Doodf Arnold Robert Five year update of the p roeranna tic environmentai impact statement ST^T? r^rcr-r'iTo collect;: ■o93 MONTANA STATE i 1515 E. 6th AV . HELENA, MONTANA 59S20 Fiv€ Venn updatc of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement TH€ GRIZZLV BCflR in Northuiestern Montana JUNE 19 9 3 PRIMARY AUTHORS Arnold R. Dood Helga ihsle Pac MONTANA STATE LIBRARY S 599.74446 F2pefy 1993 C.1 Oood Five year update of the programmatic env 3 0864 00085690 9 ■EB ') 5 1997 FIVE YEAR UPDATE of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement THE GRIZZLY BEAR IN NORTHWESTERN MONTANA 1986 - 1990 Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks June 1993 Primary Authors: Arnold R. Dood Helga Ihsle Pac ACKNQWLBDGnMFNTS This five-year update of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement was a combined effort of many individuals from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Glacier National Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Blackfeet and Flathead Indian Reservations, and the U.S. Forest Service. The following individuals were instrumental in supplying, critically evaluating, and clarifying data: Keith Aune, Gael Bissell, Dan Carney, Jim Claar, Kerry Constan, Jim Cross, Glenn Erickson, Wayne Kasworm, Kate Kendall, Mike Madel, Rick Mace, Tim Manley, Shawn Riley, Sue Root, Phil Schladweiler, Chris Servheen, Tim Thier, Walt Tomascak, Marilyn Wood, and Anne Vandehey. We would also like to thank those who edited the document: Keith Aune, Jim Cross, Ken Hamlin, Wayne Kasworm, Rick Mace, Tim Manley, Phil Schladweiler, and Tim Thier. Special praise is due for the excellent secretarial work of Margaret Morelli and Erin Hooten of MDFWP and graphic design and mapping skills of Martha Lonner and Marsha Leritz of Media Works. Thanks also to Bob McFarland and Kim Aim for their assistance. Finally, special thanks go to our families (Terry, Tiffany, and Jordan Dood, and Dave, Lincoln, and Hayley Pac) for their support and encouragement. i Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/fiveyearupdateof1993dood TABLE OF CONTENTS Section # Section Title Page # Acknowledgements i List of Tables iv List of Figures vi List of Appendices ix I. Introduction 1 IL Department Goals and Management Objectives 8 in. Description of Existing Environment 10 IV. Distribution and Habitat Selection 13 V. Grizzly Bear Populations 14 A. Densities 14 B. Females with Cubs of the Year 19 C. General Distribution 19 D. Reproduction 44 E. Age Structure 44 F. Mortality 45 G. Trend Monitoring 45 H. Augmentation or Reintroduction 46 VI. Management Program Review 47 A. Mortality Quota 47 B. Hunting Seasons 47 C. Closure Authority 49 D. Other Regulations 50 E. Hunter Surveys 50 F. Season Setting Process 50 VII. Grizzly Bear Mortality 52 A. NODE 52 1. Total Human-caused Mortality 52 2. Hunting Mortality 52 3. Human-caused Nonhunting Mortality 59 4. Unreported Illegal Mortality 60 B. CYE 65 I. Total Mortality 65 ii VIII. Damage Control 67 A. Nuisance Grizzly Bears 67 B. Aversive Conditioning 69 C. Translocation of Nuisance Grizzlies 71 D. Compensation/Reimbursement 71 E. Sanitation 71 IX. Human Interactions 73 A. Habitat Encroachment 73 B. Fire Suppression 73 C. Vegetation Manipulations 74 D. Disturbance from Human Activities 75 E. Public Perceptions 76 X. Research Program 78 XI. Enforcement 84 XII. Public Information and Education 85 XIII. Recreation Management 87 XIV. Land Management 88 XV. Interagency Coordination 90 XVI. Management Alternatives and Preferred Alternative 92 XVIII. Discussion of Extraordinary Case 100 XIX. Recommendations 104 XX. Literature Cited Ill XXI. Appendices 119 iii LIST OF TABLES Table tt Table Title Page # 3.1 Montana hunting and fishing license sales, 1950-1990 10 3.2 Recreational visitor use days by national forest in the NCDE, 1985-1990 11 3.3 Visitor use data for Glacier National Park, Montana, 1956- 1990 12 5.1 Methods involved in determination of grizzly bear densities by various studies 15 5.2 Minimum density estimates for grizzly bears in the NCDE in 1991 16 5.3 NCDE unduplicated female grizzly bears with cubs, 1987 . . 21 5.4 NCDE unduplicated female grizzly bears with cubs, 1988 . . 23 5.5 NCDE unduplicated female grizzly bears with cubs, 1989 . . 25 5.6 NCDE unduplicated female grizzly bears with cubs, 1990 . . 27 5.7 CYE unduplicated female grizzly bears with cubs, 1986-1990 27 5.8 An update on reproductive characteristics of the NCDE grizzly bear population 44 5.9 Available age structure data of the NCDE grizzly bear population 44 5.10 An update on mortality rate (%) by age class for the NCDE grizzly bear population 45 6. 1 Results of grizzly bear hunter questionnaires for the NCDE, Montana 1985-1990 51 7. 1 Summary of total known human-caused mortality of grizzly bears in the NCDE, 1986-1990 53 7.2 Number of known human-caused adult and subadult grizzly bear mortalities in the NCDE, 1986-1990 55 7.3 Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by land ownership of kill locations in the NCDE, 1986-1990 ... 57 7.4 Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by Bear Management Area in the NCDE, 1986-1990 58 iv 7.5 Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by cause of death in the NCDE, 1986-1990 62 7.6 Unreported grizzly bear mortality data data to calculate rate . 64 7.7 Summary of unreported mortality rate for grizzly bears in the NCDE by ten-year increments 64 7.8 Grizzly bear mortality in the Cabinet- Yaak area, 1950-1990 . 66 8.1 Summary of reported nuisance grizzly bear situations in the NCDE, 1986-1990 68 8.2 Percentage of nuisance grizzly bear incidents by category and type in the NCDE, 1986-1990 69 8.3 Known fate of nuisance grizzly bears in the NCDE, 1986- 1990 70 8.4 Glacier National Park bear sightings, incidents, and management actions, 1986-1990 70 9.1 Number and size of fires in the three wilderness areas in the NCDE, 1986-1990 74 14.1 Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks wildlife protection areas purchased or leased in the NCDE and CYE, 1986-1990 89 V LIST OF FIGURES Figure # Figure Title Page # 1 . 1 Grizzly bear management area for the NCDE 3 1.2 Grizzly bear management area for the CYE 4 5.1 Map showing ten units with grizzly bear density estimates in the NCDE for 1991 18 5.2 Bear management units in the NCDE (1991) 20 5.3 Lx)cation of female with cubs observations in grizzly bear management units within the NCDE, 1987 22 5.4 Location of females with cubs observations in grizzly bear management units within the NCDE, 1988 24 5.5 Location of female with cubs observations in grizzly bear management units within the NCDE, 1989 26 5.6 Location of female with cubs observations in grizzly bear management units within the NCDE, 1990 28 5.7 Bear management units in the CYE showing unduplicated female grizzly bears with cubs observations, 1986-1990 ... 29 5.8 Home range map from the Rocky Mountain East Front (Aune and Kasworm 1989) for individual adult and subadult female grizzly bears, 1977-1987 30 5.9 Home range map from the Rocky Mountain East Front (Aune and Kasworm 1989) for individual subadult male grizzly bears, 1980-1987 31 5.10 Home range map from the Rocky Mountain East Front (Aune and Kasworm 1989) for individual adult male grizzly bears, 1977-1987 32 5.11 Composite home range map from the South Fork of the Flathead River (Mace and Manley 1990) 33 5.12 Home range map from the Blackfoot Indian Reservation (Carney 1990) for seven individual grizzly bears 34 5.13 Home range map of eight grizzly bears in the CYE, 1986- 1990 (Kasworm and Thier 1990) 35 5.14 Composite minimum home range polygon of three grizzly bears in the CYE 1983-1987 (Kasworm and Manley 1988) . 