstone National Park. Intern. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 2:304-332. , J.R. Varney, and F.C. Craighead, Jr. 1974. A population analysis of the Yellowstone grizzly bears. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry. Bulletin 40. 20 pp. , F.C. Craighead, Jr., and J. Sumner. 1976. Reproductive cycles and rates in the grizzly bear, U£§.u§. arctgs ho r r ib i lis , of the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:337- 356. 174 , J. Sumner, and G. Scaggs. 1982. A definitive system for analysis of grizzly bear habitat and other wilderness resources. Wildl if e-Wildlands Inst. Monogr. 1. Univ. Mont., Missoula, 279 pp. Crook, J.L. 1972. Grizzly bear survey and inventory. Unpubl. report. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. 38 pp. Curatolo, J. A., and G. D. Moore. 1975. Home range and population dynamics of grizzly bear in the eastern Brooks Pange, Alaska. In: P.D. Jakimchuk, ed., Studies of large mammals along the proposed MacKenzie Valley gas pipeline route from Alaska to British Columbia. Arctic Gas Biol. Pept. Ser. Vol. 32. 79 pp. Gushing, B.S. 1980. The effects of human menstrual odors, other scents, and ringed seal vocalizations on the polar bear M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula, vi + 49 pp. . 1983. Responses of polar bears to human menstrual odors. Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 5:270-74. Dailey, Pichard. 1984. The Montana Travel Industry, 1983. Unpublished report prepared for Montana Promotion Division, Department of Commerce and Governor's Council on Economic Development, University of Montana. Daubenmire, P. 1969. Structure and ecology of coniferous forests of the northern Pocky Mountains. Pages 25-41 in: P. Taber, ed., Coniferous forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Center for Nat. Resour., Univ. Montana, Missoula. Dean, F.C. 1976. Aspects of grizzly bear population ecology in Mount McKinley National Park. Int. Conf. Pear Pes. and Manage. 3:111-119. Deiss, C. 1958. Geology of the Bob Marshall Wilderness in Guide to the Bob Marshall Wilderness. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. Missoula, MT. 36pp. DeMaster, D.P., M.C.S Kingsley, and I. Stirling. 1980. A multiple mark and recapture estimate applied to polar bears. Can. J. Zool. 58:633-638. Eberhardt, L.L. and D.B. Siniff. 1977. Population dynamics and marine mammal management policies. J. Fish. Pes. Board Canada. 34:183-190. Egbert, A.L., and M.P. Lugue. 1975. Among Alaska's brown bears. Natl. Geogr. Mag. 148:428-442. 175 , and A. L. Stokes. 1976. The social behavior of brown bears on an Alaskan salmon stream. Int. Conf. Pear. Pes. and Manage. 3:41-56. Elgmork, K. 1976. A remnant brown bear population in southern Norway and problems of its conservation. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:281-291. . 1978. Human impact on a brown bear population (U£sus arctgs L.). Biol. Conserv. 13:81-88. Erickson, A.W. 1962 Alaska wildlife investigations, bear investigations, characteristics of the brown and grizzly bear harvest. Federal aid in Wild. Pestor. Job Completion Rept. Proj. No. W-6-R-3, Work Plan F, Job No. 2. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Juneau. 19 pp. . 1963. Bear Report. Annual Project Segment Report Fed. aid in Wildl. Pestor. Proj. Rept. W-6-R- 4, Work Plan F. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Juneau. 32 PP. Fowler, C.W., W.T. Bunderseon, M.B. Cherry, P.J. Pyel, and B.B. Steele. 1980. Comparative population dynamics of large mammals: a search for management criteria. Peport no., MMC-77-20 to the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. NTIS PB80-178627, Springfield, VA. Franklin, S.R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. Pages 135-149 in M.E. Soule and P. A. Wilcox, eds., Conservation biology: An evolutionary- ecological perspective. Sinaur Assoc., Sunderland, MA. 395 pp. Fraser, D., J. Gardner, G. Kolenosky, and S. Strathearn. 1982. Estimation of harvest rate of black bears from age and sex data. Wildl. Soc. Bull. ] 0 (1) : 53-57. Frost, J.R. 1985. Living with the grizzly: Perceptions of Mission Valley residents. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 96 pp. Furnell, D.J. and R.E. Schwe insbu rg. 19P4. Population dynamics of central Canadian arctic island polar bears. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:722-728. Gilbert, J.R., W.S. Kordek, J. Collins, and P. Conley. 197 8. Interpreting sex and age data from legal kills of bears. Pages 253-262 in Hugie, R. D. ed., 4th Eastern black bear workshop. Greenville, ME. 409pp. Glenn, L. P., 1975. Report on 1974 brown bear studies. Fed. aid in Wildl. Rest. Proj. Rept. W-17-6 and W-17-7. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, 10 pp. + App. 176 , J.W. Lentfer, J. P. Faro, and L.H. Miller, 1976. Reproductive biology of female brown bears (Ursus aictgs) , McNeil River, Alaska. Int. Conf. Rear Pes. and Manage. 3:381-390. Greer, K. 1971. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana durinq 1970. Job progress report W- 120-R-2, Work plan TV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. . 1972. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1971. Job progress report W-120-R-3, Work plan TV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. . 1973. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1972. Job progress report W-120-P-4, Work plan IV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. . 1974a. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1973. Job progress report W-120-R-5, Work plan IV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. . 1974b. Montana grizzly bear management and public harmony. Montana Department of Fish and Game, Helena. 46 pp. . 1975. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1974. Job progress report W-120-R-6, Work plan IV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. . 1976a. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1975. Job progress report W- 120-R-7, Work plan IV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. . 1976b. Managing Montana's grizzlies for the grizzliesl Tnt. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:177-189. . 1977. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1976. Job progress report W-120-R-8, Work plan IV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. . 1978. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1977. Job progress report W-120-R-9, Work plan IV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. . 1979. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife research. Job progress report W-120-R-10, Work plan IV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. . 1980. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife research. Job progress report W-120-R-11, Work plan IV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. 177 . 1 9 PI . Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife research. Job progress report W-120-F-12, Work plan IV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. . 1982. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife research. Job progress report W-120-F-13, Work plan IV, Job L-l.l, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena. Habeck, J. and F.W. Mutch. 1973. Fire-dependent forests in the northern Focky Mountains. Quat. Fes. 3 (3) :40 8-424. Hamlin, K. and M. Frisina, 1975. Special Grizzly Bear Survey. Job Progress Feport W-130-F-6, Job 1-1, 1-4. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. Hamer, D.r and S. Herrero. 1983. Ecological studies of the grizzly bear in Banff National Park — final report 1983. Univ. Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 303 pp. Harestad, A.S. and F.L. Bunnell. 1979. Home range size and body weight. Ecology 60 (2) :3 89-404. Haroldson, M., and F.D. Mace. 1984. Grizzly bear population augmentation: scope of work. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Montana Coop. Wildlife Fesearch Unit. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 25 pp. Harris, F.B. 1984a. Harvest age-structure as an indicator of grizzly bear population status. M.S. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 204 pp. . 1984b. Preliminary experiments on a scent-station index for grizzly bears. Final report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 30 pp. . B. 1984c. Grizzly bear population trend monitoring - a resource for decision makers. U.S.F.W.S. Tech. Note. Unpublished Feport. Hensel, F.J., W.A. Troyer, and A.W. Frickson. 1969. Feproduction in the female brown bear. J. Wildl. Manage. 33 (2) :357-365. Herrero, S. 1972. Aspects of evolution and adaptation in American black bears (U_rs_us. §.ffi§.Eicanus_ Pallas) and brown and grizzly bears (ur_s_us_ a_rctgs L.) of North America. Int. Conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 2:221-230. . 1985. Bear attacks — their causes and avoidance. Nick Winchester Press, New Century Pub., Inc. Piscataway, NJ 2 87. Hickie, P. 1952. Inventory of big-game animals of the United States. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Leaflet No. 348. 2 pp. 178 Hi]] is, M. 19P5. Strategies for creating drainage for field and shrubf i el d/cutt ing unit habitat components with timber harvest. Grizzly Pear Habitat Symposium. April 30 and May 1-2. Univ. Montana. Missoula. In press. Poak, J.H., T.W. Clark, and J.L. Weaver. 1983. Of grizzly bears and commercial outfitters in Br idger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming. Int. Conf. Pear Pes. and Manage. 5:110-117. Holland, T. ]9P5. South and Middle fork Flathead Piver habitat improvement projects. Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium. April 30 and May 1-2. Univ. Montana, Missoula. In press. Howe, G. 1976. The evolutionary role of wildfire in the northern Pockies and implications for resource managers. Pages 257-265 in: Proceedings: Tall Timbers Fire Fcology Conference and Fire and Land Management Symposium. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 675 pp. Hugie, P.O. 19P3. Black bear ecology and management in the northern conifer-deciduous forests of Maine. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage., Grand Canyon, AZ. In Press. Punt, C. 19P5. Descriptions of five promising deterrent and repellent products for use on bears. Office of the Grizzly Bear Pecover Coordinator. Montana Coop Wildlife Research Unit. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 55 PP. Inukai, T. 1972. Pear damage and bear control in Japan. Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 2:333 Johnson, L. 19P0. Brown bear management in southeastern Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:263-270. Johnson, D. P. ]9P0. The comparison of usage and availabili- ty measurements for evaluating resource preference. Fcol. 61(6) :65-71. Jonkel, C. 1983a. Five-year report. Border Grizzly Project. Univ. Montana, Missoula, Montana. . 1983b. Grizzly bear critical sites. Porder Grizzly Project, Spec. Rept. 69. Univ. Montana, Missoula. . 1975. Opinion of bears and people. Western Wildlands 2(1) :30-37. , and I.M. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir forest. Wildl. Monogr. 27:1-57. 179 , and P. Demarchi. 1984. Subdivisions and grizzly bears: a matter of jurisdiction. Western Wildlands. Univ. Montana. Jorgensen, C.J. 1979. Pear-livestock interactions, Targhee National Forest M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 162 pp. Kaal, M. 1976. Ecology, protection and prospect of utilization of the brown bear in the Estonian S.S.P. Int. Conf. Pear Pes. and Manage. 3:303-306. Kasworm, W. 1985. Cabinet Mountains grizzly bear study annual report. Mt. Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena . Keating, K.A. 19P5. Historical grizzly bear trends in Glacier National Park, Montana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. In Press . Kellert, Stephen R. 1976. Perceptions of animals in American society. J_n: Proceedings of the 41st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute. . 1979. Public attitudes toward critical wildlife and natural habitat issues, Phase 1. U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing . Kemp, G.A. 1972. Black bear population dynamics at Cold Lake, Alberta, 1968-1970. Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 2:26-31. . 1976. The dynamics and regulation of black bear (Uisus america_nus) populations in northern Alberta. In the. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:191-197. Kendall, K.C. 1985. Grizzly bear population trend studies Apgar Mountains, Glacier National Park. National Park Service Progress Report. Kistchinski, A. A. 1972. Life history of the brown bear (Ursus arctgs L.) in northeast Siberia. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 2:67-73. Klaver, R.W., and J. Claar. 1985. Grizzly bears, insects and people: Bear management in the McDonald Peak region. Paper presented at the Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium, Missoula, MT. In Press. Knight, R.R., and L.L. Ebe rha rdt .1 9 84. Projected future abundance of the Yellowstone grizzly bear. J. Wildl Manage. 49 (4) :1434-1438. 180 , D. Mattson, and P. Planchard. 1984. Movements and habitat use of the Yellowstone Grizzly Pear. Unpubl. Pep. , and S. Judd. 1983. Grizzly bears that kill livestock. Int. Conf. Pear Research and Manage. 5:186- 190. , and L.L. Eberhardt. 1985. Population dynamics of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Ecol. 66 (2) :323-334. Kohn, P.P. 1982. Status and management of black bears in Wisconsin. Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, Technical Pulletin No. 129. Kolenosky, G.P. 1983. Hunting Ontario black bear. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Conf. Pear Res. and Manage, Grand Canyon, AZ. In Press. Lake County Land Services Department. 1985. Letter to R. Mace from N. Thormahlen concerning land use in Swan Valley. Layser, E.F. 1978. Grizzly bears in the southern Selkirk Mountains. Northwest Sci. 52(2):77-91. LeCount, A. 19 82. An analysis of the black bear harvest in Arizona 1968-1978. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Special Report Number 12. Linhart, S.P. and F.F. Knowlton. 1975. Determining relative abundance of coyotes by scent station lines. Wildl. Soc. Pull. 3:119-124. Lindzey, F.G., S.K. Thompson, and J.T. Hodges. 1977. Scent station index of black bear abundance. J. Wildl. Manage. 41 (1) :151-153. , and E.C. Meslow. 1980. Harvest and population characteristics of black bears in Oregon (1971-74). Int. Conf. Pears Pes. and Manage. 4:213-219. Lindzey, J.S., G.L. Alt, C.R. McLaughlin, and W.S. Kordek. 1983. Population response of Pennsylvania black bears to hunting. Int. Conf. Pear Res. and Manage. 5:34-39. Lloyd, K.A. 1979. Aspects of the ecology of black and grizzly bears in Coastal Pritish Columbia. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Pritish Columbia, Vancouver. 151 pp. Lortie, G.M. 1978. A new management system for Yukon grizzly bear. Yukon Territory Wildl. Pranch. 15 pp. Unpubl. 181 , and J. McDonald. 1977. Game harvest report and summary of questionnaire analyses. Yukon Territory Government Wildlife Research Internal Pept. 32 pp. Lyon, L. J., T. N. Lonner, J. P. Weigand, C. L. Marcum, W. D. Edge, J. D. Jones, D. W. McCleerey, and L. L. Picks. 1985. Coordinating elk and timber management. Final report of the Mont. Coop. Elk-Logging Study, 1970-19 P5. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildl. & Parks, Helena. 53 pp. Mace, P.D. and S. Piley. 1985. Relocations of grizzly bears in Northwest Montana: 1973-1984. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Kalispell, Montana. In prep. . 1985. Analysis of grizzly bear food resources in the valley bottomlands and avalanche tracts of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Montana. Paper presented at the Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium. April 30-May 2, 1985, Missoula, Montana. In Press. Mace, R. D. 1984. Identification and evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Montana. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 176 PP. , and C. Jonkel. 1984. The effects of a logging activity on grizzly bear movements. Paper presented at the Predator Symposium, 1984. Univ. Montana, Missoula . , . 1980. Grizzly bear response to habitat disturbance. Pages 70-98 in: C. Jonkel ed., Annul Rep. 3. Border Grizzly Proj. Univ. Montana, Missoula. , . 1983. Regional food habits of the grizzly bear in Montana. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Conf. on Bear Res. and Manage. In Press. Marshall, P. B. 1955. Grizzly bear investigation and recheck. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rept. Proj. Comp] . Pept. W- 60-R-2, Job No. I-D. Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 20 pp. Martin, P. 1983. Factors influencing globe huckleberry fruit production in northwestern Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:159-165. Martin, P. 1979. Productivity and taxonomy of the Yacci- D.ium g.lobuia_re_ Y*. ffien>bl3.11§.Q.eum complex in western Montana. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 136 PP. 182 Martinka, C. 1971. Status and management of grizzly bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. Pages 312-322 in: 36th North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Pesour. Conf. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. . 1974. Population characteristics of grizzly bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. Mammal. 55(1) :21-29. . 1976. Ecological role and management of grizzly bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. Int. Conf. Pear Pes. and Manage. 3:147-156. . 1982. Effects of conterminous land use on grizzly bears in Glacier National Park. Presented at American Association for Advancement of Science Symposium on External Threats to Ecosystems of National Parks in Washington, D.C. , and K. Kendall. 1 985. Grizzly bear habitat research in Glacier National Park. Paper presented at the Grizzly Pear Habitat Symposium. April 30-May 2, 1985. Missoula, Montana. In Prep. McArthur Jope, K. 1983. Habituation of grizzly bears to people: a hypothesis. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:322-327. McClellan, P. 1983. Akam ina-Kishinena grizzly bear study - annul report. British Columbia Fish and Wildl. Branch, Cranbrook, B.C. McCulough, D.R. 1982. Behavior, bears, and humans. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 10:27-33. McCul lough, D. 1981. Population dynamics of the Yellowstone grizzly bear. pp. 173-196 in Fowler, C.J. and T.W. Smith, eds., Dynamics of large mammal populations. Wiley Press 417 pp. McLellan, P. 1984. Population parameters of the Flathead grizzlies. Canadian Border Grizzly project. 28 pp. McClellan, B. 1983. Akamina-Kishinena grizzly bear study - annual report. British Columbia Fish and Wildl. Franch, Cranbrook, B. C. , and C. Jonkel. 1 980. Ackamina- Kishinena grizzly project. Pages 9-48 ia: C. Jonkel ed. Annu. Pep. 5. Border Grizzly Project. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 222 PP. 183 , and P.D. Mace. 1985. Behavior of grizzly bears in response to roads, seismic activity, and people. Canadian grizzly project, Cranbrook, British Columbia. 