36 vi 5.15 Grizzly bear sightings in the Scapegoat Bear Management Area reported by hunter surveys, 1987-1990 37 5.16 Grizzly bear sign in the Scapegoat Bear Management Area reported by hunter surveys, 1987-1990 38 5.17 Grizzly bear sightings in the Rocky Mountain East Front bear management area reported by hunter surveys, 1987- 1990 39 5.18 Grizzly bear sign in the Rocky Mountain East Front bear management area reported by hunter surveys, 1987-1990 . . 40 5.19 Grizzly bear sightings in the Flathead Bear Management Area reported by hunter surveys, 1987-1990 41 5.20 Grizzly bear sign in the Flathead Bear Management Area reported by hunter surveys, 1987-1990 42 5.21 Grizzly bear observations and mortality in the CYE, 1950- 1990 (circles indicate mortality) 43 7. 1 Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by cause of death in the NCDE, 1967-1990 54 7.2 Total known mortality by sex of grizzly bears in the NCDE, 1967-1990 54 7.3 Age distribution of female grizzly bears of total known human-caused mortalities in the NCDE, 1986-1990 55 7.4 Age distribution of male grizzly bears of total known human- caused mortality in the NCDE, 1986-1990 56 7.5 Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by land ownership of kill location in the NCDE, 1986-1990 . . 56 7.6 Number by sex of grizzly bears harvested by hunters in the NCDE, 1967-1990 57 7.7 Number by age class of grizzly bears harvested by hunters in the NCDE, 1967-1990 58 7.8 Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by bear management unit in the NCDE, 1967-1990 59 7.9 Locations of grizzly bear mortalities in the NCDE, 1986- 1990 61 vii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix # Appendix Title Page # Appendix A IGBC resolution supporting hunting of grizzlies 119 Appendix B Grizzly bear policy MCA 12.9.103 120 Appendix C NCDE management area boundary description 123 Appendix D CYE Management Area boundary description 124 Appendix E NCDE population density justifications 125 Appendix F Title 50 - Code of Federal Regulations 133 Appendix G State law 87-2-702 - restrictions on special licenses . . 136 Appendix H, Spring grizzly bear hunting season justification - MDFWPmemo 138 Appendix Hj Summation of 1991 spring season grizzly bear questionnaire 145 Appendix I Individual grizzly bear mortalities in the NCDE, 1986- 1990 152 Appendix J Individual records of grizzly bears monitored in the NCDE, 1975-1990 162 Appendix K Nuisance grizzly bear incidences in the NCDE and Glacier National Park, 1986-1990 171 Appendix L Glacier National Park summary accounts of bear activity, 1985-1990 187 Appendix M Rocky Mountain East Front Management Plan 190 Appendix N Memorandum of Understanding between MDFWP and ADC regarding animal damage control program .... 200 Appendix O Habitat protection for grizzly bears: the Rocky Bar O Ranch 203 Appendix P The Bear Tree Challenge 209 Appendix Q Law enforcement cases involving illegally taken grizzly bears in the NCDE, 1986-1990 213 Appendix R Information and education efforts on grizzly bears by the MDFWP, 1986-1990 214 viii Appendix S Grizzly bear program: habitat protection program . . . 217 Appendix T Burlington Northern management agreement 224 I. INTRODUCTION The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) management program of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) was implemented to promote the survival of viable populations of grizzly bears in Montana and to assist in recovery efforts in other areas. The MDFWP continually evaluates its program to ensure this goal. In addition to annual reviews, the MDFWP prepared the first environmental impact statement (EIS) on its program in 1975 (MDFWP 1975). To further develop the program and provide for complete public review, the MDFWP began preparation of a second, more detailed EIS on grizzly bear management in northwest Montana in 1984 (Dood et al. 1986). The 1986 EIS summarized all the information relevant to the State of Montana's grizzly bear management program in northwestern Montana including information on the grizzly bear and its habitat, the current grizzly management program, and the legal, biological, political, and philosophical arguments on which that management program was based. The history of the program and the state's goals and management objectives were detailed. Future management was addressed, and possible alternatives and their impacts were discussed. Specific objectives of the 1986 EIS were to: 1) give a comprehensive presentation of the subject, 2) review the many variables involved, 3) develop a framework for the review of alternatives, and 4) weigh the merits and impacts of various alternatives and through public discussion select a program for improved future grizzly bear management. This document was prepared in response to a recommendation in the 1986 EIS to update and evaluate new information and the effectiveness of our program at five year intervals. A wildlife program EIS, to be completed in 1995, will serve as further review of the grizzly bear management program and may be sufficient to serve as the complete review scheduled to begin in 1996. If not sufficient, a revised EIS on the grizzly bear management program described here will be prepared. A. A BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE PROGRAMMATIC EIS The 1986 grizzly bear EIS was prepared under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). MEPA 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, and 1 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), now the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission (MFWPC), adopted rules for implementing MEPA. These rules provide for the preparation and distribution of programmatic reviews whenever necessary to evaluate a series of actions, programs, or policies that affect the quality of the human environment. Currently, grizzly bear management in Montana is being addressed within the framework of MEPA and its regulations. The 1986 EIS and this update deal with grizzly bear management in that portion of Montana known as the "Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem" (NCDE) (Fig. 1.1) and the "Cabinet- Yaak Ecosystem" (CYE) (Fig. 1.2). Hunting in general and grizzly bear hunting in particular were addressed in 1975 under the provisions of MEPA. The MDFWP is currently beginning a complete programmatic review of all of its wildlife management programs to ensure they are responsive to public needs while conserving the state's valuable wildlife resources. That review is scheduled to be completed by mid- 1995, and may serve as the ten-year review proposed in Dood et al. 1986. In addition to periodic environmental evaluations, the MFWPC holds public meetings as part of the biennial regulatory and season-setting processes. The MFWPC season-setting procedure is a public process, accessible and open to new data, information, and opinion. Tentative big game seasons and quotas are set in December (odd numbered years), and copies of those tentative recommendations are mailed to sportsmen and other interested parties. Regional open houses and public meetings are held throughout Montana during January (even numbered years). A special public meeting is held in February (even numbered years) at which public comment and suggestions are solicited by the MFWPC. All season-setting decisions for the coming hunting season are completed by the end of August. This procedure is repeated biennially. 