53 pp. Meagher, M. and J. P. Phillips, 19P3. Restoration of natu- ral populations of grizzly and black bears in Yellowstone National Park. Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 5:152-158. Mealey, S., L. Marcum, R. Pighter, C. Jonkel, and G. Joslin. 1976. Vegetation studies of disturbed grizzly habitat. Pages 5-34, in C. Jonkel ed., Annu. Pep. 1. Border Grizzly Proj. Univ. Montana, Missoula. Mihalic, David A. 1974. Visitor attitudes toward grizzly bears in Glacier National Park. Michigan State University thesis. Miller, G.D. 1 9 80. Behavioral and physiological characteristics of grizzly and polar bears, and their relation to bear repellents. M.A. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula, vii & 106 pp. Miller, S.D. and W.B. Ballard, 1982. Density and biomass estimates for an interior Alaskan brown bear, Ursus arctos, population. Canadian Field-Nat. 96 (4) : 448-454. Miller, S.J., N. Barichello, and D. Tait, 1982. The grizzly bears of the Mackenzie mountains Northwest Territories. N.W.T. Wildlife Service, Completion Report No. 3. Moen, A.N. 1973. Wildlife ecology: an analytical approach. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. 458 p. Montagne, J. and W. McMannis. 1961. Geological resume of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. Montana State Col., Bozeman. Mimeo. Montana Dept. of Commerce, census and economic information center. 1981. Revised County Population Projections, 1981. Montana Department of Commerce. 19P4. 1983 Census Estimates-October 1984. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1983. License Sales by County for License Year 1983. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1983. Montana Hunting and Fishing License Sales, 1939 to 19 83. 184 Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1983. Re- gional Visitation Figures, 1980 to 1983. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Montana Recreation Map. Montana Dept. of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service. 1984. Montana Agricultural Stat ist ics-19 84. Montana Dept. of State Lands-Forestry Division. 1982. Timber Resources of Lincoln, Sanders, Flathead and Lake Counties . Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation, Oil and Gas Conservation Division. 1983. Oil and Gas: Annual Review for the Year 1983. Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation, Energy Division. 1984. Montana Historical Energy Statistics, 5 th Ed. Mundy, K. , and D. Flook. 1973. Background for managing grizzly bears in the national parks of Canada. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Ser. 22. 35 pp. Mysterud, I. 1977. Problems in research management of the brown bear in Norway. Viltrapport 4:19-51. . 1980. Bear Management and sheep husbandry in Norway, with a discussion of predatory behavior significant for evaluation of livestock losses. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:233-241. Nagy, I., and R. Russell. 197 8. Ecological studies of the boreal forest grizzly bear (Ursus. arctos L.). Annu. rep. 1977. Canadian Wildl. Serv. 72 pp. Nelson, P., G. Folk Jr., E. Pfeiffer, J. Craighead, C. Jonkel, and D. Steiger. 1983. Behavior, biochemistry, and hibernation in black, grizzly, and polar bears. In the. conf. Pear Res. and Manage. 5:284-290. O'Gara, B. 1984. Identification of Montana's big game mammals. Montana outdoors 15(6):13-24 Onishuk, M., and D.S. Stockstad. 1957. Preliminary grizzly bear investigations. Fed. Aid Wildl. Rest Proj. Rept. No. W-71-R-3, Job no. A-3. Montana Dept of Fish and Game, Helena. 8 pp. Ostroumov, A.G. 1968. Aerovisual census of brown bear in Kamchatka and some observations on their behavior. Bull. Mosc. Soc. Natur., Biol. Div. 73(2):35-50. 185 Otis, D.L., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, and D.P. Anderson. 1978. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildl. Monogr. 62:1-135. Pearson, A.M. 1975. The northern interior grizzly bear. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rept. Ser. No. 34. 86 pp. . 1976. Population characteristics of the Arctic mountain grizzly bear. Int. Conf. Pear Pes. and Manage. 3:247-258. Pfister, R., B. Kovalchik, S. Arno, and R. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Int. Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Sta. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. IN THE-34. 174 pp. Picton, H.D. 1983. Grizzly Link? Yellowstone and Glacier, its biology and dynamics. Paper presented at the Sixth In the. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage., Grand Canyon, AZ. In Press . Poelker, R.J. and H.D. Hartwell, 1973. Black bear of Western Washington. Wash. St. Game Dept. Biol. Bull. No. 14. 180 pp. , and L.D. Parsons, 1980. Black bear hunting to reduce forest damage. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:191-193. Pulliainen, E. 1983. Expansion of the brown bear (Ursus Arctos) into Finland from the East. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage., Grand Canyon, AZ. In Press. Ouimby, R. 1974. Grizzly bear. In.: R.D. Jakimchuk, Ed., Mammal studies in northeastern Alaska. Reynolds, H.V. 1975. Annual report of survey inventory activities. Pt. II. Black bear, brown bear, polar bear, caribou. R.A. Pinman, Ed. ADF&G. Vol. VII. 156 pp. Reynolds, H.V. 1975. Annual report of survey inventory activities. Part II. Black bear, brown bear, polar bear, caribou. R.A. Hinman, Ed. Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game, Juneau. Vol. VII. 156 pp. . 1976. North slope grizzly bear studies. Fed. Aid Wildl. Rest. Proj. Rep. W-17-6 and W-17-7, Jobs 4.8R and 4. IIP. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau , and J. Hechtel. 1980. North slope grizzly bear studies. Fed. Aid Wildl. Rest. Proj. W-17-11, Job No. 4.14R. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Juneau. 66 pp. Roben, P. 1980. Status of the brown bear in the Pyrenees. In the. Conf. Pear Res. and Manage. 4:243-247. 186 Rockwell, S.r J. Perry, M. Haroldson, and C. Jonkel. 197 8. Vegetation studies of disturbed grizzly habitat. Pages 17-78. in: C. Jonkel (ed.) Annu. Pep. 3. Border Grizzly Proj. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 256 pp. Rogers, L. 1976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures on survival, growth, and reproductive success of black bears. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 41:431- 438. . 1977. Social relationships, movements, and population dynamics of black bears in northeastern Minnesota. Ph.d. Diss. Univ. Minnesota, Minneapolis. 194 pp. Rognrud, M. 1956. Grizzly bear survey. Fed. Aid Rept. W- 71-R, W-72-R, W-74-R, Job no. A-7. Montana Dept. of Fish and Game, Helena. 9 pp. Roth, H.U. 1972. Status of the last brown bears of the alps in the Trentino, Italy. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 2:307-308. . 19 80. Defecation rates of captive brown bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:249-253. Roughton, R.D. and M.W. Sweeny, 1982. Refinements in scent- station methodology for assessing trends in carnivore populations. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:217-229. Russell, R.H., J.W. Nolon, N.A. Woody G. Anderson. 1979. A study of the grizzly bear in Jasper National Park, 1975-1978. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rept. 136 pp. Schallenberger, A. 1974. Reconnaissance survey of grizzly bear habitat, Rocky Mountain Division, Lewis and Clark National Forest. Mimeo. Schallenberger, A. 1980. Review of oil and gas exploitation impacts on grizzly bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:271-276. , and C.J. Jonkel. 1979. Pocky Mountain East Front grizzly studies, 1978. Univ. of Mont., Missoula. BGP Spec. Rpt. No. 27. 115 pp. Servheen, C. 1981. Grizzly bear ecology and management in the Mission Mountains, Montana. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 138 pp. , and L. Lee. 1980. Mission Mountain grizzly bear studies — an interim report. BGP Spec. Rpt. No. 31. Border Grizzly Project, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 187 , and T. Wo jc iechowsk i. 197 8. Grizzly bear foods. Pp. 83-107 in: C. Jonkel ed. Annu Pep. 3. Border Grizzly Project. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 207 pp. , and R. Klaver. 1983. Grizzly bear dens and denning activity in the Mission and Rattlesnake Mountains, Montana. In the. Conf. Pear Res. and Manage. 5:201-207. Shaffer, M.L. 1983. Determining minimum viable population sizes for the grizzly bear. Int. Conf. bear Res. and Manage. 5:133-139. Shaffer, S. 1971. Some ecological relationships of grizzly and black bears of the Apgar Mountains in Glacier National Park, Montana. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 134 pp. Schemnitz, S.D. (Ed.). 1980. Wildlife management techniques manual. Fourth Edition. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 6 86 pp. Sidorowicz, G.A. and F.F. Gilbert, 19 81. The management of grizzly bears in the Yukon, Canada. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 9(2) :125-135. Sizemore, D. 1980. Foraging strategies of the grizzly bear as related to its ecological energetics. Unpub. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 67 pp. Skaar, D., D. Flath, and L. Thompson. 1985. Montana bird distribution. Montana Academy of Sciences. Monogr. 3., Vol. 44. 72 pp. Steele, R. 1960. The role of fire in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. Montana. For. and Conserv. Exp. Sta., Univ. Mont., Missoula. 33 pp. Stirling, I., A.M. Pearson, and F.L. Bunnell. 1976. Population ecology studies of polar and grizzly bears in northern Canada. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:421-430. Stockstad, D.S. 1953. Grizzly bear investigation and recheck. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Proj. Rept. W-60-R-1, Job no. VII A. Montana Dept. of Fish and Game, Helena, 4 PP. . 1954. Grizzly bear investigation and recheck. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rept. Proj. Compl. Rept. W-60-R-1, Job No. VII-A. Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 13 pp. Stokes, A.W. 1970. An ethologist's views on managing grizzly bears. Bioscience 20:1154-1157. 188 Strandgaard, H. 1967. Reliability of the Petersen method tested on a roe-deer population. J. Wildl. Manage. 31:643-651. Stringham, S. F. 1983. Roles of adult males in grizzly bear population biology. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:140-151 . Sumner, J., and J. Craighead. 1973. Grizzly bear habitat surveys in the Scapegoat Wilderness, Montana. Montana Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 49 pp. Swenson, J.F. 1985. Effects of hunting on black bears in southwestern Montana. Presented at Black Bear Workshop in Missoula. Taylor, G. 1979. Gallatin big game studies. Fed. Aid. Wildl. Rest. Proj. No. W-130-R-10, Job 1-3.1 Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. Their, T., ano D. Sizemore. 1981. An evaluation of grizzly bear relocations in the Border Grizzly Project Area, 1975-1980. Border Grizzly Project. Spec. Rept. 47. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 16 pp. Tirmenstein, D.A. 1983. Grizzly bear habitat and management in the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 213 pp. Tompa, F.S. 1984. Grizzly bears in British Columbia — Harvest must be reduced. British Columbia Wildl. Branch, 9 pp. Unpubl. Troyer, W.A. 1961. The brown bear harvest in relation to management on the Kodiak Islands. Trans. North American Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 26:460-468. . and R.J. Hensel, 1964. Structure and distribution of a Kodiak bear population. J. Wildl. Manage. 28(4) :769-772. U.S. D.A. Forest Service. 1985. Kootenai National Forest plan. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix D - Grizzly Bear Management. Kootenai National Forest. U.S. Department Of Interior. 1982. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Dept. Inter. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 195 pp. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982. Guidelines for determining grizzly bear nuisance status and for controlling nuisance grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Ecosystems. 23 pp. 189 Vroom, G. 1974. Observations of wolves and grizzly bears. Banff National park. Banff Warden Service. , S. Herrero, and P. Oglivie. 1980. The ecology of winter dens sites of grizzly bears in Banff National Park, Alberta. Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 4:321- 330. van Drimmelen, B. 1984. Grizzly bear management plan for the Skeena Pegion. British Columbia Wildl. Branch. 20 pp. Unpubl. Waddell, T.E., and D.E. Brown, 1984. Exploitation of two subpopulat ions of black bears in an isolated mountain range. J. Wildl. Manage. 4 8(3) : 933-93 8. Woodgerd, W.R. 1974. Letter to Lynn A. Greenwalt. Montana Dept. of Fish and Game, Helena. 2 pp. Young, B.F. and R.L. Puff, 1982. Population dynamics and movements of black bears in east central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 46 (4) : 845-860. Zager, P. 1980. The influence of logging and wildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 131 pp. , P.C. Jonkel, and R.D. Mace. 1980. Grizzly bear habitat terminology. BCP Spec. Rpt. No. 41. School of Forestry, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 15 pp. , C. Jonkel, and J. Habeck. 1983. Logging and wildfire influence on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. Int. Conf. Pear Res. and Manage. 5:224-132. Zunino, F., and S. Herrero. 1972. The status of the brown bear (U_rsy_s_ a_r_ctg_s_) in Abruzzo National Park, Italy, 1971. Biol. Conserv. 4(4) :263-272. 190 APPENDIX A WILDLIFE MCA 12^.9^.101 QEIZ.2.LY BEAR POLICY (1) whereas, the Montana Fish and Game Commission has management authority for the grizzly bear, a resident wildlife species, and is dedicated to the preservation of grizzly bear populations within the state of Montana; and Whereas the secure habitat for the grizzly has been greatly reduced as a result of the human development and population growth from 1P50 through 1950 in the bear's traditional range in all western states; and Whereas, a significant portion of the remaining grizzly bear habitat and population is located in Montana and these Montana populations occur in wildlands such as wilderness, primitive areas, de facto wilderness areas, national forests, national parks, Indian reservations, and seasonally, on adjacent private lands. Now, therefore, in order to promote the preservation of the grizzly bear in its native habitat, the commission establishes the following policy guidelines for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks action when dealing with grizzly bear. (a) Habitat. The department shall work to perpetuate and manage grizzly bear in suitable habitats of this state for the welfare of the bear and the enjoyment of the people of Montana and the nation. In performing this work the department should consider the following: (i) the commission has the responsibility for the welfare of the grizzly and advocates the protection of the bear's habitat; (ii) management of Montana's wildlands, including the grizzly bear habitat, is predominately, but not exclusively, a responsibility of various federal agencies and private landowners; (iii) land use decisions made by these agencies and individuals affect grizzly bear habitat, thus cooperative programs with these agencies and individuals are essential to the management of this species; (iv) preservation of wildlands is critical to the protection of this species and the commission advocates wildland preservation in occupied grizzly bear habitat; and 191 (v) while some logging may not be detrimental to grizzly habitat, each logging sale in areas inhabited by grizzly bear should be carefully reviewed and evaluated. (b) Research. It is recognized by the commission that research on the habitat requirements and population characteristics of the grizzly bear is essential for the welfare of the species. Departmental research programs and proposals directed at defining those habitat requirements are encouraged and supported. (c) Hunting and recreational use. The commission recognizes its responsibility to consider and provide for recreational opportunities as part of a grizzly bear manage- ment program. These opportunities shall include sport hunting, recreational experiences, aesthetics of natural ecosystems, and other uses consistent with the overall welfare of the species. (i) the department should consider the variability of values between individuals, groups, organizations, and agencies when management programs for various grizzly bear populations are developed. (ii) sport hunting is considered the most desirable method of balancing grizzly bear numbers with their available habitat, minimizing depredations against private property within or adjacent to grizzly bear habitat, and minimizing grizzly bear attacks on humans. (d) Depredations. Contacts between grizzly bear and humans, or property of humans, require delicate handling and careful consideration. When these contacts reach the stage for definite action, the following actions should be carried out: (i) grizzly bear, in the process of threatening or endangering human life, shall be captured or dispatched immediately. (ii) where no immediate threat to human life exists, individual bear encounters with humans shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and when the attack is abnormal or apparently unprovoked, the individual bear involved shall be captured or dispatched. (iii) when the attack is normal (e.g., a female defending her cubs, any bear defending its food, or any bear defending itself) but the situation leads itself to no reasonable possibility of leaving the bear in place, then the bear should be removed. (iv) grizzly bear committing depredations that do not directly endanger human life but that are causing 192 property losses shall be evaluated on an individual case basis. (v) where removal is determined to be the best resolution to the problem, depredating or nuisance bear shall be trapped, and if determined to be suitable for transplanting, shall be marked and released in suitable habitat previously approved with appropriate land management agencies . (vi) reasonable efforts shall be made to inform the public of the transplant program, fully explaining the reasons for the capturing and locations of the release area. (vii) upon request by an authorized scientific investigative agency or public zoological institution, a captured bear may be given to that agency or institution for appropriate nonrelease research purposes. A reasonable charge may be required to cover costs of handling. (e) DepLedating grizzly bear that are not suitable for release or research because of old age, acquired behavior, disease, or crippling, shall be killed and sent to the department's research facilities for investigation. The public shall be fully informed when these actions are taken and the reasons for these actions shall be fully explained. (f) Coordination. The department shall consult with appropriate federal agencies and comply with applicable federal rules and regulations in implementation of this policy. (History: Sec. 87-1-301 MCA, IMP, 87-1-201, 87-1- 301 MCA; Eff. 12/31/72; AMD, 1977 MAR p. 257, Eff. 8/26/77.) 