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 the original programmatic EIS and this five-year update were prepared and circulated for comment. B. ECOSYSTEMS EVALUATED IN THIS EIS 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 MDFWP program, by itself, to significantly guide the management of grizzly bears. Although Montana's management program influences grizzly management in other areas (like Yellowstone National Park), management in those areas requires a joint effort with adjacent states. 2 CANADA MISSOULA Figure 1.1. Grizzly bear management area for the NCDE. 3 CANADA Figure 1.2. Grizzly bear management area for the CYE. 4 This document, therefore, describes only MDFWP's program as it pertains to areas in and adjacent to the NCDE and CYE in Montana. Management directions for the Selway-Bitterroot and Yellowstone grizzly bear ecosystems are not included. C. HISTORICAL REVIEW UPDATE Since the historical review presented in the EIS (Dood et al. 1986), the following events have occurred: 1985 - Law restricting the sale of grizzly parts passed the state legislature - United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued Federal Register emergency rule to allow grizzly bear hunting along Rocky Mountain East Front and to adjust quotas 1986 - Final programmatic EIS on the Grizzly Bear in Northwest Montana adopted by MFGC - Recommendations: - established population goals for NCDE and CYE - reduced total human-caused grizzly bear mortality quota (25 to 21) and further reduced the quota to 14 to account for estimated unreported mortalities - reduced female grizzly bear mortality quota (9 to 6 ) - established three bear management units and female grizzly bear subquota in each - established management direction dependent upon population status - MDFWT began nuisance grizzly bear control program along Rocky Mountain Front (RMF) - USFWS adopted final Federal Rule implementing new quotas and grizzly bear hunting areas in NCDE - MDFWP requested USFWS review of legality of delisting separate populations. USFWS indicated separate populations can be delisted individually - Cabinet Grizzly Bear Augmentation working group formed to draft an Environmental Assessment (EA) 1987 - Montana State Legislature passed a law to allow only one grizzly bear to be killed per hunter per lifetime - MDFWP internal memo on delisting NCDE population circulated - MDFWP initiated a Recovery Status Review for the NCDE (released in draft for public comment in June 1987) - USFWS began five-year revision of Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan [MDFWP recommended use of Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) and subcommittee to finalize revision] - Cabinet grizzly augmentation EA drafted - South Fork of Flathead grizzly bear research project initiated - Grizzly bear compendium published 5 1988 - USFWS/MDFWP discussed delisting process, schedule, and required information - NCDE subcommittee of the IGBC adopted use of female with cub and young as monitoring criteria for recovery but delayed action on target number - NCDE subcommittee of the IGBC met to discuss target number of females with cubs/young and delayed action. Request IGBC resolution (Fall IGBC meeting) - IGBC adopted position statement on delisting grizzly bears in the NCDE and scheduled special meeting in February to discuss female with cub/young issue - Final report of Cabinet grizzly bear study released - Public resistance to Cabinet grizzly augmentation EA resulted in formation of Citizens' Involvement Group - Damage hunt conducted on East Front resulted in a licensed hunter rather than an agency harvesting a problem bear 1989 - IGBC reached consensus at February meeting to: 1) Develop Conservation Strategy document containing management plan for population and habitat using reference to existing documents and programs where possible. 2) Continue to monitor female with cub and young on an annual basis as part of the monitoring program 3) Revise recovery plan to contain the 1982 recovery criteria and female with cub and young as additional information - Citizens involvement group for Cabinet grizzly augmentation supported proceeding with transplant of two subadult females in 1989 and agreed that state involvement is important. - Final report of Rocky Mountain East Front Studies completed - A 5-year research program began in the Yaak portion of the CYE (cooperative study among USFWS, United States Forest Service (USES), and MDFWP 1990 - One subadult female grizzly was moved to the Cabinets as part of the augmentation program - Draft grizzly bear recovery plan revision circulated for public review by USFWS 1991 - EIS update initiated by MDFWP - MDFWP implemented a limited entry spring grizzly bear hunt on the Rocky Mountain Front - IGBC passed a resolution supporting hunting of grizzlies (Appendix A) - Suit filed in state court to halt spring 1991 grizzly bear season along RMF in the NCDE - State court ruled in favor of state on spring season and season continued - An injunction was filed in Federal Court against all hunting of grizzly bear. Federal court ruling granted a preliminary injunction against grizzly hunting, and the fall season was canceled by MFWPC action 6 - Grizzly bear season is not among recommendations for 1992 and 1993 biennial hunting season regulations presented to MFWPC for tentative adoption due to the preliminary injunction against Federal rule which allowed the USFWS to authorize the state to conduct a hunting season in the NCDE. 1992 - MFWPC adopted final 1992 and 1993 biennial hunting seasons with grizzly bear season omitted - USFWS published amended federal rule which removed the authority for the state to establish a grizzly bear hunting season in the NCDE 1 7 I II. DEPARTMENT GOALS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES The policy and grizzly bear management objectives in Dood et al. (1986) remain unchanged through this update. The goals and objectives will be re-evaluated in the ten- year review. They are repeated here for general reference. A. MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS COMMISSION POLICY The MFWPC 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". 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 bears as a rare species of Montana wildlife." Section 87-5-302 describes the MFWPC's power regarding grizzly bears. Within this legal framework, the MFWPC developed a grizzly bear policy in Section 12.9. 103, ARM (Appendix B). That policy addresses the need to protect grizzly bear habitat, the need to pursue grizzly bear research, the role of regulated hunting in grizzly bear management, depredations, and the appropriate 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 MDFWP goals for the grizzly bear were developed. B. SPECIFIC MDFWP GOALS FOR THE GRIZZLY BEAR 1. MDFWP 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 requirements of the resources b. Recognizing present and future human needs and desires 8 c. Ensuring maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment 2. Wildlife Program Goal 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, to maintain distribution in the management area as defined in Fig. 1.1 and described in Appendix C, 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/ 15 mi^ to 1 bear/30 mi^ NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE ECOSYSTEM (NCDE) ( EXCLUDING GLACIER NATIONAL PARK) DEPARTMENT GOAL NUMBER OF BEARS ° fj^ BEARS/MI 2 0 ^/3o ^/^5 Cabinet- Yaak Ecosystem (CYE): To manage for a recovered grizzly bear population and to maintain distribution in the management area as defined in Fig. 1.2 and described in Appendix D, and seek to maintain the habitat in a condition suitable to sustain the population at an average density of 1 bear/40 mi^ to 1 bear/30 mi^ CABINET YAAK ECOSYSTEM (CYE) DEPARTMENT GOAL NUMBER OF BEARS 0 90 125 200 H h BEARS/MI 2 Q 1/40 1/30 1/18 9 III. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT A. THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The natural environment of the NCDE, including geological history, climate, vegetation, and wildlife, was discussed in detail by Dood et al. (1986). A grizzly bear habitat symposium held in 1985 presented updated information on habitat-mapping evaluation, utilization, improvement, and cumulative effects analysis (Contreras and Evans 1985). Additional updated information on habitat management was supplied in the Grizzly Bear Compendium (IGBC 1987). Research conducted in specific areas also provides updated environmental information including the East Front (Aune and Kasworm 1989), the Blackfeet Indian Reservation (Carney 1988, 1990), the South Fork of the Flathead (Mace and Manley 1990, Mace et al. 1990), the North Fork of the Flathead (McLellan and Shackleton 1988a), and the Cabinet- Yaak (Kasworm and Manley 1988, Kasworm and Thier 1990). B. THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT Dood et al (1986) discussed the human environment including population level and distribution, and economic considerations. Hunting and fishing license sales in Montana (Table 3.1) provides an indication of the trend in hunter interest in Montana over the last four decades. Recent patterns of recreational activities on national forests in the NCDE (Table 3.2) indicate fluctuations in wilderness, dispersed, developed use, and total use. Numbers of visitors and backcountry use in Glacier National Park (Table 3.3) have exhibited an increase in trend during the last five years. Table 3.1. Montana hunting and fishing license sales, 1950-1990. Year Number of Sales 1950 285,150 1960 375,196 1970 967,947 1980 1,120,144 1983 1.250,518 1986 1,179,615 1987 1,232,612 1988 1,161,886 1989 1,225,853 1990 1,273,755 10 Table 3.2. Recreational visitor use days by national forest in the NCDE, 1985-1990. 1985 1986 National Forest Developed Dispersed Wilderness Total Developed Dispersed Wilderness Total Flathead 262,000 357,900 133,400 753,300 193,500 356,200 133,500 683,200 Helena 70,700 196,100 16,000 282,800 33,600 117,600 11,300 162,500 Kootenai 514,300 1,400,600 30,100 1,945,000 336,100 816,700 8,400 1,161,200 Lewis & Clark 145,700 405,400 62,900 614,000 336,400 520,900 66,700 924,000 Lolo 258,100 1,129,900 11,300 1,399,300 265,600 1,129,200 1 1 ,300 1,406,100 TOTAL' 1,250,800 3,489,900 253,700 4,758,400 1,165,200 2,940,600 231,200 4,337,000 19 87 19 88 National Forest Developed' Dispersed^ Wilderness Total Developed' Dispersed^ Wilderness Total Flathead 294,900 267,900 133,600 696,400 210,300 317,300 119,900 647,500 Helena 106,000 140,700 13,500 260,200 106,000 146,600 7,600 260,200 Kootenai 379,100 762,100 7,700 1,148,900 379,100 735,300 34,500 1,148,900 Lewis & Clark 260,700 363,800 53,800 678,300 260,700 375,600 42,000 678,300 Lolo 370,800 924,800 12,200 1,307,800 370,800 846,300 90,700 1,307,800 TOTAL' 1,411,500 2,459,300 220,800 4,091,600 1,326,900 2,421,100 294,700 4,042,700 19 39 19 90 National Forest Developed" Dispersed^ Wilderness Total Developed^ Dispersed^ Wilderness Total Flathead 322,400 282,100 124,800 729,300 371,100 298,100 125,800 795,000 Helena 126,000 126,400 6,200 258,600 133,000 198,100 4,700 335,800 Kootenai 339,600 833,800 17,000 1,190,400 280,300 785,900 29,700 1,095,900 Lewis & Clark 329,200 405,600 60,300 795,100 371,800 369,800 63,800 805,400 Lolo 477,800 851,300 4,700 1,333,800 496,700 886,100 4,500 1,387,300 TOTAL 1,595,000 2,499,200 213,000 4,307,200 1,652,900 2,538,000 228,500 4,419,400 'Total: Total recreation visitors days reported for a Forest in given year. ^Categories lumped into nine major groups as opposed to 50+ activities reported on in previous years and are not directly comparable as Developed and Dispersed. 11 Table 3.3. Visitor use data for Glacier National Park, Montana, 1956-1990. Year Number of Visitors Backcountry Camp Days 1956 718,938 N/A 1957 759,161 N/A 1958 706,841 N/A 1959 722,338 N/A 1960 A COO 724, 538 N/A 1961 T^(\ noT N/A 1962 966, 100 XT / A N/A 1963 oil 11/1 ol 1,214 XT / A N/A 1Q64. 642 000 N/A 1965 847,104 N/A 1966 907,839 N/A 1967 884,049 6,665 1968 964,493 5,131 1969 1,051,165 6,872 1 mn 1970 1 ,241 ,603 cno 0,592 1 AT 1 1971 1,303,073 24,765 1972 1 1 /I c 1,392,145 26,574 19/3 1 ono nco 1 ,39o,9Do T? COO 2 /,53o 1974 1 406 643 28 257 1975 1,571,393 24,785 1976 1,662,678 28,978 1977 1,656,212 30,109 1978 1,601,131 24,395 1979 1,446,236 25,323 1 c\or\ 1980 1 Anz coo 1,475,538 22,640 1 no 1 19ol 1 nOii 0/11 1, /o6,o43 1 1 1 A A 1 /, /44 1 ooo 1 A1\ 1 ,666,431 1 1 oo 16, l^o 19o3 o or\/i 111 i,Z04, 1 Jl 1 C CAT 15,50/ 1984 1 946 783 15 032 1985 1,580,620 13,510 19o6 1 c^^^ loi 1 ,5 /9, 191 1 A HQ A 14, /o4 1987 1,660,737 17,314 1988 1,817,733 16,909 1989 1,821,523 16,969 1990 1,987,000 19,456 12 IV. DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT SELECTION A. DISTRIBUTION Grizzly bear range in northwestern Montana is continuous with Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Alaska (Herrero, 1985). Evidence presented by Picton (1983) also indicated a sporadically occupied corridor of habitat between the NCDE and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The present distribution of grizzly bears in northwestern Montana is depicted in Figs. I.l and 1.2. There is no evidence indicating decrease in distribution since 1985 in the NCDE; evidence from a variety of sources actually indicates distribution is expanding. Among these are recent sightings of grizzlies outside of recovery lines (Aune and Kasworm 1989; Joslin, personal communication 1991; Mace, pers. comm., 1991). In addition, information gathered on the distribution of females with young as part of the requirements in the USFWS revised draft recovery plan (USDI 1990) indicate they are well distributed in the NCDE. B. HABITAT SELECTION Habitat selection was discussed by Dood et al. (1986). Recent studies involving habitat research in the NCDE include the East Front (Aune and Kasworm 1989), South Fork of the Flathead (Mace and Manley 1990, Mace et al. 1990, Mace and Manley 1990a, b), the Cabinet- Yaak (Kasworm and Manley 1988, Kasworm and Thier 1990), and the North Fork of the Flathead (McLellan and Shackleton 1988a). These studies have resulted in a more detailed understanding of how grizzlies select habitats in northwest Montana. 13 V. GRIZZLY BEAR POPULATIONS A. DENSITIES Density estimates have been and continue to be the most widely accepted method for estimating grizzly bear populations. An extensive literature review on grizzly bear density estimation was presented by Dood et al. (1986). Methods involved in determination of grizzly bear densities are varied and individualized according to area and researcher (Table 5.1). Grizzly bear management programs in the NCDE and CYE are based on density estimates (Table 5.2). These estimates continue to be developed and validated using the best available information. This document provides an opportunity to update and evaluate earlier estimates (Dood et al. 1986). It must be noted that the estimates presented here were developed in a different manner than those presented in 1986 and are not therefore directly comparable with previous estimates. It should also be emphasized that all estimates have been developed using very conservative approaches to ensure that the program in no way negatively impacts the grizzly population. Two recent studies provide updated density estimates in the NCDE. The East Front Study (Aune and Kasworm 1989) presents updated information for the Badger-Two Medicine, East Front Core, and the Scapegoat Study Areas. The South Fork Study (Mace and Manley 1990) also presents updated estimates. The two studies differ in methodologies used to determine grizzly bear density. 