193 APPENDIX B NCDE Management Area Boundary Description Occupied habitat in the NCDE is bounded on the west by U.S. Highway 93 from the U.S.-Canad ian border, south to the junction with Montana Highway 82, then east along Highway 82 to the junction with Montana Highway 35 then south approxi- mately along Highway 35 to its junction with Highway 93, then south approximately along Highway 93 to its junction with Interstate 90. The southern boundary approximately follows Interstate 90 east from this junction to the junction with Montana Highway 200, then approximately along Highway 200 east to a point on the highway at the confluence of Willow Creek and the Blackfoot Piver, then east approxi- mately along a line from this point to the town of Wolf Creek. The eastern boundary follows north approximately along a line from Wolf Creek to Augusta then approximately along a line from Augusta to the confluence of Arnold Coulee and Pishkun Canal, then east along Pishkun Canal to Pishkun Reservoir, then east along the north shore of the reservoir to its northernmost point, then north approximately along a line from this point to the easternmost point on the shore of Eureka Reservoir, then approximately along a line from this point to the westernmost point on the shore of Pynum Reservoir, then approximately along a line from this point to Dupuyer, then approximately along a line from Dupuyer to East Glacier, then approximately along a line from East Glacier to Babb then approximately along a line from Babb to a point on the U.S.-Canad ian border at the midpoint of Township 37 North, Range 14 West. The northern boundary follows the international border west from this point to the intersection with U.S. Highway 93. 194 APPENDIX C CYE Management Area Boundary Description The western boundary follows the Montana-Idaho border south from the U.S.-Canad ian border to the intersection of this stateline and the Mineral County-Saunders County line. The southern boundary follows approximately along a line from this point to Thompson Falls, then along Montana Highway 200 east from Thompson Falls to a point on the highway approximately 1 mile north of Plains, then approxi- mately along a line from this point to a point approximately 1 mile north of Plains on Montana Highway 28, then, from this point east along Highway 2 8 to the east end of Painbow Lake. The eastern boundary follows approximately along a line from this point north to Bassoo Peak then approximately along a line from Bassoo Peak to the USFS Bend Ranger Station, then approximately along a line from this ranger station to the confluence of Silver Butte Fisher Creek and Fisher River at U.S. Highway 2 then north along Highway 2 to Libby, then from Libby east alor.g the Kootenai River and north along the west shore of Lake Koocanusa to the U.S.- Canadian border. The northern boundary follows the inter- national border from this point to the Montana-Idaho border . 195 APPENDIX D 50 CFR 17 PART 17— ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE ANO PLANTS Subpart A — Intf *ducti*fl «vd G«A«r«J f r«vUUn» Sec. 17.1 Purpose of regulations. 17.2 Scope of regulations. 17.3 Definitions 17.4 Pro- Act wildlife 17.5 Alaska natives. 17.8 Stale cooperative agreements. (Re- served) 17 7 (Deleted! Whporl » lilt* 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants 17.13 Amendments to the lists. Subpart C tndongtf»d W.ldM» 17.21 Prohibitions. 17.22 Permits for scientific purposes, or for the enhancement of propagation or sur- vival. 17.23 Economic hardship permits. Subpart D — Thr*al«n*d Wildlife 17.31 Prohibitions. 17.32 Permits— general. 17.33 ItWcu-d) 17.34-17.39 Permits. (Reserved) 17.40 Special rules— mammals. 17.41 Specii.1 rules— birds. 17.42 Special rules — reptiles. 17.43 Special rules— amphibians. (Rt? served 1 17.44 Special rules — fishes. 17.45 Special rules -sn ill.- and « iams (Re served) 17.46 Special rules- < i ,ista< (K<- served) 17.47 Special rules -insects. 17.48 S|>ecial rules — common sponges and other forms. (Reserved) Subpart f — Similarity of Appioiono 17.50 (icneral. 17.51 Tr«-at»neni n.s endangered or ilueai ened. 17.52 Permit-:— similarity of ap|R-arancc Subpart F— Endangered Plant* 17.01 |'i«iliiKUu!iv 17.02 IVrnnN for si.icnti'-c pnrpov • «.i (>" ll:e e.lh«nceiu>;iil of prop.-j;:ilio;i oi survival. 17.G3 Economic. Iiordsliip permits. 17(H-l7.fi9 [Rcicrvenl Subpart C — Thraotanad Plonl* 17.".: Prohibitions. \~ VI Permit* - teener :i! 17.13- 17.74 (Reserved) Subpart M — l»«««»v«d| Su4»p»rt 1 — tnt*r»tr»'vcr C»af»ar»fl*« (Not Included) Subpart J — btarwrt** Proisctkxi Atm* 17.100 Purpose. 17.101 Soopa- 17.102 Definitions. 17.103 Establishment of protection area*. 17.104 Prohibitions. 17.105 Permits and exceptions. 17.100 Emergency e»tsblishnient of protection areas. 17 T07 Facilitating enforcement 17.106 List of deslgnsted manatss protection area* [Reserved). Authority: Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. 80 StaL 1027. as amended, it 101(a). 102(a)(2). 104. 105, 112(s) (10 U.S.C ft 1371(a). 1372(a)(2). 1374. 1375, and 1 J&2/.s)|- Endarurarsd Species Act of 1073, a7 Stat. 6*4. as amended. || 4 (d) and (f). 0(.)(1)(C). snd 11(a)(1) (18 U.S.C It 1533 (d) snd (a 153A(a)(l)(C). and 1540(a)(1)). Subpart A — Introduction and G«n«ral Provisions § 17.1 Purpose of rerulslions. (a) The regulations in this part im- plement, the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 87 Stat. 884. 16 U.S.C. 1531 - 1543. except for those provisions In the Act concerning the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, for which regulations are provided in Part 23 of this subchapter. (b) The regulations Identify those species of wildlife and plants deter- mined by the Director to be endan- gered or threatened with extinction under section 4(a) of the Act and also carry over the species and subspecies of wildlife designated as endangered under the Endangered Species Conser- vation Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 275. 16 U.S.C. 668cc-l to 6) which are deemed endangered species under section 4(c)(3) of the Act. (40 FR 44415. Sept. 26. 1975. as amended at 42 PR 10465. Feb. 22. 1977) } 17.2 Scope of refulatlon*. (a) The regulations of this part apply only to endangered and threat- ened wildlife and plants. (b) By agreement between the Serv- ice and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Jurisdiction of the Depart- ment of Commerce has been specifical- ly defined to Include certain species, while Jurisdiction Is shared In reitard to certain other specie*. Such species are footnoted In Subpart B of this part, and reference la given to special rules of the National Marine FUherle* Service for those species. (c) The provisions In this part are In addition to. and are not In lieu of. other regulations of this Subchapter B which may require a permit or pre- scribe additional restrictions or condi- tions for the Importation, exportation, and Interstate transportation of wild life. (d) The examples used in this part are provided solely for the conven ience of the public, and to explain the Intent and meaning of the regulation to which they refer. They have no legal significance. (e) Certain of the wildlife and plants listed in J 17.11 and 5 17.12 as endan gered or threatened are Included Ln Appendix I. II or III to the Conven- tion on International Trade ln Endan gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The Importation, exportation and reexportation of such species are subject to additional regulations pro vided in Part 23 of this subchapter. (40 FR 44415. Sept. 26. 1975. as amended at 42 FR 10465. Feb. 22. 1977) § 17.3 Definitions. In addition to the definitions con tamed in Part 10 of this subchapter and unless the context otherwise re quires, in this Part 17: ■•Act" means the Endangered Spf cies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C 1531 1543 87 Stat. 884); "Alaskan Native" means a person de fined In the Alaska Native Claims Set tlement Act (43 U.S.C. section 1603(b) (85 Stat. 588)] as a citizen of the United States who is of one-fourth degree or more Alaska Indian dnclud ing Tsimshian Indians enrolled or not enrolled In the Metlaktia Indian Com munity). Eskimo, or Aleut blood, or combination thereof. The term in- cludes any Native, as so defined, either or both of whose adoptive parents are not Natives. It also includes, in the ab sence of proof of a minimum blood quantum, any citizen of the United States who is regarded as an AlasKa Native by the Native village or town of which he claims to be a member and whose father or mother Is (or if de ceased was) regarded as Native by any Native village or Native town. Any cm zen enrolled by the Secretary pursu- ant to section 5 of the Alaska Nathe FUS /l.F. EN V h - K EC - 1 7 (Rev. 10/? 2/ 79) 196 Pane ! 1,1 '' why the applicant U Justified In ob- taining the permit. Including (1) The details q'f the activities sought to be authorised by the permit," HI) The detail* of how such activities will be carried out; (III) The relationship of «uci» activi- ties to scientific objective* or to objec- tives enhancing the propagation or survival of the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; and (lv) The planned disposition of such wildlife upon termination of the activi- ties sought to be authorized. (b) Issuance criteria. Upon receiving an application completed In accord- ance with paragraph (a) of this sec- tion, the Director will decide whether or not a permit should be Issued. In making his decision, the Director shall consider, in addition to the general cri- teria In {13.21(b) of this subchapter, the following factors: (1) Whether the purpose for which the permit is required is adequate to justify removing from the wild or oth- erwise changing the status of the wild- life sought to be covered b" the permit; (2) The probable direct and Indirect effect which issuing the permit would have on the wild populations of the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; (3) Whether the permit, if issued, would in any way. directly or indirect- ly, conflict with any known program intended to enhance the survival prob- abilities of the population from which the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit was or would be removed; (4) Whether the purpose for which the permit is required would be likely lo reduce the threat oi extinction facing the species of wildlife sought to be covered by the permit: (5) The opinions or views of scien- tists or other persons or organizations having expertise concerning the wild- life or other matters germane to the application; and (6) Whether the expertise, facilities or other resources available to the ap- plicant appear adequate to successful- ly accomplish the objectives stated In the application. (c) Permit conditions. In addition to the general conditions set forth in P&rt 13 of this subchapter, every permit issued under this section shall be subject to the following special con- ditions: FWS/LE EN F 4-REC-17 (1) In addition to any re porting re- quirements contained In the permit itself, the permittee shall also submit to the Director a written report of his activities pursuant to the permit. Such report must be postmarked or actually delivered no later than 10 days after completion of the activity. (2) The death or escape of all living wildlife covered by the permit shall be Immediately reported to the Sendee's office designated on the permit. (3) The carcass of any dead wildlife covered by the permit shall be stored in a manner which will preserve Its use as a scientific specimen. (d) Duration of permits. The dura- tion of permits issued under this sec- tion shall be designated on the face of the permit. [40 FR 44415. Sept. 26. 1975. as amended at 41 FR 18226. May 11. 1876) 5 17.33 lOcJctedJ 5§ 17.34-17.39 Permits. |Kcserv«-d| 5 17. JO Special rule* — mammal*. (a) Kangaroo; Eastern Grav (Macro- pus giganleus). Red 'Regalia ruja). and Western Grav I Macropus fuligino- sus)-(l) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions apply to the Eastern Gray. Red and Western Gray kanga- roos: (I) Import (A) Except as permitted in paragraph (aKIKlKB) of this sec- tion, or in paragraph (a)(2) of this sec- tion, it shall be unlawful to Import any such wildlife for commercial purposes. (B) Upon receiving from the Austra- lian Government a certificate that il) a particular Australian State has de veloped an effective sustained-yield program lor such wildlife, and (2) the taking of such wildlife in '.hat State will not be detrimental to the survival of the species or subspecies of which such wildlife is .1 part, the Director may. consistent with the purposes of the act. permit by publication of a notice in the Federal Register the commercial importation of any such wildlife originating from that State, upon proof that such wildlife is law- fully taken and exported from that State: Provided, That if the Director determines from all the evidence that a previously certified Australian State no longer maintains an effective sus- tained yield program for such wildlife, he may by regulation prohibit any fur- (Rev. 10/22/79) 197 ther commercial importation of such wildlife from that State. (II) Unlawfully imported kanga- roos. It shall be unlawful, in the course of a commercial activity, to de- liver, receive, carry, transport, or ship In interstate or foreign commerce any such wildlife Imported unlawfully. (III) Commercial transactions. Il shall be unlawful to sell or offer for sale in Interstate or foreign commerce any such wildlife Imported unlawfully. (2) Permits. The following permits are available for the Eastern Gray. Red and Western Gray kangaroos: (I) Economic hardship. (A) The Di- rector may grant permits for the im- portation of such wildlife to prevent economic hardship. The provisions of 5 17.23 (with the exception of 55 17.23(b)(4). 17.23(b)(8). and 17.23(d)). shall apply to the Issuance of such permits. In addition, the re- quirements of section 10(b) of the En- dangered Species Act of 1973 ( 16 U.S.C. 1539(b)) regarding hardship ex- emptions for endangered species shall apply to applications for hardship ex- emptions under this section as such wildlife were classified "endangered." and the applicant for an exemption under this section must submit all In- formation required by section 10(b). (B) The duration of any economic hardship permit issued for such wild- life under this provision will be limited by section 10(b) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as if those species were listed as "endangered" under the act. (b) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horn- bilis)-(l) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions apply to the grizzly bear (i) Taking. (A) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(l)(l) (B) through (F). of this section no person shall take any grizzly bear In the 48 contermin- ous states of the United States. (B) Grizzly bears may be taken in self-defense, or In defense of others, but any such taking shall be reported In writing to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Law Enforcement. P.O. Box 19183. Wash- ington. D.C. 20036. and to appropriate State officials, within 5 days after it occurs. (C) Removal of nuisance bears. A grizzly bear constituting a demonstra- ble but non-immediate threat to human safety, or committing signifi- cant depredations to lawfully present livestock, may be taken, but only If: Page 31 ol V ! It hu not b««n reasonably possi- ble to eliminate such threat or depre- dation by live-capturing and releasing unharmed in a remote area the grizzly bear Involved: and (2) the taking Is done In a humane manner by authorized Federal or State employees: and (J) the taking U reported In writing to the United States Pish and Wildlife Service. Division of Law Enforcement. P.O. Box 19183. Washington. D.C. 20036. and to appropriate State offi- cials, within 5 days after it occurs. (D) Federal or Slate seienti/ic or rc search activities. Authorized Federal or State employees may pursue, cap- ture, or collect grizzly bears for selen- tlfic or research purposes. (E) Northwestern Montana. If it is not contrary to the laws and refla- tions of the State of Montana, a person may hunt grizzly bears In the Flathead National Forest, the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, and the Mission Mountains Primitive Area of Montana: Prouided.That If In any year in question. 25 grizzly bears have al- ready been killed for whatever reason In that part of Montana. Including the Flathead National Forest, the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area and the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, which Is bounded on the north by the United States-Canadian Border, on the east by U.S. Highway 91. on the south by U.S. Highway 12. and on the west by Montana-Idaho State line, the Director shall post and publish a notice prohibiting such hunting, and any such hunting for the remainder of that year shall be unlawful: Provided further. That any taking of a grizzly bear, for whatever reason, in the above-described portion of Montana shall be reported in writing to the United States Fish and Wildlife Serv- ice. Division of Law Enforcement. P.O. Box 18183. Washington. D.C. 20036. and to the Montana Department of Fish and Game, within 5 days after the taking occurs; and except that any taking on an Indian reservation within the above-described area shall be so rc ported only to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Law Enforcement. P.O. Box 19183. Wash Ington. D.C. 20036. (F) National Parks. The regulations of the National Park Service shall govern all taking of grizzly bears In National Parka. (ID Unlawfully taken grizzly bears. (A) Except as provided In paragraph (bXlXUXB) of thU section, no person shall po&ae&s. deliver, carry, transport, ship, export, or sell grizzly bear taken unlawfully. (B) Authorized Federal or State em- ployees may for scientific or research purposes possess, deliver, carry, trans- port, ship, or export unlawfully taken grizzly bears. (Ill) Import or export (A) Except as provided In this paragraph (bXlXUIXA). below, no person shall Import any grizzly bear Into the United States. (/) federal or State scientific or re- search activities. Authorized Federal or State employees may Import grizzly boars Into the United States for scien- tific or research purposes. (2) Public zoological institutions. Public zoological institutions (see 50 CFR 10.12) may import grizzly bears into the United States. (B) Except for public zoological in- stitutions (see 50 CFR 10.12). no person shall, in the course of a com- mercial activity, export any grizzly bear from the United States. (iv) Commercial transactions. (A) Except for public zoological institu- tions (see 50 CFR 10.12). no person shall. In the course of a commercial ac- tivity, deliver, receive, carry, trans- port, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce any grizzly bear. (B) Except for public zoological in- stitutions (see 50 CFR 10.12) dealing with other public zoological institu- tions, no person shall sell or offer for sale In interstate or foreign commerce any grizzly bear. (v) Other violations. No person shall attempt to commit, cause to be com- mitted, or solicit another to commit any act prohibited by this paragraph (aX 1 ) of this section. (2) £>e/inifions. As used in para- graph (b) of this section the term "grizzly bear" means any member of the species. Ursus arctos horribilis of the <8 conterminous states of the United States. Including any part, offspring, dead body, part of a dead body, or product of such species. (c) Primates. (1) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, all provisions of § 17.31 shall apply to the Lesser slow lorls. Nycticcbus pyg- maeus; Philippine tarsler. Tarsius syr- ichta; White-footed tamarln. Saguinus leucopus; Black howler monkey. Alouatta pigra; Stumptail macaque. Macaca arctoides; Gelada. Thcropithe- cus gelada: Formosan rock macaque. Macaca cyctopis; Japanese macaque. Macaca fuscata. Toque macaque. Macaca sinica; Long-tailed langur. Prcsbytis potenzani; Purple-faced langur. Presbytis senez; Tonkin snub- nosed monkey. Rhtnopilhccus avuncu- lus; Pigmy chimpanzee. Pan pamscus; and Chimpanzee. Pan troglodytes. (2) The * prohibitions referred to above do not apply to any live member of such species held In captivity In the United States on the effective date of the final rulemaking, or to the prog- eny of such animals, or to the progeny of animals legally Imported into the United States after the effective date of the final rulemaking. Provided. That the person wishing to engage In any activity which would otherwise be prohibited must be able to show satis- factory documentary or other evidence as to the captive status of the particu lar member of the species on the effec tive date of this rulemaking or that the particular member of the species was born In captivity In the United States after the effective dale of this rulemaking. Identification of the par tlcular member to a record invthe In- ternational Species Inventory System (ISIS), or to a Federal. State or local government permit, shall be deemed to be satisfactory evidence. Records in the form of studbooks or inventories kept in the normal course of business, shall be acceptable as evidence, pro vided that a notarized statement is in serted in such record to the effect that: (i) The records were kepi in the normal course of business prior to No vember 18. 1976. and accurately ;d<-r;t- fy (by use of markers, la^s. or other acceptable markinc devices) ind; viduxi animals: or (ti) That the indiviaual animal iden tif led by the records was born in cap tlvlty on (Date). The notarized statement in para graph (c)(2)(i) of this section, shall be acceptable only if the notarization is dated on or before January 3. 1977. The notarized statement in (c)(2)(ii). of this section, shall be acceptable only if the notarization is dated within 15 days of the date of birth of the animal. (d) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Min nesota — (1) Zones. For purposes of these regulations, the State of Minne- sota Is divided Into the following five zones. FWS/LE KNF 4-REG-17 (Kt'v. 10/ 22 / 79 ) | Page 32 of O 198 APPENDIX E NCDE POPULATION DENSITY JUSTIFICATIONS APPROACH: Several assumptions were made regarding grizzly bear ecology, habitat use patterns, mortality patterns, and home-range size to estimate current population densities. These assumptions, which we felt would generate reasonable minimum and maximum estimates, are listed below: 1. Existing density estimates could be applied to areas of similar habitat features, food type, mortality patterns, and levels of human activity and encroachment (Zunino and Herrero 1972, Martinka 1974, Pearson 1975, Lortie 1978, Reynolds and Hechtel 1980, Miller and Ballard 1982, Tompa 1984, van Drimmelen 1984). 2. Only annual densities were estimated. This annual density would correspond to the number of grizzlies living in an area year-round. 3. Home-range size, the degree of home-range overlap, and population density are partly related to habitat quality. As a result, areas of similar habitat quality should support similar numbers of grizzly bears. Furthermore, grizzly bears tend to limit their movements between the lowest available habitat and the closest major Mountain divide (Mace and Jonkel 1980, Aune et al. 1984, Mace 1985 ). This home-range pattern would help define density unit boundaries . 4. There are areas with high mortality in the NCDE and population densities were adjusted to reflect this factor. 5. Although the habitat may be excellent, areas of high human activity would reduce a density estimate. 6. It is assumed that there are areas of high bear density and low bear density. This may result at least partially from the patchy distribution of important components of habitat (Mealey et al. 1976). Bears are not uniformly distributed throughout a density unit. 7. It is assumed that movement of bears between density units is equal. All individuals within each density unit do not remain within the boundaries of the unit. 199 RATIONALE BEHIND EA£H DENSITY ESTIMATE Density. Unit No, 2. Red Meadow Location: Eastern half of Whitefish Pange from North Fork Flathead Piver to Tobacco Valley. USA-Canadian border to Ped Meadows Creek. Habitat Unit Region 2. Past Density Estimates: Jonkel and Cowan (1971) gave an estimate of 1/13 mi2. Thier (USDA 1982) estimated 1/15 mi2 for the area from Ped Meadow Creek north to International border based on instrumented bears and untagged observations . Dept. FWP Density Estimate: 1/15-1/10 mi2 (14-22 bears) Unit Size: 215 mi2. Discussion: It would be inappropriate to extrapolate the Martinka (1974) density estimate for Glacier National Park to this area. McLellan's 1984 estimate of 1 per 3-6 mi2 was essentially for floodplain and benchland habitats and could not be directly extrapolated to the U.S. side. Our density estimate was based on the proximity of this Unit to Glacier National Park (1/8 mi2) and British Columbia (1/3-6 mi2), but lowered to account for mortality and habitat differences. density Unit No. 3. Southern Whitefish Pange: Location: Red Meadow Creek south to Columbia Falls, Mt. Habitat Region 2. Past Density Estimates: None for this area. Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/25-1/18 mi2 (33-46 bears) Unit size: 831 mi2 Discussion: Grizzlies are less commonly observed (or shot) in the area from Ped Meadow Creek to the south as compared to the Northern Whitefish (Hadden and Jonkel 1983). These authors reported an average of 5 grizzly bear sightings per year for the period 1980-1983 in an area at the southern extreme of the unit. However, a seasonal concentration of grizzly bears (to feed on huckleberries) occurs in the Apgar Mountains (Kendall 1985). Densities are considered to be less on the west side of the Whitefish Divide than on the east side, and recent sightings compiled by Manley (1984) substantiate this. Mealey et al. (1976) graphically showed that the distribution of important grizzly bear habitat components decreased from north to south. Martinka (1971) stated that: "...the habitat within the Park is more suitable for the grizzly than it is adjacent to the Park, where we find extensive coniferous forests. This appears to be much more suitable habitat for the black bear and the number of grizzlies on those areas is less" . Density Quit tjOjL G_ia_cie_i N.a_£ic_na_i E§xk: Location: Glacier National Park, Northwestern Montana. Habitat Region 2. Past Density Estimates: Martijika's (1974) estimate of 1/8 mi2 for a 390 mi2 area within the park extrapolated to the entire Park. Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/8-1/6 mi2 (193-264 bears) Unit Size: 1583 mi2. Discussion: The Department used Martinka's (1974) estimate of 1 grizzly per 8 mi2 for the entire Park. Martinka's (1974) study area was selected to proportionately represent the habitats and physiographic features of the entire park. However, the Department did not feel it appropriate to extrapolate this figure directly to any other place in Montana. This estimate is reasonable for an unhunted population in apparently superior habitat and is consistent with other similar areas (Mundy and Flook 1973, Dean 1976, McLe] lan 1984). Glacier National Park is a unhunted population where human impacts are strictly cont rolled . density Unit No,. £t^. M_a.ry.s_: Location: Western edge of the Plackfeet Indian Reservation, next to Glacier National park. Habitat Regions 3 and 4. Past Density estimate: None for this unit. Dept. FWP density estimate: 1/20-1/10 mi2 (11-21 bears) Unit size: 211 mi2 Discussion: Virtually no information is available for the Plackfeet Reservation. Although it is excellent habitat and is adjacent to Glacier National Park which has a density of 1/F m i , the Department felt that the Reservation was primarily seasonal habitat for Glacier bears, and not many animals live in the lower elevation sites throughout the year. Martinka (pers. comm., Glacier National Park, Mt.) stated that 1 bear/15 mi2 was a reasonable estimate for this unit. To be conservative the Department chose to use 1/20 mi2 as the estimate of the minimum. Density Unit No. 6. Badger-Tw_g Medicine; Location: Eastern front of Rocky Mountains. Unit includes Padger and Two Medicine Creeks on the Plackfeet Indian Reservation. Habitat Regions 3 and 4. Past Density Estimates: None. Closest estimates are Martinka (1974), Aune et al. (1984), and Aune's reevaluation of his 1984 data discussed earlier. Dept. FWP Estimate 1/20-1/16 mi2 (16-20 bears) Unit Size: 323 mi2. Discussion: Aune and Stivers (1982) consider this area to be a high mortality area for the East Front population. 201 The Department assumed that this area was potentially the same as the East Front Unit, except for the number of suspected bear killings annually in this area. Department personnel observed 7 grizzly bears in this area in 1984. Aune (pers. comm.) felt that there were undoubtedly other bears not observed. De_ns_it y_ Unit No*. 1*. South Fork : Location: From Hungry Horse Feservoir south to Big Salmon Lake. Swan Mountain Crest east to the Continental Divide. Unit includes portion of the Bob Marshall and Great Bear wilderness areas. Habitat Fegion 2. Past Density Estimates: Mace and Jonkel's (1980) density estimate of 1/10 mi2 for a 128 mi2 study area. Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/15-1/10 mi2 (108-160 bears) Unit Size: 1624 mi2. Discussion: Mace and Jonkel's (1980) estimate was based on 1 year's data in superior fall habitats; this may be considered a seasonal concentration area. They stated that their density should not be extrapolated to other areas (emphasis added). A minimum density estimate for this area was recalculated using only tagged bears and their composite home range, yielding a density of 1/19 mi2. We raised this estimate from 1/19 to 1/15 based on comments from bear professionals and wildlife managers in the area. In addition, this area is adjacent to high densities in Glacier National Park and also has provided a consistent level of hunter harvest over time. We extended this density estimate into the Bob Marshall as far south as Big Salmon Lake. South of this lake the habitat is drier (the Mission Mountains catch most of the moisture) and fewer bears are observed. As stated previously, this Unit includes both wilderness and non-wilderness acreage. It seems reasonable to assume that if an estimate of 1/15 mi2 could be made for the nonwilderness portion of the Unit, then densities should be similar in wilderness acreages within the Unit. Additionally, 5 grizzly bears were subtracted from the density estimate because habitat was lost when Hungry Horse Feservoir was inundated (Bissell 1985). Density Unit No^ 8j_ East Front: Location: West of the Continental Divide from Birch Creek to Sun Fiver. Includes part of Bob Marshall Wilderness and Sun Fiver Game Preserve. Habitat Fegions 3 and 4. Past Density Estimates: Aune et al. (1984) gave a density range of 1/11.5 mi2 in the spring to 1/22.2 mi2 in the fall. Feevaluation of Aune's 1984 data (based on marked bears only) yielded a density of 1/22 mi2. Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/18-1/12 miz (62-93 bears) 202 Unit Size: 1,119 mi^. Discussion: Aune et al. (1 9 84) stated that their density estimate could not be e_x t r_a_p_Q_la_t ed to all areas of the East Front (emphasis added). The Department, using Aune's re-evaluated absolute minimum estimate of 1/22 mi2 as a basis, raised the estimate of the minimum to 1/18 mi2 based on pooled expertise from bear professionals and wildlife managers in the area, as well as Aune's own interpretations of a minimum. We extrapolated this estimate to include similar habitat in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. This East Front unit includes the Sun River Game Preserve in which hunting has been prohibited since 1973. ££ns_ity. Unit N.0^ 9^ Sttail F£g.n£: Location: This Unit extends from the northern end of Hungry Horse Reservoir through the Swan River Valley to approximately Beaver Creek. Habitat Region 2. Past Density Est imat e:Mone for this unit. Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/30-1/20 mi2 (26-39 grizzlies). Unit Size: 7 80 mi2. Discussion: Telemetry date from the Mission core and from the South Fork Unit show that bears in these two units do not use the valley to any great degree. None of the 12 bears monitored in the South Fork ever went into the Swan Valley (Mace and Jonkel 1980). Thus the estimate of 1/30 for this area represents the number of bears living year- round (except denning). Although the riparian zone of the Swan River is excellent habitat, the level of human encroachment is substantial (78% growth in last decade; Lake County Land Services Department 1985). This unit is also adjacent to the higher density areas of the South Fork and Glacier National Park. Considering the above information and the pooled expertise from bear professionals and wildlife managers in the area we felt it was appropriate to apply a density of 1/30 mi2 for this unit. Density Unit No,. 1Q_^ Mis_s_ion_ Mountains: Location: This unit includes the Mission Mountains from the southern edge of the management area north between the Mission and Swan Valleys to Bigfork Habitat Region 1. Past Density Estimate: 1/19 mi2 (Servheen 1981) based on tagged and untagged observations in a core study area. Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/45-1/25 mi2 (23-42 grizzlies). Unit Size: 1044 mi2. Discussion: Servheen's (1981) estimate of 1/19 mi2 for parts of the Mission Mountains was re-evaluated. To be consistent with other research density estimation procedures, a composite home range was developed from Servheen (1981). Using only marked grizzly bears, within the composite range, the Department developed a minimum 203 estimate of 1/56 mi . The Department recognizes that there are high and low density areas within this unit. There are recent sightings in the Rattlesnake Wilderness, and there is at least some movement from the northern Mission Mountains. An instrumented female with 1 yearling was known to den in the Rattlesnakes (Servheen 1981). The Rattlesnake wilderness is considered sparsely populated at present. Servheen (1981) reported a density of 1/80 mi2 for the Rattlesnake area. Servheen (1981) estimated the current grizzly population in the Mission Mountains at 25. The northern part of the Mission Mountains is felt to have a lower density than the core of the Missions. Servheen (1981) reported a density of 1/32 mi2 from Lost Creek north. P. Klaver (pers. comm.) reports that black bear problems in cherry orchards are frequent, but grizzly bear problems are infrequent . Based on comment received, professional consultations, and a reevaluation of Servheen's (1981) dissertation, the Department combined several units, and developed an estimate of 1 bear/45 mi2. Density Unit No^ 11^ Scapegoat: Location: Scapegoat Wilderness and southern portion of Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. Habitat Regions 3, 4, and 5. Past Density Estimates: Data collected for 1984 (with a minimum of effort) by Aune (pers. comm.) documented 26-28 bears, distinct from his core area, on an area encompassing portions of the Sun River Game Preserve and the Scapegoat unit. This area is 672 mi2 yielding a density of 1/26-1/28 mi2. Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/30-1/18 mi2 (63-106 bears) Unit Size: 1,903 mi2. Discussion: Because this Scapegoat unit has provided a lower hunter harvest than areas to the north, the large size of the area involved, and the limited data available, we chose to be conservative and use a density of 1/30 mi2. The Department was reluctant to extrapolate the density estimates of Aune et al. (1 984) to this area, although many of the habitat features, and probable food habits are similar. However, inferences from other studies in this area suggest that densities may be lower than areas to the north. Sumner and Craighead (1973) placed 6 horse carcasses in the high country of a 104 mi2^ study area. The minimum number of grizzlies visiting the carcasses was 6 - 4 of which were 1 family unit. Sumner and Craighead (1973) also counted tracks seen while hiking wilderness trails between 204 July 15 and September 15. Five grizzly tracks were seen in 260 miles of trails in the Scapegoat Area, while no grizzly tracks were observed in 95 miles of trails in the southern Bob Marshall Study Area. Mace (19P4) observed no grizzly bears and saw no tracks during a 2-year habitat study in the southern Bob Marshall in a study area of 156 mi . There were grizzlies in Mace's study area however, as several diggings were observed near the Swan Crest. There are several problems in using tracks as an index to population density (Cooney 1941; Stockstad 1953, 1954; Hamlin and Frasina 1975). Craighead et al. (1982) felt that grizzly bears in the Wilderness may have learned to avoid trails frequented by man. 205 APPENDIX F CORRESPONDENCE ON GRIZZLY BEAR RELOCATION r«hru*/ • * , I IN* 0*«r TTi* Hon! • r, . 0»f>i r t •rti ivl I . »h , M | I t] f ■■ f*v|«vlnq i t • -j • i i i , *S'h»»'i»fW pro-q r *«*»* tlr MS pro* •- » » In or<1«*r • ntwtnnq t h- foil ow i <r will) no | * qi i i ' ly t>*«r« »t. vour i Thtnh you v»fy ■■vjc.n (ii vi'ur Muffin Rui Idmg, HV ''*mp,,- * KM/U1 104/2 . I 104 i } ' f \ I » Saskatchewan M«Mmm Dipv1*«l W PWt. WUdllf* and P«rt«, r*y rWT*« •OEKMAM, HT. *tf|* |rtsa«M mmU lw mtand wHfimmt cMtlnf •WMrti -it*. toaTtovltur*. «• to-*, tttorvfar*. 4*e+r . Arnold Dood Oapart—n, of fl.h. «lldllf. and Roy RuflMii Building MSU Cap*. Soi.a.n, Nonfini '..'IS t>a.r Dood i rplu* lhr |,tt«r rrw rour dcp*rtwnl of fabruary ,,, thr miriMI of 1Mb .tata In accpuno Illy ba.ra fro* Nontin*. B.cauaa Alaaka alraady ,, .bund.nl .nd ha.lthy b r own / 9 r I ■ 1 1 y baar poput.