1. East Front The East Front study derived its density estimates by using a geometric modified minimum composite polygon home range from radioed bears. It was modified because habitat was excluded from the composite that was known to be uninhabitable by grizzlies. The lower minimum density estimate is derived by including only marked bears; the upper minimum density estimate includes marked and individual independent observations of identifiable unmarked bears. 2. South Fork The South Fork Study has derived preliminary density estimates by determining the percentage of aerial telemetry locations of radioed bears within a 32 1 mi^ study area. This core area comprised about 20% of the entire South Fork unit. Unmarked bears observed or photographed were also included. To be included, individual bears had to meet the following standardized criteria: 14 Table 5.1. Methods involved in determination of grizzly bear densities by various studies. a b c d e f S h i J k 1 m n o Predefined study area X X X X X X X X X X X X Population estimate derived from signs of bear presence X X Population estimate derived from unduplicated sightings of individual bears and family groups X X Census of bears using Schnabel technique (marked to unmarked animals) X Census of bears using Peterson index (mark-recapture) X X Adjusted estimate to rellect unequaled capture probability of females with cubs and unrepresentative sample of cubs. X Population estimate for the area includes only marked and identifiable unmarked bears X X X X X X X X ratio of 50:50 to estimate number of males Y A ^iiKtrapf*^^'! f*rr*m tht^ir nr^niilntir^n pcfim^ife* flip niimh*^r O Ul 'il IIVJllI lll&ll 1 fWI i 141(11 IWIl &oll llldl^ 11 1& IIU IIIL'&I of bears equal to the number of average home ranges derived from the portions of bears home ranges that were outside the study area Y A Population size of an area was determined by using only marked bears and the core area they inhabit X Method using a modified minimum composite home range of marked bears X X X Method using the percentage of aerial telemetry locations of radioed bears within a study area. X X a. Zunino & Herrero, 1972 (Italy) b. Elgmok, 1978 (Norway) c. Dean, 1976 (Mt. McKinley NP) d. Martinka, 1974 (Glacier NP) e. Troyer & Hensel, 1964 (Alaska) f. Miller & Ballard, 1982 (Alaska) g. Russell et al., 1979 (Jasper NP) h. Pearson 1975, 1976 (Yukon) i. Curatolo & Moore, 1975 (Alaska) j. Servheen, 1981 (Mission Mtns) k. Reynolds & Hechtel, 1980 (Alaska) I. McLellan, 1984 (No. Fk. Flathead, B.C.) m. Aune and Kasworm, 1989 (East Front, MT) n. Mace & Jonkel, 1980 (So.Fk. Flathead, MT) o. Mace and Manley, 1990 (So.Fk. Flathead, MT) 15 Table 5.2. Minimum density estimates for grizzly bears in the NCDE in 1991. Density Number of Arcs Size ^1111 / UCal f Hears Keu Meadow 215 1 A 1 C 10-15 14-22 Wnitehsh 831 1 0-25 33-46 Glacier National Park 1,583 6-8 198-264 St. Mary 21 1 10-20 1 1-21 Badger-Two Medicine 323 27-38 9-12 South Fork Flathead River 1,624 10-13 125-162 East Front 1 1 1 n 1,119 25-3 1 OWall r lOlH / OU ZO- J7 Mission Mountains 1,044 25-45 23-42 Scapegoat 1,903 56-112 17-34 Total 9,633 14-20 492-687 Total excluding GNP 8,050 19-27 294-423 a. A bear must remain alive for 75% of the average active (non- denning) season. This active season ran from 12 March through 25 October. Bears surviving <75% of this period are excluded from density estimates. b. All bears captured in the spring snaring grid were assumed to be in the study area between 12 March and their individual capture date. c. Bears casting their collars during the year were assumed to have survived if they were observed or photographed in the study area and there was no evidence suggesting they died. Bears that shed their collars and were not subsequently observed or photographed were excluded even when no evidence of mortality was recorded. d. It was often possible to classify some unmarked individuals to age class and gender through visual observation and remote cameras. Average percent use of the study area by these classified unmarked bears was assumed to equal percent use of marked bears of the same class. For example, if marked adult females averaged use of 82%, an unmarked adult female was given the saine use value. 16 e. Observations of unmarked grizzly bears were studied for possible redundancy each year. Thus, a minimum and maximum number of unmarked grizzlies was determined for each year. Density estimates were based on the minimum number. f. Unmarked bears were assumed to survive at least 75% of the active season. Strong evidence of death (e.g. MDFWP mortality records) must have been recorded to be excluded from the density estimate. There was some criticism of the approach utilized in 1986 because the estimates lacked statistical confidence. MDFWP has and is continuing to address these concerns through ongoing research and adjusting density estimates where appropriate. Previous grizzly bear density estimates 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, Dood et al. 1986). These estimates were developed utilizing known minimum densities from five study areas within and adjacent to the ecosystem and applying them to larger areas. Lower densities were applied to areas where direct extrapolation was inappropriate due to considerations of habitat or human impacts or where professional expertise indicates that this is appropriate. Adjustments based on the current review resulted in increased minimum density estimates in some units and in lower minimum density estimates in others. Current grizzly bear density estimates (miVbear) (Fig. 5.1) for the remaining six units in the NCDE remained unchanged (Dood et al. 1986) due to lack of new information. However, since that time the four units that have had more intensive investigation and density estimates were re-evaluated. Current South Fork Unit density estimates are based on much more detailed information and are higher than in 1986. Density of bears in Badger-Two Medicine, East Front, and Scapegoat Units were also re-evaluated with more detailed recent information. To ensure a program of conservation and because this program is based on minimum estimates of population size, the density estimates were decreased in these units. Lower estimates do not indicate population declines (trend information indicates an increase, Auneand Kasworm 1989); they merely reflect an even more conservative approach to estimating density utilized in this review. 17 CANADA AREA (T) Red Meadow @ Whiteflsh 0 Glacier National Park @ St. Mary 0 Badger-Two Medicine 0 South Fork 0 East Front 0 Swan Front 0 Mission Mountains (io) Scapegoat (S) DUPUYER CHOTEAU Occupied Grizzly Habitat N Intensive Study Area MISSOULA Figure 5.1. Map showing ten units with grizzly bear density estimates in the NCDE for 1991. 