- th. ana»«-r .0 .11 of tha quaatlona poaad In your la no. If you would l>a intaraatad in tha raaulta ol .■.f~.rt.nc. in tranaloc.t Ion of baar.. I Invita you to ■tooart Tobay. Araa C.«a Blolonlal. f.O. to. tl, Clann.llan. Al.aka II1M. t Ion cont 1 Oo tba othar band. »a aloht racon.ldar our a •attar If Hontana «ara villlno to conaldar Al«»A.n wolva for Nont.n. ba.r.. fraaiaa.bly cb.ng. would ba on . pound for pound baalt. and 1 1 206 i) urn ou> HNtMl D«p«rtMM of flan, Wlldltfa * Par-a midlife K«*««f eti HSU C*«V«M . *o« \ Anion. |a not raady for .|i».»ly baar iranapl* w b. ix tha (O......M. futura. *• 1 *• ,Mf*youh UUoducttoAi of an of thii A*tur~ In Addition, 1 tha public, for abla pl*nnirHj «nd public Input. any Interval, by our COM Ikalop. auction of ajrltily baara. Cood luck .lUt your -n.?.-«t of «rlilly ba... and II | can ba of any furthar halp pl.m ~nt*C* Arl.on. Ml «y «— d (or frit I If baar. « fill aa.klnq your •dvlci and couni* 1 . SI nca ra ly , Nr. V*ota Doo* **''■< •»#•. '••». iikim, ,»a r,rli *or~... al »aar «r. fwo< I" r*ipo"t* to fo*f |«tt«r tOACarai.a. ••Cttt P'oDif* a'lffl* oaiM rkan*>a*A ration, tha araa of tha Caecadaa north of nannlna«rh*4 (or qrlBlly baar ralntrodactlon but not In tha currant fiscal yaar . That ration aay oonaldar tha aharlnq of aapanaaa. It la ay adw I ca that you contact both raq I ona dl reel 1 y for any poaa Ibla ar r anqeoent a In th 1 • reqard ( aaa contact par loni and addraaaaa ba low ) . 2 I ' M, Oeaarchl 104 St* kva. S Cranbrook, i.C. bob Lincoln t\«> Skeha Lafca hd . •anticton, i.C. VIA f«l It >-•»« 1 I 207 DIVISION OF WILDLIFE '•Meal** rw»l««l«": Kaalaaa 0*»< . •« 'lift. »ll«ll<» ■ or »»>'•*• >■ i KM («•»•» [<»iai num." kiKIii. ->,'« «.. l«*-r«Atrt*. »** id i » #r Wcno* wotu. u* r»rt" Utt ***** w«i«tio- hit (*- pt»**a wren t*wf k*bii.t mi*.< *r Uwr r"'1! »»•' **« m (n«-wr) waif a-icaia Utaraoa, ««d wX* »f Al . *«/ iMrwkKtt*. of walwat ar |flf|lf ooar lata U>«rt4» ll la r>l««ll«l canfllct «rlt» hwMoela tpaxloi fff dUilift, t*t t1**«lalf**lbtll • fffl, ««ao*l ■ r*l. ''""'Jr r»». t*dd*« - Witt* ■ 7»V. loot ■ jot, f*rr.»nOrl - rH N)t *0» wH*w1*»owl I j t ton. *r« BO fro* nw»m m -•not «ltOu«CI OCPAATMa^T Of MH AMD GAMf |fli| MS-tMl on *V. Wtwtlff ooo* D»f>wrt«wM« ol Pi «i Ul if* mwi r«ro« •or **vff*-*> wwilffifwi MM fll».l Or*****)*. WT Ow«« WW . p—di ftMllH ia a n»i» iMi «i* (c*a *a>nl««M. lot* of rr^rl' i«Im-*u«w block aaata, th» tjffiifflf avaffi imo raltforaia (Milt, at IH ■ I* ia r«l*M*»i*»ff r««*>'* Arnold Oood wtldllf* aaa Pffrti, tor Nwf r**M Bm< ldff4rtar«t ' » LfftU' of 'ttry.'> 4. l«fii r*>««f dl*>« 4 *f *Ow« ffW/lf tX«r MH«lf1 »»t fO^r ««, «n| tff«X I ' > C * I L j t rpQv* 1 I 'o- » V tO lW • * Sr«r( fr«N HQALana. -*t f1*rr*4 to •» fo' r»plj?. I C«" «p»r*l|f -ttt>, rowr »'0»'r« owl •f •*»lwcr to • II fowr of j**r QvtMUM l« *© wr harff «■ «bw*»ffa'**•• i**w»o»*iii»>»j »o»wl itir* loforwMitlww **d Kffrvffil data, *»4 •* cowtf \** twlti *f row pra>od. M*K*r*1 r ,1 si. _^ ftvffft J. 01. n t./ ri,» ,4i i. i^ffr.iV cA^t, ra*ri 85 208 0 • TA'C O* N«V«A« DEPARTMENT Of WILDLIFE 00*PT%*EH1 Of QAME ANO RSH VI 141 If* *-a faraa ik*-* row ao*' lodi b» r^aro to yo*ar *o» wrpiio (rtiaiy b«*n, *hj|» aw'fl«l*ol h*Mt*l (n *•*•«• •ffvrtAC t« atapply Mat 3UI« of N«*a«a -if. *pprocUu th* «ff*f. «« 4> Ml l«*H traal -« haw Jppo't • vUbto frao rotating popuUllort *f itaao* ur>lqv« TH*r« u aooaa «u«ltM W U%M •?•**«• wwtMn Im Nm•■*> OK-Un* va m» Mncfvtljr. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 1M W*»ak )H itr** / rO lo« / Lin***. N*o.a.aa *U a «waiJM« "No' «aa* of Ik* tow ajualaawi -tear* row aooro WaMaaoJ ftaakrr. J» —^5 ioaho oc/AjrmcNT or ran and game taw taw* VWari • too U •aaW • Mate a «mr Hard It. ItM Nr. Vaolf Ooo* *tont*r**, D*«a-Wi of fllk, ■floltia *aal ••rfci •to-, rojffoa* ■» I (fling ■kant*** Itajfo (Mlaortlty Cw«H •or— on. Wl) Oaor «ar . Ooo* Tfa* long-rang* a i an* for aaw»aa— Wl of frltfl* ftoor In I* •no «• ajatlto »tf«!g»t toro«r« **o tlaayl*. ** Int**** to <«• car* of tK« )' TM* II** Im I«*mo a^* aora o» protecting gr I 1 1 l T M*lt«t. «• all I a-a OOlng a fair ft It of -O'V tnreua*> fraj C««a1*Aoor** la>*cl** Ac* to »o*)t va owtorca— «t of omr ft t II I ( • ••r r*f«| «t lo-i *o* l*vO»t I go to fr«* « 1 1 " '*« < i o» v4 aa>«ao*MCa of flTlfli la I .aK> «I*M to r*la.tro«wC* a*r "o» Oait.l** ta« *t*t«. «r, hov*. I* ttaa M**. r*loc*t*4 ^'c» 1 1* ooora froo !«•*« Into *«l I o> »*ra *m« la to C*r<0«*. »a • 1 1 1 c«*tln«* to momoI* tffa KWlai Mora In tMl laa» lo* ••rroof. Cooal I v O**o*» 37901 Sit <«oa, 7Tvx>ai Hr . Arnold Dood nontini Dr>ill Oooa 0*pirt».o( Of r tin. Villi I f a an* » . ■ Dor MwffaiM Building "Ml Ca>p»l ■oitaao, HI S»7 1 1 Oaar Mr . Oood Ani.art to qurttlent In II. n« i . ara at lilli.i Irttrr da trd f s6ru»r , 1 Mo. So«th Dakota «ould not tt tnts'attsd In r«(al«lnq trljilr baart fro* Montana far r a I n t r oowt t I on I no I >0 4 MO . I hop* tn.il lofarailton "Ipi r»« tlMC*rcl», •on ri.ltf Ca-a lllfl Spaclalllt Department of Fish end Wildlife tot %m. Uau. ITWB5 TO. tea Mi «5am>aao oaatoow •no» Mor>la««5 Ofaraiinn •« F.aK. Wllolif. and p»n , •ton/ IVf™ OolWta, «SU Canaaa Boatman. MT SV1S Cnaar Mr. Oonct famil >l. I» •f ri*». Milan ^* 't«*»< «>M<4«r>t. *-*J I Ca»1 aw**** Ihm «ll «| onr* Or MR*! M*> M-ra«aan for •atwt«Ms«n« tfMl ovowon. Any i^tr*, «« «*i«*ir* *»*• i OLM* cc: M> M^'iou. la* Staff *.»l*ii tnu C«at»«a ft*. loatel Ma • IMI l«(nlf Wm, I •in r ■rleala *••»• ■»•« rMlflMliq »t*ol« mi Cattr om DCPAJtTMCMT Of OA* frtr»,4r. /?, • on *•<-< ov *Uo. 'lU OlrHlIK MOMt«8> Fro— Uxt HarcouH KV^- TaUphono Call Proa 1111 Ceer LaaC Thur.day. -r~r«c.lv.i • call lr« till Caar. Olr.ctor of Utah". Wlldllfa liinini Dlvlalon. r.,.,din, Utah'a ooaltlon on taklnj any of •ur |rlial» bora. Illl'i raiianu vaa that "It vould taka aora than *" •« Cod fot Utah to occ.pt a 'tood' |rlally baar. not to nantton a problaai baar." I will contlnua to kaap ro» Inloraad o( any furthar raiiomn wa rocalvo In thla offlca. IH/bfa 211 APPENDIX G GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING GRIZZLY BEAR PROBLEM STATUS AND FOR CONTROL ACTIONS IN THE NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE ECOSYSTEMS* *Developed through interagency cooperation of the Montana Department Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, and Border Grizzly Project, April 14, 1981, Helena, Montana, and reviewed February 23, 1982, Helena, Montana. Modified from the "Guidelines for Management Involving Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Area." Revised 8/85 212 Montana FWP and U.S. FWS Contacts Regarding Grizzly Bear Problems Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, MT *Glenn Erickson, Bureau Chief, Wildlife Division Arnie Olsen, Admin., Wildlife Division Ron Marcoux, Associate Director Office // 444-2612 444-2612 444-3186 Home # 449-6211 442-7594 442-9433 Kalispell - Region 1 * , Regional Supervisor Louis Kis, Warden Captain Jim Cross , Wildlife Manager Missoula - Region 2 *Jim Ford, Regional Supervisor Earle Davis, Warden Captain John Firebaugh, Wildlife Manager Bozeman - Region 3 (Yellowstone Ecosystem) *LeRoy Ellig, Regional Supervisor Ken Greer, Lab Supervisor Jim Ramsey, Warden Captain Arnold Foss, Regional Game Manager Great Falls - Region 4 *Dan Vincent , Regional Supervisor Robert R. Chesterfield, Warden Captain James L. Mitchell, Wildlife Manager MT FWP Research Laboratory - BOzeman Ken Greer, Lab Supervisor Dan Palmischiano John Weigand Billings - Region 5 (Yellowstone Ecosystem) *Roger Fliger, Regional Supervisor Dennis Gagenston, Warden Captain Charles Eustace, Wildlife Manager 755-5505/5506 755-5505 257-2951 755-5505 755-4914 721-5808 721-5808 721-5808 586-5419 994-2660 586-5419 586-5419 728-7167 549-0883 728-0335 587-3930 587-9213 586- 6779 587- 8625 454-3441/42 761-3832 454-3441/42 761-4930 454-3441/42 452-9483 994-6357 994-6356 994-6361 252-4654 252-4654 252-4654 586-9213 586-0478 388-4757 252-5924 652-6558 245-2214 * Primary Contacts 213 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Billings Area Office) Office # Home # Bill Rightmire, ADC Supervisor 657-6454 373-5951 Chris Servheen, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator (FTS) 585-3223 421-1488 (Missoula) (Comm.) 329-5223 Wayne G. Brewster, Endangered Species Team Leader (FTS) 585-5225 443-7340 (Helena) (Comm.) 449-5225 ADC District 1 Jim Hoover, District Supervisor Columbus, MT 322-5872 322-5872 ADC District 3 Carter Niemeyer, District Supervisor East Helena, MT 227-5711 227-6418 214 SECTION I Guidelines for Determining Grizzly Bear Problem Status in the Northern Continental Divide and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Ecosystems Grizzly bears must be determined to be a problem or potential problem by specific criteria before they will be controlled. Control must be compatible with Federal and State laws and regulations and in concert with the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan objectives for limiting man-caused grizzly mortality. A grizzly bear will be determined to be a problem or potential problem if any or all of the following conditions apply: Condition A. The bear causes significant depredation to lawfully present livestock or uses unnatural food materials (human and live- stock foods, garbage, home gardens, or livestock carrion and properly stored game meat in possession of man, etc.) which have been reasonably secured from the bear resulting in habitua- tion of the bear towards people or significant loss of property. Condition B. Condition C. The bear has displayed aggressive (not defensive) behavior toward man which constitutes a demonstrable immediate or potential threat to human safety and/or a minor human injury resulted from a human/bear encounter. The bear has had an encounter with people resulting in a substantial human injury or loss of human life. Condition D. The bear moves into a visitor use or residential area without causing an incident, but there is indication that due to its persistent use of the area it may become overly familiar with humans. Such a bear may become habituated, and may be relocated if a suitable release site, free of circumstances similar to the capture site, is available. This is an action to prevent a possible incident or nuisance conditioning of the bear and does not count as an offense when determining the disposition of the bear, using Table 1 of the guidelines, should the bear be re- captured in a future control action. The following are considerations in determining grizzly problem status under Condition A. 1. Unnatural foods were reasonably secure from grizzlies. The following are examples of reasonably secure conditions: a. Livestock use did not occur in habitat components critically important to grizzlies in time or space; edibles and/or garbage was not dominant (i.e., food was canned or in other sealed con- tainers) and edibles and/or garbage was made unavailable (hung out of reach or secured in a solid-sided-bear-proof-structure) ; 215 b. Livestock and wildlife carcasses were removed or properly buried so that the material would not reasonably be expected to attract grizzlies ; c. Game meat was hung 100 yards from any camp area; d. No artificial feeding of grizzlies occurred. The following are considerations in determining grizzly problem status under Condition B: 1. The bear has displayed aggression toward man. Sound evidence must be available to establish that the problem bear acted aggressively without provocation (not defensively) , and that such behavior con- stituted a threat to human safety and /or a minor human injury occurred as a result of a nondenf ensive grizzly attack. The following are considerations in determining grizzly problem status under Condition C: 1. An encounter with people which resulted in a serious human injury or loss of human life. A bear that is involved in an accidental encounter with people or in a provoked attack (the bear acted defensively not aggressively) which results in a minor human injury should not be considered a nuisance under this condition. 2. If information is insufficient to clearly establish fact 1 under Condition A. , the grizzly probably should not be determined a problem under that condition. If information is insufficient to clearly establish fact 1 under B, the grizzly probably should not be determined a problem under that condition. 216 SECTION II Table 1. GUIDELINES FOR GRIZZLY BEAR CONTROL ACTION (See Footnotes 1,2,4) TYPE OF PROBLEM TYPE OF NO OFFENSE CONDITION A CONDITION B CONDITION C GRIZZLY OFFENSES 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 1st Females Orphaned Cub*** REL Cub REL* REL REM** REL REM REM i caning RFT RFT £> fit I 4 RFM RFT RFM RFM bUDoflUlC'tK RFT K Till RFT RFM RFT PFM RFM Pr^ma A A nit" t«t "i t~ h YrtiiTloAifcJfc r L ) M C nUUlL Willi RFL RFT RFM RFT RFM In 1 il i RFM iv m. l V.dUUJL L ) \ ciU U_L L ^ V da ux t y UIQ All U-L t " ** ** DT7M RFM RFM Old Adult with Young REL REL REM REL REM REM (a^ult (adult) (adult) Males Orphaned Cub REL Cub REL REL REM REL REM REM Yearling REL REM REM REM Subadult REL REM REM REM Prime Adult REL REM REM REM Old Adult REM REM REM *REL - RELOCATE **REM - REMOVE FROM POPULATION Problem grizzlies that are sick or injured beyond a point where natural recovery is likely will be removed. ***Cub - Yount of the year ***Yearling - 12 to 24 months old ***Subadult - 24 to 48 months old ***Young - Cub, yearling, or subadult accompanying mother ***01d - Indicates advanced age and deteriorated physical state, indicators are tooth wear and physical appearance I. If a grizzly bear is not determined to be a problem after application of criteria in Section I, no control action will be initiated. 217 2. After a bear has been cap Cured during a control action, the decision on where to relocate the bear or whether to kill it must be made within 24 hours of its capture. The relocation must be made as expeditiously as possible after the disposition of the bear is determined. Bears will not be held in a snare but will be immobilized, marked, and placed in an appropriate holding facility. 3. On-site release may be accomplished if the bear taken is: (a) determined not to be a problem bear or; (b) on a first offense when the bear cannot be re- located because of terrain, weather, or inaccessibility to a relocation site. Females with cubs , where relocation is identified in the above table, will be released on-site if relocation is not feasible for previously stated reasons or if the cubs cannot also be caught and relocated with the female. An on-site release will not be conducted in developed areas. On-site releases will be accomplished after approval of the land management agency if the release is monitored in such a way to determine its success or failure with respect to bear survival and conflict resolution. 218 SECTION III RELOCATION PROCEDURE While guidelines cannot be written to cover every situation, experience has shown that a general sequence of events can be outlined, which, when followed, will enhance efficiency and coordination. The Montana FWP Regional Office will be the principal coordination point for all relocations. Once a control action has been determined necessary by application of the guidelines and criteria in Sections I and II, the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Regional Office will be notified if not already involved. If the bear is to be killed, the action will be completed by authorized State or Federal employees, and the carcass transported to the FWP laboratory in Bozeman for examination and subsequent disposition. If the bear is to be relocated in northwest Montana, the FWP Regional Office will contact the other FWP Regional Offices, FWS, and land management agencies and determine the appropriate relocation si e from those identified in Section IV. A schematic diagram showing the sequence of notification and the decision process is provided on page 9. The proper selection of a relocation site is dependent upon many factors in- cluding age, sex, history of the bear, type of offense, season, distance from capture site, and overall logistics. The rate of successful relocations can be materially affected by the selection of the relocation site. Distance moved appears to be one of the major factors, so bears should be moved as far as possible within the constraints applied by other considerations. All relocated bears will be lip tattooed and ear-tagged. The information will be recorded on the attached forms (reproduced copies) and forwarded to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for subsequent distribution. All available information should be included to document the relocation and to aid in future analysis and refinement of procedures. 219 FIGURE 2. ACTION PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING BEAR PROBLEM STATUS AND MANAGEMENT ACTION Bear Related Problem Outside NP Originating agency rpts. to state F&G Dept. (Region con- tact initially.) Who calls FWS designated representative & USFS Conference call, individual contact or meeting of desig- _ Inside NP nated reps. (State, FWS, USFS to determine status using NCDGB con- trol guidelines. i Bear to be controlled. 1 Capture initiated by state or BIA on Indian Reservation with FWS-ADC w NPS assistance (when necessary) Capture I Conference call, individual con- tact or meeting originated by state with FWS and USFS, to determine disposition of bear. Use relocation guidelines. (If no decision made at initial conf . call). 1 Relocation site and method igreed to by State, FWS, USFS coordinated by State. 4 No control action _^ necessary. Other actions have been taken to Remove the attrac- tive conflict. ^ Destroy** Bear Controlled bear report Form completed by 3tate or originating agency inside Park. Sent to Rec. Coord.* Actual relocation ; Helicopter relocation costs shared by State, FWS, originating forest and BIA when appropriate. ♦ Controlled bear report form com- pleted by state or originating agency with assistance of USFS. Report form sent to Recovery Coord.* Carcass to MT FWP Lab (Bozeman) . Skull & hide returned to NPS or origin- ating state. NPS makes status decision us:i| NCDE Grizzly Bear control gvu.i lines in conjunction with FW! Bear to be controlled, 1 Capture by NPS Conference call or meeting b> NPS with FWS, using relocatic guidelines. Relocation .site determined bv NPS in consultation with appl- cable Forest and State, FWS notified of selected site. Actual relocation NPS pays costs I Controlled bear report torm completed by HPS. Report sen to Recovery Coordinator.* Necropsy rpt. sent to Rec. Coord.* by MFWP Lab Supr. "Recovery Coordinator distributes report to agency representatives in Ecosystem. **Altemative may include transport to a zoo or research. Decision made at conference phone call. ♦Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, USFWS, HS 105D, University of MT . Missoula, MT. 59812 CHECK LIST FDR PROBLEM BEARS Capture Date Release Date Ear Tag Radio Frequency Recorder_ Age Sex Type of Capture Location of Release Distance Moved Radio Type Mounted By Offense types: defending cubs, food, or itself overt attack (pursuit of people!"" cabin break- in_^ cattle molestations proximity to people crop depredation^ bee hive depredation repeat offender Transportati on Drugs used and dosage Personnel: Capture Tr ao s po rt Release General nature of animal (docile, aggressive, etc.) Consultations and approval 221 SECTION IV Identified Relocation Sites U.S. Forest Service Flathead National Forest Forest criteria for accepting problem grizzly bears: 1. No record of unprovoked encounters with people. 2. In good physical condition and not injured. 3. Repeat offenders will not be approved for relocation. 4. Each bear must be evaluated prior to release. 5. Each bear will be ear tagged and tattooed as a minimum. 6. In most cases, only orphaned cubs and subadult female bears will be accepted from Glacier N.P. 7. Should a bear leave the relocation site, the Regional Supervisor of the Montana Department Fish, Wildlife & Parks will be notified as soon as possible. 8- Bears otherwise meeting requirements 1-5 that have caused livestock depredation on the Lewis and Clark, Helena, or Lolo National Forests may be released to spring range in the South Fork of the Flathead. During the period May 31 to September 8, bears will be relocated to areas outside the wilderness. Bears may be relocated within the wilderness from March 1 to May 31 and after Labor Day. Site Location Transportation Specific Restrictions (T. R. ) (Helicopter vs Road) on each site (if any) Type of Bear Season Unacceptable Unaccept. Spotted Bear District I. Slide or Upper Sullivan Helicopter 2. Twin Creek Drainage Helicopter 3. Sargeant Creek Drainage Helicopter 4. Corporal Creek Drainage Helicopter 5. Soldier Creek (Tin Basin) Road 6. Rock Creek Drainage Road 7. Connor Creek Drainage Road 8. Bunker Creek Drainage Road 9. Upper Trail Crek (via Big Bill Rd.) Road 10. Unper South Fork* Helicopter 5/31-9/8 222 Site Location Transportation Specific Restrictions (T. R. ) (Helicopter vs. Road) On each site (if any Type of Bear Season Unacceptable Unacceptable Hungry Horse District 1. Felix Peak Helicopter 2. Unawah Mountain Helicopter 3. Red Sky Mountain* Helicopter 5/31-9/8 4. Spruce Pt.* Helicopter 5/31-9/8 5. Hemitite Peak* Helicopter 5/31-9/8 6. Vinegar Mountain* Helicopter 5/31-9/8 7. Mt. Bradley* Helicopter 5/31-9/8 8. Twin Peak* Helicopter 5/31-9/8 9. Red Plume Mountain* Helicopter 5/31-9/8 10. Slippery Bill Mountain Helicopter 5/31-9/8 11. Unawah Creek Drainage Road 12. Puzzle Creek Road 13. Trapper Bigelow Road 14. 25 Mile Road 15. Long Creek Helicopter * Within Wilderness Contacts (listed in order of priority) 1. Lloyd Reesman, District Ranger Office phone - 387-5243 Home phone - 755-8703 2. Tom Holland, Wildlife Biologist Office phone - 387-5243 Home phone - 755-5479 223 Spotted Bear L. , District Ranger Office phone - 387-5243 or 755-7311 (summer) 2. Tom Holland, District Biologist Office phone - 387-5243 or 755-7311 (summer) Home phone - 755-5479 Supervisor's Office 1. Bob Hensler Office phone - 755-5401 Home phone - 755-6813 2. John Denne Office phone - 755-5401 Home phone - 755-3165 3. Ed Brannon Office phone - 755-5401 Home phone - 755-5770 Advance approval of the Regional Forester has been received to relocate grizzly bears within wilderness areas. It is our intent that bears be relocated near elk winter habitat in the South Fork where carrion may provide a temporary food source. The exact location can best be determined at the time a bear is captured. Bears may be relocated within the Wilderness from March 1 to May 31 and after Labor Day. Bears will be carefully screened to meet the established requirements. There are many summer activities with potential for conflict planned near the proposed release sites. The time a bear is ready for release has bearing on potential conflict, so it is essential that the District Ranger be contacted prior to release when the best possible location will be mutually selected. The continued success in relocating grizzly bears is dependent on how well in- dividual bears are evaluated. It is our judgement that bears from Glacier National Park are most often in problem situations because of their interaction with people. In most cases we consider these bears a higher risk for relocation than bears from habitats outside the Park. For this reason, only orphaned cubs and subadult females that meet all the suitability requirements, and which are a "good risk," will be approved for relocation to the Flathead National Forest. 224 SECTION III (Cont.) Identified Relocation Sites Lewis and Clark National Forest Forest criteria for accepting problem grizzly bears: L. No grizzly bear which is feeding on dead livestock or is involved in livestock depredations immediately prior to capture will be relocated in any of the designated spring use areas. 2. No grizzly bear involved in cabin depredation will be relocated in any of the designated spring use areas. 3. Grizzly bear captured on the Rocky Mountain Front will normally be relocated west of the Continental Divide. 4. Designated sites will not be available for translocated bears if current use of the area by native grizzlies is known. 5. Grizzly bear will not normally be relocated after October 15 due to heavy dispersed human use associated with big game hunting seasons, a rapid decline in dependable food sources, and the limited amount of time avail- able for an animal to adapt to a new environment prior to denning. 6. Male grizzly bears will be moved at least 70 miles and females and sub- adults at least 30 miles, whenever possible. 7. A maximum of three individual grizzly bears or female-cub groups will be accepted on the Forest during a seasonal use period in a given calendar year. 8. Male grizzly bears will be considered for relocation onto the Lewis and Clark N.F. under the following conditions: a. The bear has no known history of aggressive behavior towards humans. b. The bear has no known history of livestock depredation. c. Approval for relocation of male bears will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The summer-fall relocation sites were selected to avoid the more heavily used trails and popular camping areas. An evaluation of current or expected public recreational use, Forest Service work crew schedules, etc. will be factors to consider in deter- mining which site is best suited for a specific relocation effort. 225 Grizzly bear relocation sites were selected for two seasonal use periods determined by forage availability and accessibility of the area to grizzlies. Spring use areas are those usable by grizzly bears from the time they leave the den until late June when higher elevation habitats become available. Summer- fall use areas will generally be considered as those providing the necessary habitat requirements for grizzlies during the period July 1 to October 15. ipring Release Sites 'April 1 - June 30) Nineraile Park* Ray Creek Trail* Dryden Creek* Two Shacks Flat* Prairie Creek* Location Transportation (T. R. ) (Helicopter vs Road) Specific Restrictions on each site (if any) Type of Bear Season Unacceptable Unaccept 25N, 10W; S. 33 & 34 24N, 10W, S. 19 & 30 24N, 10W, S. 33 & 34 23N, 10W, S. 27 & 28 21N, 10W, S. 6 & 7 West Fork Sun River* 21N, 11W, S. 22 Grassy Hills* 18N, 8W, S. 31 Elk Creek 18N 8W, S. 8 & 10 Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter /Road 5/31-9/8 5/31-9/8 5/31-9/8 5/31-9/8 5/31-9/8 5/31-9/8 5/31-9/8 5/31-9/8 >ummer-Fall Release Sites Location [July 1 - October 15) (T. Transportation Specific Restrictions R. ) (Helicopter vs Road) on each site (if any) Type of Bear Season Unacceptable Unaccept. Goat Ridge* 23N, 11W, S. 5 & 8 Helicopter 5/31-9/8 Grizzly Gulch* 22N, 11W, s. 16 & 21 Helicopter 5/31-9/8 Pine Creek* 22N, 12W, s. 27 & 34 Helicopter 5/31-9/8 Blind Fork* 21N, 12W, s. 23 & 26 — Helicopter 5/31-9/8 Flint Mountain* 18N, 10W, s. 8 & 9 Helicopter 5/31-9/8 Scapegoat Mountain* 18N, 10W, s. 13,14,15 Helicopter 5/31-9/8 Bailey Basin 18N 8W S. 22 Helicopter 5/31-9/8 / Inside Wilderness — No bears will be relocated to the Lewis & Clark N.F. during jmmer months because all release sites are in wilderness areas. 227 Contacts — Lewis & Clark. N.F. (listed in order of priority) 1. Lloyd Swanger, District Ranger, Rocky MT District, Choteau Office phone: 466-5771 Home phone: 466-5625 2. Lewis Young, Wildlife Biologist, Rocky Mt. District, Choteau Office phone: 466-5771 Home phone 466-2877 3. Roger Evans, Wildlife Biologist, Supervisor's Office, Great Falls Office phone: 727-0901 Home phone: 452-6004 4. Jerry Reese, Range/Wildlife/Recreation Staff Officer, Supervisor's Office, Great Falls Office phone: 727-0901 Home phone: 5. Dale Gorman, Forest Supervisor, Great Falls Office phone: 727-0901 Home phone: 453-0719 228 SECTION III Identified Relocation Sites U.S. Forest Service Helena National Forest Forest criteria for accepting nuisance grizzly bears: 1. Bears may not be located within wilderness between Memorial Day and Labor Day. 2. Male bears must be sub-adult or younger in view of Forest Service recent experience. 3. No stock killing bears (cattle or sheep) will be accepted due to sensitive nature of stock-depredation in past years. 4. All bears will be equipped with radio collars and monitored through the first denning season by MDFWP. 5. A maximum of one (1) bear per year will be accepted in the Scapegoat Wilderness . Site (T. Location R. S.) 1. Crow Peak* 17N, 9W, S. 9,10,11 Transportation Specific Restrictions (Helicopter vs Road) on each site (if any) Type of Bear Season Unacceptable Unaccept , Helicopter See above 5/31-9/8 (Note: This site involves Lolo, Helena, and Lewis & Clark Nat'l. Forests) Mineral 16N, 10W, S. 7 & 18 Helicopter See above 5/31-9/8 Hill* (Note: This site involves Lolo & Helena National Forests) *Within wilderness Contacts - Helena National Forest (listed in order of priority) 1. Ron DesJardins, District Ranger Office phone: 362-4265 Home phone: 362-4518 2. Gordon Gray, Forest Wildlife Staff Office phone: 449-5083 Home phone: 443-3289 3. Carl Frounfelker, Forest Wildlife Biologist Office phone: 449-5082 Home phone: 449-6282 4. Robert S. Gibson, Forest Supervisor Office phone: 449-5203 Home phone: 442-4886 (Kent Nelson, Acting Forest Supervisor) 229 SECTION III(cont.) Identified Relocation Sites Lolo National Forest Forest criteria for accepting bears 1. The Youngs Peak area is the forest's first priority area. Second priority is Mt. Headley, and the third is Lake Elsina 2. No condition B. or C. bears. 3. Male grizzlies may be accepted as provided below. Site Location (T. R.) 1. Youngs Peak 17N, 13W Transportation (Helicopter vs Road) Helicopter/Road Specific Restrictions on each site (if any) Type of Bear Season Unacceptable Unaccept M-old adult F-old adult None 2. Mt. Headley 23N, 29W Helicopter/Road F-old adult F-old adult None w/young F-prime adult w/young M-prime adult M-old adult 3. Lake Elsina 17N, 17W Helicopter /Road F-old adult F-old adult None w/young M-all categories Footnote - Livestock killing bears are not desired since all sites are adjacent to livestock grazing areas. Contacts — Lolo N.F. (Listed in order of priority) (use prefix 585 for FTS) 1. Orville Daniels, Forest Supervisor Office phone: 329-3563 Home phone: 728-4268 2. Chuck Spoon, Program Officer for Resources Office phone: 329-3569 Home phone: 251-2065 230 Contacts — Lolo N.F. (cont.) 3. Greg Munther, Fisheries Biologist Office phone: 329-3567 Home phone: 728-7083 4. Mike Hillis, Wildlife Biologist Office phone: 329-3575 Home phone: 777-3967 5. Jerry Deibert , Wildlife Biologist Office phone: 826-3821 Home phone: 826-3820 231 SECTION III (cont.) Identified Relocation Sites Glacier National Park No release sites available Bureau of Land Management No release sites available Bureau of Indian Affairs Flathead Indian Reservation: No release sites available Blackfeet Indian Reservation: No release sites available 232 APPENDIX H COMPARISON OF WILDLIFE SPECIES BY STATEWIDE PRIORITY,* WILDLIFE DIVISION EXPENDITURES (FY 82), AND HUNTING RECREATION DAYS (Arith.) Priority Ranking Rank By Expenditure Rank By Huntinq Days No. Hunting Days (1980) % of Days Mule Deer 1 2 2 551,262 26.00 Whitetail Deer 3 3 3 259,418 12.00 Elk 2 1 1 566,659 26.00 Antelope 4 6 9 32,208 1.50 Bighorn Sheep 5 8 12 2,904 0.10 Mountain Goats 6 13 13 1,695 0.05 Prairie Grouse 7 9 8 91,045 4.00 Pheasants-Huns- Chukers 8 7 6 148,852 7.00 Flack Bear 9 12 5 150,116 7.00 Waterfowl 10 4 4 228,814 11.00 Moose 11 16 11 3,150 0.10 Mountain Grouse 12 15 7 113,725 5.00 Grizzly 13 11 Furbearers 14 5 Bobcat 15 Endangered Species 16 17 Turkey 17 18 10 10,288 0.40 Nongairte ir 10 Mountain Lion 19 14 2,160,136 days ♦Priority is narithmaticn average of regional priorities. This may not represent true state priority. 233 APPENDIX I MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES The following general management guidelines are applicable coordination measures that will be considered when evaluating the effects of existing and proposed human activities in identified seasonally important habitats for a variety of wildlife species. 1. Identify and evaluate for each project proposal the cumulative effects of all activities, both existing uses and other planned projects. Potential site specific effects of the project being analyzed are a part of the cumulative effects evaluation which will apply to all lands within a designated biological unit. A biological unit is an area of land which is ecologically similar and includes all of the year-long habitat requirements for a sub-population of one or more selected wildlife species. 2. Avoid human activities or combinations of activities on seasonally important wildlife habitats which may result in an adverse impact on the species or reduce the habitat effectiveness . 3. Space concurrently active seismographic lines at least nine (9) air miles apart to allow an undisturbed corridor into which wildlife can move when displaced (Olson 19P1). One line survey crew may be allowed to work between active lines in order to reduce the total time of activity in any one area. 4. Establish helicopter flight patterns of not more than one-half (.5) mile in width along all seismographic lines, between landing zones and the lines, and between landing zones and other operations, unless flying conditions dictate deviations due to safety factors. 5. Because helicopters produce a more pronounced behavioral reaction by big game and raptors than do fixed- wing aircraft, helicopters will maintain a minimum altitude of 600 feet (1P3 meters) above ground level when flying between landing zones and work areas where landing zones are not located on seismic lines, unless species, specific guidelines recommend otherwise (Hinman 1974; McCourt et al., 1974; Klein 1973; Miller and Gunn, 1979). 6. Designate landing zones for helicopters in areas where helicopter traffic and associated human disturbances will have the minimum impact on wildlife populations. Adequate visual and topographic barriers should be located between landing zones and occupied seasonal-use areas. 234 7. The use of helicopters instead of new road construction to accomplish energy exploration and development is encouraged . P. Pase road construction proposals on a completed transportation plan which considers important wildlife habitat components and seasonal-use areas in relation to road location, construction period, road standards, seasons of heavy vehicle use, road management requirements, etc. 9. Use minimum road and site construction specifications based on projected transportation needs. Schedule construction times to avoid seasonal-use periods for wildlife as designated in the species specific guidelines. 10. Locate roads, drill sites, landing zones, etc., to avoid important wildlife habitat components based on a site specific evaluation. 11. Insert "dog-legs" or visual barriers on pipelines and roads built through dense vegetative cover areas to prevent straight corridors exceeding one-fourth (1/4) mile where vegetation has been removed (Stubbs and Markham 1979). 12. Poads which are not compatible with area management objectives and are no longer needed for the purpose for which they were built will be closed and reclaimed. Native plan species will be used whenever possible to provide proper watershed protection on disturbed areas. Wildlife forage and/or cover species will be use in rehabilitation projects where deemed appropriate. 13. Keep roads which are in use during oil and gas exploration and development activity closed to unauthorized use. Place locked gates and/or road guards at strategic locations to deter unauthorized use when activities are occurring on key seasonal ranges. 14. Impose seasonal closures and/or vehicle restrictions based on wildlife or other resource needs on roads which remain open. 15. Bus crews to and from drill sites to reduce activity levels on roads. Shift changes should be scheduled to avoid morning and evening wildlife feeding periods. 16. Keep noise levels at a minimum by muffling such things as engines, generators, and energy production facilities. 17. Prohibit dogs during work periods. IP. Prohibit firearms during work periods or in vehicles traveling to and from work locations. 235 19. Seismog raphic and exploration companies should keep a daily log of activities. Items such as shift changes, shut down/start up times, major changes in noises or activity levels, and the location on the line where seismic crews are working should be recorded. 236 APPENDIX J SPECIFIC GRIZZLY BEAR GUIDELINES All previously mentioned general management guidelines are applicable coordination measures that should be considered when evaluating human activities in grizzly bear habitat. The following are additional species specific guidel ines . 1. Avoid human activities in identified grizzly bear habitat constituent elements or portions of constituent elements containing specific habitat values during the following seasonal-use periods (see data summarization): A. Spring habitat (concentrated use areas). .Apr 1-June 30 B. Breeding Areas..... May 1-July 15 (Currently identified breeding areas include upper Muddy Creek, the head of Rinkers Creek, the Ear Mountain area, and the head of North Fork Dupuyer Creek.) C. Alpine feeding sites July 1-Sept 15 D. Subalpine f i r/whitebark pine habitat types. .Aug 1-Nov 30 E. Denning habitat Oct 15-Apr 15 2. Avoid human activities in grizzly bear habitat components which provide important food sources during spring and early summer (April 1 - July 15). These habitat components include riparian shrub types, Pop_ulus stands, wet meadows, sidehill parks, and avalanche chutes. Maintain an undisturbed zone of at least 1/2 mile between activities and the edge of these habitat components where many important bear foods occur. 3. Establish flight patterns in advance when activities require the use of helicopters. Flight patterns should be located to avoid seasonally important grizzly bear habitat constituent elements and habitat components during the designated seasonal-use periods. 4. No seismic or exploratory drilling activities should be conducted within a minimum of one mile of den sites during the October 15 - April 15 period (Reynolds et al. 1983). 