18 B. FEMALES WITH CUBS OF THE YEAR The USFWS draft revised recovery plan (USDI 1990) recommended a system of monitoring females with cubs, distribution of females with young, and mortality. The MDFWP is currently evaluating this approach and its usefulness for ongoing management in the NCDE. It is possible that this approach may provide an additional measure of population size and/or trend in the future. Distribution and Occupancy of Females with Cubs and/or Young of the Year The draft revised recovery plan (USDI 1990) also specifies targets for occupancy of grizzlies by Bear Management Units (BMUs) in the NCDE (Fig. 5.2) by female grizzly bears with young of the year as a running six-year summary of reports. This is designed as one way to demonstrate adequate distribution of the reproductive cohort within the recovery zone. Distribution of reproducing females may also provide evidence of adequate habitat management, assuming that successful reproduction is an indicator of habitat sufficiency. Lastly, adequate distribution of family groups indicates future occupancy of these areas because grizzly bear offspring, especially female offspring, tend to establish home ranges within or near the home range of their mother after weaning. Unduplicated observations of females with cubs for 1987-1990 in the NCDE are presented in Figs. 5.3 through 5.6 and Tables, 5.3 through 5.6. The first year this data was recorded was 1987. Unduplicated observations of females with cubs (1986-1990) in the CYE are presented in Table 5.7 and Fig. 5.7. C. GENERAL DISTRIBUTION Composite home range maps provide additional evidence of grizzly bear di.stribution and movement within the ecosystems as well as between these ecosystems and Canada (Figs. 5.8 through 5.14). An additional indicator of grizzly bear distribution in the NCDE is available from the annual grizzly bear hunter survey which asked hunters for information on grizzlies and grizzly sign observed. This information is presented in Figs. 5. 15 and 5. 16 for the Scapegoat Bear Management Area (BMA), Figs, 5.17 and 5. 18 for the Rocky Mountain East Front BMA, and Figs. 5.19 and 5.20 for the Flathead BMA. Grizzly bear observations in the CYE (Fig. 5.21) from 1950-1990 are low in number but indicate widespread distribution within this area. 19 * Figure 5.2. Bear management units in the NCDE (1991). 20 Tabic 5.3. NCDH imduplicatcd female grizzly bears with cubs, 1987. Date H Cubs Location UTM BMU Observed Glacier National Park 1 5/10/87 2 Many Glacier 30580 540970 3 2 5/10/87 2 Granite Park 29700 540500 6 3 6/28/87 2 Baring Basin 30770 539800 3 4 7/20/87 1 t 1 ' 1 1 1 1 /I T\ Hidden Lake/Logan Pass 29830 539600 6 c J 1/14/0 1 1 1 Filty Mountain 29 140 j41 390 6 6 iiimi 3 Huckleberry Mountain 71180 538560 6 7 8/06/87 2 Granite Park 29700 540500 6 8 8/07/87 1 Huckleberry Mountain 71180 538560 6 <■) 8/10/87 1 Lake Janet 28440 542600 3 10 8/15/87 1 Many Glacier Valley 30580 540970 3 1 1 8/20/87 2 Granite Park 29700 540500 6 12 t;/07/87 2 Cutbank i'ass 31550 537770 8 13 9/20/87 1 Granite Park 29700 540500 6 Outside Glacier National Park 14 5/18/87 2 So. Fk. Two Medicine River near 33410 535360 12 15 5/19/87 1 Badger Cabin 37920 531315 16 16 mim 1 Rinkers Creek 38040 531315 16 17 7/13/87 2 Blindhorse Creek 36760 521870 24 18 8/13/87 2 Blondie Creek/Parker Lake 38065 531655 16 Blindhorse Creek 19 8/28/87 1 Upper Headquarters Creek 36250 529750 19 20 9/1 1/87 1 S.F. Two Medicine near Rowe Creek 34075 534700 12 21 10/02/87 1 North of Choteau 40585 530465 out' 22 11/28/87 2 Near Ear Mountain 37310 529410 20 23 8/ /87 1 Upper Sourdough Creek 36810 522400 24 24 8/3/87 2 Fatty Creek 28100 528550 17 25 7/14/87 2 Dunham Creek 33010 522780 24 26 6/3/87 2 Near Whitefish 69850 536910 out' 27 1 1/ /87 1 2 mi. west of Whitellsh Mountain 67200 540380 5 Outside recovery zone 21 rffifr{rffirrfrrfff,ifffttfffffrffffi Murphy Further Evaluation Area Upper North Fork Rathead CLACIEfi NATIONAL PARK Northeast Glacier ® Northern Continental Divide GRIZZLY BEAR ECOSYSTEM ® Still- watar^ River @ iMtne. Lower North Eg Folic ^Flathead Southeast Glacier A Lower Mddl* Fork VFIatheod KAUSPELL ® Hui^ Harm ^ ' Rn , Hungry srse ® D @ Badger El Two Medicine^ ® Upper Middle Sullivan Continental Divide Birch Teton ' Bunker Creek 5^ m LEGEND I South Mission Range Big Salmon ® 1 'North Forkt Sun Rivec South Fork Sun Beaver Willow ED 'Teton Sun Riverl Bear Management Units Location of female with cubs sighting (Number corresponds with Table Number) Upper South Forte Flathead (22) Dearborn I Elk Creek I Rattle- snake Monturs Landers Fork m m MSSOULA ® Figure 5.3. Location of female with cubs observations in grizzly bear management units within the NCDE, 1987. 22 Table 5.4. NCDB unduplicated female grizzly bears with cubs, 1988. ft Date ff Location UTM BMU Observed Cubs Glacier National Park 1 5/09/88 3 Hay Creek/GTSR 2962 54030 5 2 5/21/88 1 Calf Robe Mountain 3277 53610 8 3 6/02/88 2 McPartland Mountain 2915 53970 5 4 6/10/88 1 Avalanche Lake 2905 53903 5 7/04/88 1 Red Mountain 3205 53792 8 6 7/06/88 1 Huckleberry Mountain 71 14 53860 5 7 7/09/88 2 Mt. Cleveland 291 1 54212 3 8 7/10/88 2 Granite Park 2949 54132 5 9 7/20/88 2 Fifty Mountain 2890 54160 3 10 8/09/88 2 Rainbow Peak 7129 54177 2 11 8/27/88 2 Red Eagle/Triple Divide 3140 53859 8 12 9/24/88 2 Belly River R.S. 3016 54231 3 13 9/25/88 3 Round Prairie 6942 54154 2 Outside Glacier National Park 14 5/5/88 3 Blackleaf Creek 3780 53180 15 15 6/30/88 2 Paola Creek 3030 53550 7 16 7/02/88 1 Tiger Creek near Hungry Horse 2880 53610 6 17 7/16/88 2 Mt. Grant 2980 53560 7 18 7/18/88 2 Scapegoat Mountain 3630 52410 23 19 7/20/88 2 McDonald Peak, FIR 2800 52520 16 20 7/21/88 I Quintonkin Creek 2920 53230 9 21 8/10/88 2 Paint Creek 2980 53390 9 22 8/21/88 2 Pilgrim Lakes 2860 53320 9 23 8/22/88 1 Elk Creek 3790 52430 24 24 8/25/88 3 Willow Creek near Pine Butte 3840 52980 19 25 9/14/88 3 Dupuyer Creek 3770 53330 15 23 CANADA Murphy iLake 19 «M( I Upper North IQ* Fork Flathead GLACIER NATIONAL PARK. m Northeast Glacier Northern Continental Divide GRIZZLY BEAR ECOSYSTEM IN A Lower North Forte D Flathead Southeast Glacier iHungry Lower Middle Fork (^^^Flathead SCALE 0 9 lOmltos ® ® KAUSPEU. ® Hungry! IHorse m Sullivan Badger Two edkslne Upper Middle ^Fork X— N y I ®\® Continental Divide _/-^~^ Birch L Teton @ Bunker Creak 'North Fork < Sun River ES ^ Teton Sun River | LEGEND f C^^Bear Management Units ■ Location of female with cubs sighting (Number corresponds with Table Number) @ I South Misston Range D Big Salmon I .C- South Fork Sun Beaver Willow Upper South Fork Flathead ^— ^ Del^om jk Creek Rattle/ snake/ (20). Monture Landers Fork UISSOULA ® Figure 5.4. Location of females with cubs observations in grizzly bear management units within the NCDE, 1988. 24 Table 5.5. NCDE un duplicated female grizzly bears with cubs, 1989. Date tf Ciihs Location UTM BMU Observed Glacier National Park I 5/14/89 3 Upper McDonald 2964 54030 5 2 6/24/89 2 Huckleberry Creek 7128 53861 5 9 1 WO IVICUICIIIC '\ 1 87 J 1 o / *;i7 1 1 J3 1 V J 0 0 A U/ jyjl Oy 9QS9 <; J VVitlvIll/ll VJl^ll Id 98^10 1 yyj J 6 imm 3 Cutbank Creek 32Q1 53776 8 7 2 Upper McDonald Creek 2963 54035 5 8 ii\m9 1 Kintia Creek 7103 54273 2 9 7/21/89 2 Cracker Creek 3054 54084 3 10 8/06/89 1 Grinnell Creek 3048 54074 3 11 8/07/89 1 Huckleberry Creek 7115 53879 5 12 8/07/89 3 Huckleberry Creek 7115 53875 5 13 8/18/89 1 Huckleberry Creek 7122 53863 5 14 9/20/89 1 St. Mary 3129 53965 3 15 2 Mt. Cleveland 2913 54228 3 Outside Glacier National Park 16 5/1/89 2 Quintonkin Creek 2880 53220 9 17 5/1/89 1 Wheeler Creek 2930 53270 9 18 5/1/89 I Sullivan Creek 3030 53100 9 19 5/25/89 2 Spring Creek 3481 52135 23 20 6/1/89 2 Clearwater Wildlife Manage. 3360 53550 11 21 6/15/89 1 E. Moore Lk. NW Jim Creek 3050 52780 16 22 6/15/89 2 Horizontal Control Station 3049 53490 7 23 6/24/89 1 Essex Creek 3240 533.35 10 24 6/28/89 3 Wild River 3305 53865 8 25 8/2/89 2 Middle Fork Flathead River 3160 52580 21 26 8/14/89 2 Hay Coulee Creek 3960 52890 19 27 8/19/89 2 Wigwam Creek 6605 54270 1 28 8/20/89 1 S. Fork Glenn Creek, N. Fork 3541 52810 18 29 8/29/89 2 Glenn Creek 3760 53120 15 30 8/29/89 1 Blindhorse Creek Junction 3060 53010 13 31 8/31/89 2 Hoadley Creek 3505 52605 22 32 9/14/89 1 Townsend Creek 3330 53490 1 1 33 9/15/89 1 W. Fork of South Fork Sun 3455 52700 22 34 9/30/89 1 River Ahorn Creek 3390 52550 21 There were three additional observations outside of the recovery line. 25 CANADA UI8SOULA i Figure 5.5. Location of females witii cubs observations in grizzly bear management units within the NCDE, 1989. 