5. Seismic permits should include a clause providing for cancellation or temporary cessation of activities, if necessary, to prevent grizzly/human conflicts. 237 6. Scheduling of well drilling on adjacent sites, within important grizzly bear use areas, should be staggered to provide a disturbance free area for displaced bears. 7. Pipeline construction required for the development of a gas or oil field should be condensed into the shortest time frame possible and subject to seasonal restrictions when conducted in important grizzly bear habitat. 8. Field operation centers associated with seismic or oil and gas exploration activities should be placed carefully to avoid seasonally important habitat components or constituent elements. Such placement of sites is necessary in order to avoid direct or potential conflicts between man and grizzly bear. 9. Retain frequent dense cover areas adjacent to roads for travel corridors and security cover necessary to protect important habitat components. Three sight distances are desirable to provide visual security for grizzlies. A sight distance is the average distance at which a grizzly or other large animal is essentially hidden from the view of an observer by vegetation cover. The same security cover guidelines also apply to timber harvest units. 10. No off-duty work camps will be allowed within occupied seasonally important constituent elements. 11. Incinerate garbage daily or store in bear-proof containers and remove to local landfill dumps daily. 12. Commercial activities permitted on public land should be planned and coordinated to avoid conflicts with grizzly bear trapping operations being conducted under the monitoring program. General public use of areas where trapping operations are active will be controlled through appropriate administrative actions by the agencies involved. The following are grizzly bear management guidelines specifically oriented toward livestock grazing: 1. Livestock grazing on important spring habitat for grizzly bears should be deferred until after July 1. 2. Boneyards and livestock dumps are prevalent along the east front and are frequented by grizzly bears. Ranchers and landowners should be encouraged to place carcasses of dead livestock and garbage on remote areas of their land. Dead cows and calves should be hauled a considerable distance from calving grounds to discourage bears from feeding on carrion and newborn calves. 3. Sheep grazing allotments in management situation No. 1, as defined in the Yellowstone Guidelines, on lands administered by government agencies should be eliminated. 238 4. In riparian habitats that receive high amounts of bear use, fencing to exclude livestock grazing and trampling may be necessary where livestock turn-out dates prior to July 1 are allowed. 239 IN KEPLY KCFTH TO FA/SE/Gnzzly Bear. IGBC APPENDIX K United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MAILING ADDRCSS Pott Otfu, An 2H*6 ' Ftd*roi C*nttr Dtnvtr Otloratlll H022S STRICT LOCATION IK Ush and>rffdlife a-nd Parks \ Date 4] ^Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary - Land E. Carruthers Kenneth L. Smith U.S. Department of the Interior Assi>ttrnt Secretary for Indian Affairs ^^gA^^-<^ohn V. Evans Ted Schwinden Stffte of Wyoming Date / / £ /£* 'Date 2-6-84 Date 1 Date 3/ Date 245 APPENDIX L BEAR MANAGEMENT UNIT BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONS I) Whitefish - This unit is bounded on the west by U.S. Highway 93 from the U.S. -Canadian border south to Kalispell. From Kalispell, the southern boundary follows U.S. Highway 2 to West Glacier. The eastern boundary is the North Fork of the Flathead River north to the international border, which is the northern boundary. II) S_QU_th Fo.ik - The northern boundary follows U.S Highway 2 from Kalispell to the Continental Divide. The eastern boundary follows the Divide south to the South Fork of Sun River. The southern boundary follows the South Fork of the Sun River west to West Fork then north along West Fork to Indian Creek then west along Indian Creek to White River Pass then from White River Pass south down the westernmost portion of the headwaters of Molly creek west to the South Fork of the White River then west along the South Fork to the White River then west along White River to the South Fork of the Flathead River then north along the South Fork to Big Salmon Creek then west along the south shore of Big Salmon Lake and Big Salmon Creek to Tango Creek west along Tango Creek to the Lake County-Flathead County Line then north along this line to the headwaters of Cooney Creek then west along Cooney Creek to Montana Highway 83. The western boundary follows Montana Highway 83 north from the crossing of Cooney Creek to the intersection with Montana Highway 82 then west along Highway 82 to U.S. Highway 93 then north along Highway 93 to Kalispell. III) East Front - The northern boundary follows the U.S- Canadian border from the northeasternmost corner of Glacier National Park to the midpoint of Township 37 North, Range 14 West. The eastern boundary follows along a line from a point on the international border at the middle of Township 37 North, Range 14 West to Babb then approximately along a line from Babb to East Glacier then approximately along a line from East Glacier to Dupuyer then approximately along a line from Dupuyer to the westernmost point on the shore of Bynum Reservoir then approximately along a line from this point to the easternmost point on the shore of Eureka Reservoir then approximately along a line from this point to the northernmost point on the shore of Pishkun Reservoir. The southern boundary follows from this point west along the northern shore of the reservoir then west along Pishkun Canal to the Sun River then west along Sun River and the north shore of Gibson Reservoir to the North Fork of the Sun River. The western boundary follows the North Fork of the Sun River north from this point to the Continental Divide then along the Divide to U.S. Highway 2 then along Highway 2 to the southeasternmost corner of Glacier National Park then 246 along the eastern boundary of the park to the U.S. -Canadian border . IV) Scapegoat - The northern boundary is the southern boundary of the South Fork Bear Management Unit (BMU) and East Front BMU to approximately the confluence of Arnold Coulee and Pishkun Canal. The eastern boundary follows approximately along a line from this point to Augusta then south approximately along a line from Augusta to the town of Wolf Creek. The southern boundary follows west approximately along a line from Wolf Creek to a point on Montana Highway 200 at the confluence of Willow Creek and the Blackfoot Piver then west along Highway 200 to the junction with Montana Highway 83. The western boundary follows Highway 83 north from this junction to the southern boundary of the South Fork BMU. V) Missions - The eastern boundary follows Montana Highway 83 east and south from the junction with Montana Highway 82 to the junction with Montana Highway 200. The southern boundary follows Highway 200 west from this junction to the junction with Interstate 90 then west along Interstate 90 from this junction to the junction with Montana Highway 93. The western boundary follows from this point north approximately along Highway 93 to its junction with Montana Highway 35 then approximately along Highway 35 to its junction with Highway 82 and 83. 247 APPENDIX M MODELING SUSTAINABLE HARVEST RATES FOR GRIZZLY BEARS Richard B. Harris Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit University of Montana Part 1. Data Requirements The ideal model for determining allowable harvest rates for a grizzly bear population would incorporate the following information: 1. Natality rates (preferably age-specific). In bears, natality rates are actually made up of 3 components: a. Litter size b. Breeding interval c. Age at first reproduction 2. Age-specific survival in the absence of hunting 3. Relative vulnerability to hunting by age and sex class 4. Initial age-structure, and 5. Response of rates #1, #2, and #3 to lowered density caused by hunting ("density response" or "compensatory response" ) . Of these, only #1 is available for more than a very few grizzly bear populations. Age-specific survival rates are available only for the unhunted Yellowstone area population. We can make reasonable guesses at #3, based on general knowledge of bear behavior and hunters, but we have no hard data. The initial age-structure is generally unknown, although an appropriate stable age distribution can be simulated if #1, #2, and #3 are known. We have very little information on #5. McCullough (1981) modeled compensatory responses in the Yellowstone population of 1959-1972. The work of Fowler et al. (1980) and Eberhardt and Siniff (1977) has provided guidance to modelers regarding the expected response of vital rates of populations of large mammals to changes in density. Further, the concept of sustainable yield is itself valid only in a probabilistic way. Given enough time or enough variability in vital rates, any harvest will eventually drive a model population to extinction. However, some harvest rates do so with a vanishingly small proba- bility, or require longer times to do so than are reasonable to consider. Additionally, Harris (1984) has shown that the concept of sustainable yield is not independent of the size 248 of the population in question. Smaller populations were shown to decline at slightly smaller proportional harvests than were larger populations. Part 2. Modeling sustainable yield of grizzly bear populations using a stochastic simulator. Sustainable yields of grizzly bear populations were simulated using a stochastic, age-structured simulation model which I term URSIM. Details of the model are available in Harris (1984). The following gives a summary of the procedures and results. A grizzly bear simulation model was built in 1984 for purposes of examining age-structures of harvested samples. The analysis of age-structures appeared in Harris (1984). Here, I used the identical model to examine sustainable yields, focusing on the stable portion of the sustained yield curve (Fig. 1). The vital rates used in this modeling effort were identical to those in Harris (1984), and are summarized in Table 1. These rates were intended as average birth and death rates of typical southern interior grizzly bear populations, and were written using data from Montana (Jonkel 19 82, Aune and Stivers 1983, Martinka 1974, Craighead et a .1 . 1974, Knight et al. 1983, Knight and Fberhardt 1985) and British Columbia (McClellan 1983, Mundy and Flook 1973). Relative vulnerabilities to hunting were guessed, based on discussion with grizzly bear biologists, and knowledge of home range size (e.g. Bunnell and Tait 1980) and legal status (e.g. protection of females with cubs). A review of model assumptions is appended. In Harris (1984), 4 slightly different mechanisms of population regulation were modeled. For this exercise, I used only 1; the "specific model" termed DM ADM in Harris (1984). In this "specific model", all 3 natality functions (age at first reproduction, litter size, and breeding interval) are considered density-independent, i.e., they are influenced by yearly changes in carrying capacity (assumed to represent favorable and unfavorable years), but are not influenced by the density of the population relative to its carrying capacity. Survival rates of all sex/age classes are density-dependent. Survivorship of males younger than 4 years and independent of their mother is a function of the number of males older than 4 years in the population. Survivorship of all other sex/age classes is a function of the total number of animals in the population. This model closely resembles the view of population regulation of bears suggested by Bunnell and Tait (1981). In building a separate survivorship function for sub-adult males, I intended to mimic the compensatory processes thought to occur when adult males are removed from a population (e.g. Kemp 1976, Young and Puff 1982). Populations simulated using this mode] were intermediate in their resilience to harvest compared to the other 3 used by Harris (1984). 249 Methods Ten independent unharvested age-structures were generated for starting the simulations. Fach was generated using the same parameters: carrying capacity was set at 475, the carrying capacity" of adult males was set at 76 (.16 of Kr a value found earlier to be the mean proportion adult males of simulated populations, Harris 1984), and environ- mental variability was modeled such that 95% of yearly carrying capacities varied from 3 80 to 594. In specifying K, it should not be concluded that I claim to know what the equilibrium number of animals in any given area is. The simulation mode] requires specification of K because density-dependence operates with respect to K. The value 475 was chosen to produce sustainable harvests at population sizes near those estimated by Dood et al. (1985). It was expected that the variability of yearly carrying capacities would reduce the actual number in the population from the 475 figure; preliminary simulations suggested that unharvested equiplibrium would occur at about 450. Thus, only populations from 445 to 455 were considered candidates for the initial age-structures. The 10 actually averaged 448 (s.d. = 3). Each of these 10 age structures was then harvested for 60 years at 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34 animals per year. Mean harvest rates were computed starting at year 20, when it was assumed age-distributions would have stabilized in response to harvest. Eesults None of the 50 simulations at harvests of 26 per year or higher produced sustainable yields because all populations declined chronically. Instantaneous rates of change (r) of the 10 simulations at each harvest were as follows: Instantaneous rate of change (r) Harvest per year Mean Standard Deviation 26 -0.0349 0.0125 28 -0.0402 0.0199 30 -0.0481 0.0161 32 -0.0666 0.0132 34 -0.0744 0.0158 None of the simulations at harvests of 20 or 22 per year declined chronically. Three of the simulations at a harvest of 24 per year produced population extinction; 3 others had significantly (p<.001) negative trajectories during years 20-60, and were judged to be on their way to extinction. The remainder of this paper deals with those simulations 250 using harvests of 20-24 per year only, because those harvested at 26 or greater never stabilized to allow computation of average harvest rates. Table 2 summarizes the results of simulations performed with 20-24 animals per year harvested. There are 2 ways to interpret these results: j) in terms of the harvest rate, irrespective of sex of the animal, and ii) as separate harvest rates for males and females. i) . Overall harvest rates*. Simulated harvests of 6.35% of the total population or less did not lead to population decline. At mean harvest rates of 6.6%, 6 of 10 populations declined chronically. Thus, the maximum sustainable yield (defined as the hunt that had 10% or less chance of producing chronic decline within 60 years) of these simulated populations was apparently between 6.35 and 6.6%. A lower probability of decline would have required harvests of less than 6.35%. Note that these harvests consisted of approximately 69% males; harvests with higher proportions of males would have had higher sustainable yields; those with lower proportions would have had lower sustainable yields. Note also that the standing population was approximately 60% females, due primarily to the predominately male harvest. ii) . Separate sex harvest rates*. Proportional harvest of males were much higher than of females. Mean female harvest rates at 20 animals per year were 2.94% at 22 animals per year they were 3.54%. The 4 non-declining populations harvested at 24 per year had female harvest rates of 3.6%; the 6 that declined had female harvest rates of from 3.P to 7.7%. Non-declining populations had male harvest rates averaging 8. P to 11.2% (20 to 24 per year harvested). It appears that simulated populations were much less sensitive to male harvest rates than to female harvest rates . LlEElicat ions It appears that up to approximately 6.5% of a grizzly bear population having similar properties as the modeled populations may be harvested without causing declines. Note however, that among this population's attributes are relative vulnerabilities to harvest highly skewed toward males. The average proportion of males in harvested samples was actually close to 70%. Viewed another way, the number of females harvested appeared to be critical. Harvests of 3.5% of the female segment did not lead to extinction; harvests of 3.6% did. It appears that a safe practice would be to keep harvests of females in populations similar to those modeled at 3% or below. The maximum overall sustainable man-caused mortality rate derived here is greater than the 3% suggested by Sidorowicz and Gilbert (1981) for the Yukon Territory, and 251 the maximum female sustainable man-caused mortality is greater than the 2% recommended by Tompa (19£4) for British Columbia. Both Sidorowicz and Gilbert (19F1) and Tompa (1984) used more conservative estimates of population-wide natality rates than the present effort. The maximum sustainable mortality rates presented here are slightly greater than the 4.5-5.9% suggested by Cowan (1972, p. 353) as appropriate for grizzlies in North America. Review of Assumptions The model considers only a single, isolated population. Because no ingress or egress is possible, dispersal is equivalent to death. The environment in which the population exists is abstracted into the single variable K. All biotic and abiotic factors that affect he potential size of the population (e.g. prey species, competing species, availability of denning sites, berries, carrion, etc.) are subsumed by K. Further, variation in K is considered independent of population size, that is, populations are incapable of reducing their carrying capacity (e.g. by overgrazing). The- carrying capacity varies each year independently of previous years, i.e. serial correlation and cycles are not modeled. As well, the variability in K is assured proportional to K (i.e. distributed log-normally), with relatively good and poor years equally likely. Finally, the 13% coefficient of variation for year K is assumed representative of ecosystems for southern interior grizzly populations. All hunting occurs in the fall, no spring hunt is modeled. The number killed, rather than the effort expended, is considered constant each year. The implicit assumption is that, at least over a broad range of bear densities, grizzly bear hunters exhibit no functional response. The hunt modeled is opportunistic rather than trophy-oriented. Relative vulnerabilities by age/se> class are determined by inherent behavioral properties of bears, as opposed to conscious selection by hunters (except for legal protection of family groups). Age/sex specific behaviors that result in different relative vulnerabilities are also assumed independent of both bear population density and hunting pressure. Life-history events that actually occur over a period of time are condensed into essentially instantaneous events, each occurring only once per year, and always in the same order. In nature, deaths probably occur at all times of the year; the model condenses natural mortality into the period betveen fall hunting and spring family breakup. This order creates a small amount of compensatory natural survival following a hunt, because mortality is lower when acting on a slightly smaller post-hunt population than an unhunted populat ion . 252 Responses of den s ity-dependent rates are assumed to follow the general pattern for large-mammals described by Fowler et al. (1980). Thus, populations below the level at which density effects are felt have intrinsic growth rates close to the maximum biologically possible. Specific birth, death, and vulnerability to hunting rates are based as closely as possible on empirical data. In some cases, the best available data are weak or non-existent. Pates with the weakest supporting data include survival rates (particu- larly for orphaned cubs and sub-adults), relative hunting vulnerabilities, and values for all rates when the popula- tion is gi eater than K. Finally, genetics is not treated. Inbreeding depression, as well as founder and bottleneck effects leading to loss of genetic diversity, while important con- siderations for conservation of the species, are assumed not to materially affect the age-structures of hunted samples. lOElicat ions for Management of Grizzlies in Montana The state of Montana has managed the harvest of grizzly bears under a quota system fot the past few years. This modeling effort can aid in developing quotas of sustainable yield when populat ion size can be estimated. Two types of quotas may be used: _ Population quotas (defined as the proportion of the ent ire population that can be removed annually be man without causing chronic decline) cannot be greater than about 6.5% of the total population if mean harvests are at least 70% male. If mean harvests are less than 70% male, quotas of 6.5% of the total population may lead to chronic decline. V'ith small sample sizes typical of Montana grizzly bear removals (15-25 yearly) it may take some years before sample sizes are large enough for harvest sex ratio statistics to be reliable. One approach to insure that sex ratio is sufficiently weighted toward males is to require that the lower bound of a specified (binomial) confidence interval around the sampled sex ratio be greater than 70%. _ Female quotas (defined as the proportion of the female segment of the population that can be removed annually by man without causing chronic decline) should not exceed 3% of the female segment. An additional unknown in generating female quotas is the proportion of the population estimate made up by females. Sex ratios obtained in the field from trapping are known to be biased, but the exact amount of bias is usually unknown. However, the simulations suggest that grizzly bear populations exposed to moderate harvest levels with males much more vulnerable than females stabilize at approximately 60% females (Table 2). Thus, it seems reasonable to calculate allowable female mortality assuming 60% females in the standing population. Maximum 253 Table 1. Vital rates used In URSIM, the stochastic model to simulate grizzly.* bear populations. Sources from which rates were approximated appear in text. Accuracy of the estimations of sustainable yields aepena on accuracy of these rates . Recruitment Functions Age at 1st reproduction: 5 6 Percent: 65$ 26% Mean age at 1st reproduction: 5.50 Litter size: 1 2 3 Percent: 19$ 55$ 26$ Mean litter size: 2.07 cubs breeding interval: 2 3 4 5 Percent: 14$ 63$ 20$ 2$ Mean breeding interval: 3.09 years Mean cub/reproductive female/year: .670 Average Natural Survival Rates * Age Mean Survival Fema 1 es Ma 1 es 0 - 91 .4$ 91 .4$ 1 91 .4$ 91 .4$ 2 86 .0$ 86.0$ 3 77 .4$ 77.4$ 4 90 .0$ 90.0$ 5 95 $ 95 $ to 12 95 $ 95 $ 13 90 % 90 $ to 20 90 $ 90 $ 21 75 % 75 $ to 24 75 % 75 % 7 8 9$ 1$ ( years ) Hunting Vulnerability Relative Vulnerability to Hunting Cub with mother 0.05 Older juvenile with mother 0.20 Lone female, age 0-4 2.00 Lone female, age 5-24 0.80 Female with young 0.20 Lone male, age 0-4 7.00 Lone male, age 5-24 1.00 These rates are based on maximum survivorships, which occur at population levels below carrying capacity. The rates for ages 0-4 are composite averages of rates applied to young with mothers and young on their own for whatever j-cc j0r, , 254 Table 2. Sustainable yields ano sex ratios from populations harvested at 20/ 22 and 24 animals/year. Populations harvested at 20 and 22/year were stable over the 60 years of simulations. Tabulatea values for simulations at harvests of 26 animals/year are for the 4 stable populations only because 6 simulated populations declined chronically, preventing calculations of sustainable yield. All entries in the table are means. Statistic Harvest/year (all animals) 20 22 24 (stable) Sample size 10 10 4 Overal I harvest rate 5.37$ 6.35$ 6.60$ Fema I e harvest rate 2.94$ 3.54$ 3.60$ Ma I e harvest rate 6.85$ 10.40$ 11.24$ Percent males in harvest 69.55$ 68.88$ 68.65$ Percent females in population 60.33$ 60.44$ 62.17$ 255 LU > cn ZD O Q _J LU >- Q LU < co ZD CO O LlI > IjJ \ d v: — i z 2: o I- < CL o Ql \ \ h Q LU rl rf CO 0) • c o tf> — c c: — (0 l/l o -O 0) -C +- I — (0 O — -o o >o 0) — 3 Q- O o o -t- — CD +- 01 • c c a o L. co . I— CD 0) u (0 O -Q — > O Q. 10 Q- <■» >~ i; -o c c n C — (ON O) or £ 01^ _c cn 01 — c c i_ — o 30- u c +- +- o u o O cD JZ 0 c 0 CL CD 0 U) c 0 N c +- +- 0 +- CD iD X iD lU a) JZ l_ 13 +- CD Q- 0) 0 C O 01 -H O CD Q_ 0 CD CD O) £ +- C 01 c CD u C • 0 CD CD r» O "O 4- CD a> co +- L. 01 0) >» £ O cn o. CD O L. +- u_ a . (a 0) 01 256 allowable man-caused losses of females under these assumptions would then be Population estimate X 0.60 X 0.03 If a sport hunting season is desired, this argues strongly for management efforts at producing harvests heavily weighted toward males. Hunting seasons in early spring or late fall may aid in keeping harvests predominately male. Fanagers should keep in mind that the model considers only a single, homogenous population while real populations may vary geographically in recruitment, mortality and harvest pressure. Thus for example, while a 3% or less population-wide removal rate of females should not cause a population-wide decline, some sub-populations may decline while others may expand. Further, it must be emphasized that the values presented here are approximations derived from a modeling effort. Total mortality quotas based on these values, may be above or below the maximum sustainable if harvest parameters misrepresent the response of a particular grizzly bear to total mortality, or if population estimates to which the total mortality rate are applied are inaccurate. The guidelines are intended for maximum sustainable harvest management, and may or may not be appropriate for other management goals. 257 REFERENCES Aune, K. and T. Stivers. 1983. Rocky mountain front grizzly boar monitoring ana Investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks Res. Report, Helena. Beaa i ngton, J.R., and R.M. May. 1 977 . Harvesting natural populations in a randomly fluctuating environment. Science. 463-465. Boyce, M.S. 1977. Population growth with stochastic fluctuations in the life table. Theor. Pop. Biol. 12:366-373 1979. Population projections with fluctuating fertility and survivorship schedules. Proc. Summer Comp-. Sim. Conf., 10: 385-388. Toronto. Bunnell,F.L. and D.E.N. Tait. Bears in models ano reality - implications to management. pp. 15-23 j_Q Marti nka, C.J. ana K.L. MacArthur, eas.. Bears - their biology ano management. Bear Biol. Assoc. Conf. Ser. No. 3, Kal ispel I, MT. Caughley, G. 1977." Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley Press. 234 pp. Craighead, J. J., J.R. Varney, and F.C. Craighead, Jr. 1974. A population analysis of the Yellowstone grizzly bears. Bull. 40, Mont. For. ana Cons. Exp. Sta., Univ. of Montana, Missoula, 20 pp. Dood, A.R. , R.D. Brannon, and R.D. Mace. 1965. Grizzly bear environmental impact statement, preliminary draft. Mont. Dept. of Fish, Wilalife and parks., Helena, MT. Eberhardt,L.L. ano D.B. Siniff. 1977. Population Dynamics ana marine mammal management policies. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada. 34: 163-190. Fowler, C.W., W.T. Bunderseon, M.B. Cherry, R.J. Rye I , ana B.B. Steele. 1980. Comparative population aynamics of large mammals: a search for management criteria. Report no., MMC-77-20 to the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. NTIS PB60-176627, Springfiela, VA. Harris, R.B. 1964. Harvest age-structure as an indicator of grizzly bear population status. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula, 204 pp. Jonkel, C. 1982. 5-Year Summary Report. Boraer Grizzly Project, School of Forestry, Univ. of Nontana, Missoula. Kemp, G. A. 1976. The dynamics ana regulation of black bear, Ursus arctos populations in northern Alberta. pp. 191-197 j_n PelTon, M.R., J. to. Lentfer, ana G.E. Folk, eas.. Bears - their biology ana management. IUCN pub I. New. Ser. No. 40, Morges, Switzerland. Knight, R. R., B. M. Blancharo, G. Brown, K. C. Greer, L. E. Olaenburg and L. J. Roop. 1963. Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Investigations - Report of 258 the Interagency Study Team. U. S. Dep. Int. Nat. Park Serv. 52 pp. Knight, R. R. ano L. L. Eberhardt. 1985. Population dynamics of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Ecology 66: 323-334 Martinka, C. J. 1974. Population characteristics of grizzly bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. J. Mammal. 55: 21-29 McClellan, B. 1983. Akam i na-K i sh i nena grizzly bear study - annual report. British Columbia Fish and Wild I. Branch, Cranbropk, B. C. McCul lough, D. 1981. Population dynamics of the Yellowstone grizzly bear. pp. 173-196 j_Q Fowler, C.J. and T.W. Smith, eds.. Dynamics of large mammal populations. Wiley Press 417 pp. Munoy, K. P. D. and D. R. Flook. 1973. Backgrouna for managing grizzly bears in the national parks of Canada. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Series No. 22. 35 pp. Siaorowicz, G.A. anG F.F. Gilbert. 1981. The management of grizzly bears in the Yukon, Canada. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 9(2): 125-135. Tait, D.E.N. 1979." Abandonment as a reproouctive tactic - the example of grizzly bears. Amer. Nat. 1 1 5( 6) : 800-808 . Young, B.F. ana R.L. Ruff. 1982. Population dynamics anc movements of black bears in east central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(4): 845-860 259 APPENDIX N Gli2-Z.ly_ Pea r Mortality. Report Form Pear Identification: Ear Tag Nos . Tatoo Radiocollar frequency Sex Age Date of Mortality Location (be specific, include legal description or UTM's) Description of Cause Carcass disposition Comments (bear history, etc.) Copies of this form should be sent to: Arnold Dood, Endangered Species Biologist, Montana Dept of Fish, Wildl. & Parks, Box 5, Montana State University, Fozeman, MT 59717. 260 APPENDIX 0 Nuisance/Relocation Grizzly Pear Peport Form (Use to report all nuisance complaints and all relocations). Pear Identification: Ear tag nos. Tatoo Radio collar frequency Sex Age Nuisance/Capture Site (be specific, include legal description or UTM ' s ) ' Release Site (be specific, include legal description or UTM's Release Date Nuisance/Capture Date Transplant Distance Recorder Nature of Nuisance Comments (bear history, etc.) Copies of this form should be sent to: Arnold Dood, Endangered Species Piologist, Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildl. & Parks, Pox 5, Montana State University, Pozeman, MT 59717. 261 ATTACHMKNTS 262 Attachment 1 TRACKS Hind lool tracks ol bears •.eidom show claw marks, and tront tracks ol black bears seldom show claw marks, but when they are evident, length ot Iron! lool claw marks Irom toe pads can help distinguish grizzly Irom black bears Claws ol adult grizzlies are rarely less than 1 V* ' long Claws ol black bears seldom exceed l Vi ' Gtllllv Iron! lool Black back loot Black COLOR Color ol both black and grizzly bears may range Irom light brown (blonde) to very dark black. Color is not an Indicator ol the species Many gnzzlies have light-lipped hairs which gives them a distlc live sheen, and the nickname "silvertlp" PELT QUALITY In spnng when bears emerge Irom hibernation their pelts are pnme lor tanning As they begin to shed they rub away patches ot old hair and the pelts are no longer lit lor trophies until shed ding has been completed, about mid August HUNTER WHAT KIND OF BEAR IS THIS? SA- 1 Montana Department ol Fl»h Wildlife and Parks II is not always easy to distinguish between the tilacK and grizzly bears Color and size are not de- pendable criteria, so other features must bo looked lor I' you are hunting black beats in an area that may be inhabited by grizzlies, take your time and be sure what you're shooting at. Better to pass a shot at a black bear than kill a grizzly. '0 000 copies ul ih<*. public docunvenl iniDllahod 11 an atttmatao coil of $!M3 pei copy lot a total coal ol 1400 00 *t'trrt .nrluooi 1000 00 to' prilling and 1 too 00 'o- tliMMOotlon AIDS TO IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES Look (or a combination ol characteristics to make Identification BLACK BEAR 1. No prominent shoulder hump. Highest point of body is the back. 2. In profile muzzle is straight and long. Frontally, head and face appear round 3. Claws dark, much shor- ter and more curved than grizzly claws GRIZZLY BEAR 1. Highest point of back Is a muscular hump over the front shoulders. 2. In profile distinct brow gives "dished" look to face The brow is not as well de- fined in yearlings. 3. Front claws are long, very prominent, and often light colored. Can some- times be observed from great distances. ATTACHMENT 2 ?? ■D O 4? 5 S g £ = a * 3 ~ Is n o 5 8 § as i/i mi O J a s? f 1 ; « « » 5 O i' o =- s 8 a E * 3 e * 6$« 3 -D | I Oj QJ r o £ 3S C Q TO O 8 8 I s a 6 11 5 «, Attachment 3 Attachment 4 OCTOBER RADIO PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT 30 Seconds ME- 3 BLACK AND GRIZZLY BEAR IDENTIFICATION ONE OF YOUR BASIC RESPONSIBILITIES AS A HUNTER IS BEING SURE OF YOUR TARGET. BECAUSE GRIZZLIES AND BLACK BEARS ARE SOMETIMES HARD TO TELL APART, HUNTERS ARE ASKED TO BE ESPECIALLY CAREFUL IF HUNTING BEARS THIS FALL. LOOK FOR A COMBINATION OF FEATURES. MOST GRIZZLIES HAVE A PRONOUNCED SHOULDER HUMP, A DISHED FACE AND LONG, PROMINENT CLAWS. COLOR AND SIZE ALONE CAN BE MISLEADING. TAKE THE TIME TO IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET, AND IF IN DOUBT, THEN SIMPLY LET THE ANIMAL MOVE ON. THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU AS A SERVICE OF THIS STATION AND THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS . Attachment h Continued MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS. RADIO PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT 30 SECONDS MAY 1984 SPRING BLACK BEAR SEASON OPENS THE SPRING BLACK BEAR HUNTING SEASON OPENED IN MID-APRIL. AND HUNTERS, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BEING ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GRIZZLY AND BLACK BEAR. REMEMBER, THE GRIZZLY IS PROTECTED IN THE SPRING AND HUNTED ONLY IN THE NORTHWESTERN MONTANA AREA IN THE FALL. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRIZZLIES AND BLACK BEARS, CONTACT ANY FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS OFFICE. THIS MESSAGE IS PRESENTED TO YOU IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY THIS STATION AND THE MONTATA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS. At I .-ichmcnt h Cont Iniuul MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS RADIO PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT 60 SECONDS MAY 19 84 SPRING BLACK BEAR SEASON OPENS THE SPRING BLACK BEAR SEASON IS OPEN NOW IN MONTANA. HUNTERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING THEIR QUARRY AND BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY GRIZZLIES AND BLACK BEARS. REMEMBER, THE GRIZZLY IS PROTECTED IN SPRING AND HUNTED IN NORTH- WESTERN MONTANA ONLY IN THE FALL. GRIZZLIES AND BLACK BEARS ARE SOMETIMES HARD TO TELL APART. LOOK FOR A COMBINATION OF FEATURES. COLOR AND SIZE ALONE CAN BE MISLEADING. MOST GRIZZLIES HAVE: o A PRONOUNCED SHOULDER HUMP, o FROSTED FUR WHICH GIVES A " SILVERTIPPED" GRIZZLY EFFECT, o A DISHED FACE AND o LONG, PROMINENT FRONT CLAWS. TAKE YOUR TIME TO IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET... AND IF IN DOUBT, THEN SIMPLY LET THE ANIMAL MOVE ON. IT'S THE SMARTEST THING YOU CAN DO. YOU SEE IF GRIZZLIES ARE MISTAKEN AND KILLED FOR BLACK BEARS, THE FUTURE OF BOTH GRIZZLY AND BLACK BEAR HUNTING WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRIZZLY AND BLACK BEARS, CONTACT ANY FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS OFFICE. THIS MESSAGE IS PRESENTED TO YOU IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY THIS STATION AND THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND "PARKS. Ai l achment 5 «■ the GRIZZLIES' future depends on us! Bears need your CONCERN not your food! AVOID CONFRONTATIONS: "I.Storefood and garbage properly 2.Avoid surprise encounters 3.Stayout of areasof heavy grizzly activity M i .'iclmuMit (> Attachment 7 REWARD Grizzlies ore protected by Federal Low They are threatened by illegal killing ond loss of hal>itot. NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY will pay up to INFORMATION leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone ILLEGALLY KILLING GRIZZLY BEAR or transporting gnzzly bear hides or parts Idaho— (208)334-3736 Montana — (406) 449-2612 Wyoming— (307) 777-7604 Washington — 1-800 562 5626 B LACK or GRIZZLY BEAR? BLACK BEAR 1. Highest point of back is 1 well back of shoulders. No prom- inent shoulder hump. 2. In profile muzzle is long and straight. 3. Front claws dark colored, relatively short and well-curved. GRIZZLY BEAR 1. Highest point of back is muscular hump over front shoulders. 2. In profile, brow gives "dished" look to face. Not as well defined in yearlings. 3. Front claws up to 4 "long or longer, slightly curved. Front claws light colored and can sometimes be observed from great distances. COLOR Color and size are not good identifying characteris- tics. Color of both species may range from light brown (blonde) to very dark black. Many grizzlies have light tipped hairs which give them a distinctive sheen. RUBBING During spring, rubbed spots make the hide poor quality. Look for rubbed spots and that the bear is not a grizzly. BE SURE BEFORE YOU SHOOT <^oqt€uia'Departn^eqt of cFist\^,eWUdlife (Si *Parf^ 800 copies of this public document were published at an estimated cost of $7.75 per copy, for a total cost of $6,200.00, which includes $5,200.00 for printing and $1,000.00 fordistribution.