26 Table 5.6. NCDE unduplicated female grizzly bears with cubs, 1990. ft Date ft Location UTM BMU Observed Cubs Glacier National Park i 5/06/90 2 Upper McDonald Creek 2976 54021 5 2 6/19/90 1 Red Eagle 3195 53929 8 3 7/03/90 3 Upper McDonald Creek 2968 54038 5 4 7/06/90 1 St. Mary 3130 53965 3 5 8/04/90 3 Upper McDonald Creek 2970 54048 3 6 8/05/90 3 Akokala 6990 54110 2 7 8/16/90 1 Cameron Lake Headwall 7156 54311 3 Outside Glacier National Park 8 5/22/90 2 Feather Creek 3090 52940 13 9 6/09/90 1 Railroad Creek 3350 53660 8 10 6/15/90 2 Cinnabar Mountain 3110 53060 13 11 7/07/90 2 Wigwam River 6560 54260 1 12 7/30/90 2 Werner Peak 6880 53830 4 There was one additional observation outside the recovery line. Table 5.7. CYE unduplicated female grizzly bears with cubs, 1986-1990. Number Date Observed No. of Cubs Location UTM BMU i 5/30/86 2 Yaak R. 5835 54073 11 2 5/12/87 2 Graves Cr. 6208 52840 22 3 5/12/87 2 Baldy Mtn. 5780 54090 13 4 7/18/87 2 Swamp Cr. 6065 53138 6 5 10/25/87 2 Flattail Cr. 5975 53910 11 6 5/19/88 2 Burnt Cr. 5905 54050 11 7 6/9/89 2 Silver Butte 6000 63108 7 8 9/1/90 2 Klatawa Lk. 5950 53480 2 27 Murpt .ake CANADA Upp«r North Fork Flathead Q NATIONAL PARK Northeast Glacier (D Further /Evaluatk>n Area Still-'- } water . River Northern Continental Divide GRIZZLY BEAR ECOSYSTEM N A Lower North Fork Flathead Lower Middle Fork VFIathead (D. (Southeasf Glacier I KAUSPEU ® Hon* Hungry '' iHoree ® ® Badger Two Medkslne LEGEND Bear Management Units Location of female with cubs sighting (Number corresponds with Table Number) South Fork Sun Beaver Willow Upper South Fork Flathead ^ Deart>orn Elk Creek (20)( IRattie- snak Monture Landers Fork (23) tUSSOULA ® Figure 5.6. Location of females with cubs observations in grizzly bear management units within the NCDE, 1990. 28 CANADA Figure 5.7. Bear management units in the CYE showing unduplicated female grizzly bears with cubs observations, 1986-1990. 29 Figure 5.8. Home range map from the Rocky Mountain East Front (Aunc and Kasworm 1989) for individual adult and subadult female grizzly bears, 1977-1987. 30 Figure 5.9. Home range map from the Rocky Mountain East Front (Aune and Kasworm 1989) for individual subadult male grizzly bears, 1980-1987. 31 Figure 5. 10. Home range map from the Rocky Mountain East Front (Aune and Kasworm 1989) for individual adult male grizzly bears, 1977-1987. 32 Figure 5.11. Composite home range map from the South Fork of the Flathead River (Mace and Manley 1990). (100% = 631 mi^: 95% = 444 mi^) 33 CRANBROOIC 36 Figure 5.15. Grizzly bear sightings in the Scapegoat Bear Management Area reported by hunter surveys, 1987-1990. 37 Figure 5.16. Grizzly bear sign in the Scapegoat Bear Management Area reported by hunter surveys, 1987-1990. 38 CutBank\® Figure 5.18. Grizzly bear sign in the Rocky Mountain East Front bear management area reported by hunter surveys, 1987-1990. 40 Figure 5. 19. Grizzly bear sightings in the Flathead Bear Management Area reported by hunter surveys, 1987-1990. 41 Figure 5.20. Grizzly bear sign in tiie Flathead Bear Management Area reported by hunter surveys, 1987-1990. 42 Figure 5.21. Grizzly bear observations and mortality in the CYE, 1950-1990 (circles indicate mortality). 43 D. REPRODUCTION Updated grizzly bear reproductive characteristics in the NCDE (Table 5.8) indicate litter size varying from 1.5 to 2.3 cubs, and mean age at first litter ranging from 5.7 to 6.5 years. Litter frequency averages 2.7 years. Table 5.8. An update on reproductive characteristics of the NCDE grizzly bear population. Location and Source Year Mean litter size of cubs Mean age at first litter Litter frequency (years) Corpus lutea Rocky Mtn. Ea.st Front (MT) (Aune and Ka.sworni 1989) 1985 1989 2.16 2.20 5.5 6.5 2.1 2.6 South Fork Flathead, MT (Mace and Manley 1990) 1990 1.5 Flathead River, B.C. (McLellan 1989^) 1984 1989 2.5 2.3 5.5 6.0 3.1 2.7 Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, MT (Aune et al. 1992) 1992 2.14 5.7 2.7 2.33 E. AGE STRUCTURE Updated age structure information for the NCDE (Table 5.9) shows fewer yearlings and more adult grizzlies present in the South Fork of the Flathead than on the East Front. Table 5.9. Available age structure data for the NCDE grizzly bear population. Location and Reference Percentage of Population Year Cubs Yearlings Subadults Adults Rocky Mtn. East Front (MT) (Aune 1989) 1985 1989 23 22 18 22 25 24 34 32 Flathead River, BC (McLellan i989a) 1984 1988 15 21 18 18 24 27 43 34 Glacier National Park (MT) (Martinka 1974) 1974 17 15 South Fork Flathead (MT) (Mace pers. comm.) 1991 1991 21 7 16 56 44 F. MORTALITY Updated mortality rates (Table 5.10) for the NCDE are 10% for cubs, 14% for yearlings, 'from 19 to 39% for siibadiilts, and 21 to 24% for adults. Table 5.10. An update on mortality rate (%) by age class for the NCDE grizzly bear population. Location and Source Cubs Yearling.s Subadult.s Adults Flathead River, B.C. (McLcllan m9b) 8 12 8 7 Rocky Mtn. Ea.st Front, M T (Aiine and Kasworm 1989) 8 lU 39 24 South Fork Flathead, MT (Mace pens, comm.) 1991° 19 0 19 21 Northern Continental Divide Eco.system, MT (Aune et al. 1992) 10 14 ' Natural and human-caused mortalities combined. G. TREND MONITORING Ongoing trend monitoring in northwest Montana utilizes a wide range of techniques and surveys. Additionally, the MDFWP is exploring more effective ways to monitor trends. Recent research in Glacier National Park (Kendall et al. 1991) examines bear sign surveys as an inexpensive and non-intrusive method to monitor population trends. Current information (Aune and Kasworm 1989, Mace and Manley 1990, and Keating 1986) indicates that the population in the NCDE is stable to increasing. The only previous indication of a possible population decline in the NCDE is that of Claar et al. (1986) for the population segment occupying the Mission Mountains. Their analysis and suggestion of population decline is based on the assumption that the Missions were an isolated population. Ongoing research (Mace and Manley 1990) has demonstrated that these bears, together with those of the adjacent Swan range, are part of the same population. The number of bears present in the Mission Mountains at any time is dependent upon natural bear movements. Significant numbers of grizzly bears still use the Mission Mountains as part of their home range. No additional information is available on the population trend in the CYE from that presented in the 1986 EIS. 45 H. AUGMENTATION OR REINTRODUCTION The Cabinet Mountains grizzly bear study, conducted from 1983-1988, concluded that the future of the population was in serious doubt. Factors leading to that conclusion included: only three grizzly bears were captured despite an extensive trapping effort, the individuals captured were of advanced age, few additional grizzly bear sightings were obtained, low numbers of observations of females with young were made, and high mortality rates of marked bears were recorded. The study recommended population augmentation utilizing subadult females having no history of conflicts with humans. The first of four projected transplants was completed in July 1990. The 4-year old female weighed 71 kg and remained in the Cabinet Mountains following release. Her movements from July through October encompassed 191 km^ and she denned during late October (Kasworm and Thier 1990). As was recommended in the 1986 EIS, additional efforts are under way to further augment the population in this area. 46 VI. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW A. MORTALITY QUOTA The MDFWP is responsible for compiling reports of all known and probable grizzly bear mortalities in Montana. These data are summarized in annual reports (Greer 1971-1985, Palmisciano 1986, Dood and Pac 1988, Pac and Dood 1989 and 1990). Reports record mortalities from all causes including hunting, control actions, natural deaths, transplants, illegal killing, etc. The Code of Federal Regulations [50 CFR 17.40 (b)] established a human-caused mortality quota of 25 grizzly bears for northwestern Montana in 1975 (Appendix F). At that time, the MDFWP (Woodgerd 1974) felt a mortality quota of 25 was appropriate based on the fact an average annual mortality of 28 (1967 through 1974) had not inhibited population increase. MDFWP elected in 1983 to establish a female subquota of 13 for the NCDE (7 west of the Continental Divide and 6 east of the Divide) to avoid any possibility of local overharvest. These quotas involved the total man-caused grizzly mortality including illegal kills, accidents, control actions, and hunter harvest. In 1985, as a response to problems with grizzlies utilizing areas which were not in the legally described boundaries where hunting could occur, an Emergency Federal Regulation changed the boundaries and also reduced the total quota to 15 to account for unreported mortalities which may have been occurring. It further set a female subquota of 6. In 1986, the final rule was established allowing a known human-caused mortality of 14 totiil and 6 females. All quotas were and have been reviewed annually to determine if they needed adjustment. B. HUNTING SEASONS Hunting has been an integral part of Montana's grizzly bear management program since its inception. Several changes in hunting regulations have been made over the years in order to maintain viable populations. Many of these were outlined by Dood et al. (1986: 6-8). However, because of their relevance, some of these are repeated here along with more recent changes. Many of these changes were specifically designed and implemented to protect females. The use of dogs for bear hunting was prohibited in 1921 , and bears were declared game animals in 1923. The unrestricted spring hunting of grizzlies ended in 1940, and prohibitions on the killing of cubs or females with cubs and baiting of bears followed in 1947 and 1948, respectively. Changes instituted in 1967 required that hunters purchase a special grizzly bear license and that successful hunters purchase a trophy license within 10 days of taking a grizzly. Starting in 1970, grizzly bear hunting licenses had to be purchased prior to the opening of the hunting season (traditionally mid- to late October through late November 47 with some back country areas opening September 15); the date has varied by year. Since 1971, successful hunters have been required to submit the hide and head for inspection and tagging at the time they obtain their trophy license. Regulations in effect from 1971 through 1981 prohibited a successful grizzly hunter from applying for a grizzly license for the following seven years. This was changed to a "once-in-a-lifetime" harvest effective March 27, 1987 (Appendix G). When grizzly bears in the conterminous 48 states were listed as threatened in 1975, Montana was the only state authorized to allow hunting grizzly bears in a specifically delineated area (see Appendix F). Several other changes also went into effect at this time. One significant change was that an annual quota for grizzly bear mortalities assignable to any human activity was implemented. Along with this change, hunters were required to report the kill of a grizzly to an officer of the MDFWP within 48 hours (the 10-day period to obtain a trophy license was not changed) (Appendix G), and the season was to be closed on 48-hour notice if the quota was reached. The quota was set at a total of 25 bears in 1975 and remained at this level through 1984. However, female subquotas established in 1983 limited the female harvest to a maximum of seven west of the Continental Divide and six east of the Divide. Either area could then be independently closed on 48-hour notice if the female subquota was reached. In order to monitor the female harvest under the total quota/ female subquota system, hunters were required to leave evidence of sex intact on the hide or carcass when the animal was presented to obtain a trophy license. Female subquotas were reduced in 1983 to six west of the Divide and three east of the Divide. Quotas were again reduced (total of 15, female subquota of 6) in 1985. Three Bear Manageinent Areas (BMAs) were also established (Flathead, East Front, and Bob Marshall -Scapegoat) with the female subquotas divided among them. Other new regulations in 1985 defined young as up to 2 years of age (under prohibition on taking of females with young) and also stated that hunters "may not" shoot grizzly bears found in groups of two or more. The latter regulation was changed in 1986 to a request that, "to reduce the likelihood of taking a female, hunters should, if at all possible, not shoot grizzly bears found in groups of two or more". Similar regulations have been in effect since that time. Changes incorporated into the 1986 regulations included a further reduction in the total quota to 14 plus adjustments to both the boundaries of the three BMAs and the female subquota within each. The Scapegoat BMA was formed from a portion of the former Bob Marshall-Scapegoat BMA with a female subquota of one. The size of both the Flathead and the newly designated Rocky Mountain East Front BMAs were increased with female subquotas of two and three, respectively. 48 Hunting season dates have a large influence on the sex ratio of the harvest (see Dood et al. 1986: 69-71). Therefore, to provide additional protection to females, the opening of the grizzly bear hunting season in the NCDE has been delayed until October 1 since 1986. In order to allow more flexibility in the taking of grizzly bears meeting criteria for removal as nuisance bears (to minimize continued conflict and to prevent human injury), a grizzly bear "damage hunt" was authorized for the East Front BMA in 1987. The area was expanded to include the entire NCDE in 1991. The damage hunt was established to allow hunters, following specific procedures and under strict supervision, to take animals which would normally be removed by state or federal authorities. Although 4,449 people applied for a spot on the annual damage hunt roster between 1987 and 1991, hunters were utilized on only two occasions, and only one of the two hunters succeeded in taking an offending bear. Based on a review of management programs in Canada and research data from the East Front area of Montana, the MDFWP felt that a limited spring grizzly bear hunt could be used to focus mortality on males if it closed early enough (Appendix H,). A limited entry (50 permits) spring hunt was authorized for the Rocky Mountain East Front BMA by the MFWPC on March 7, 1991. Applications had to be received or postmarked by March 21, and 415 met this deadline. The season ran from April 1 through May 4, and the female subquota for that BMA (3) was in effect to avoid the possibility of excessive mortality. All 50 hunters were interviewed by telephone after the close of the season; the questionnaire and a summary of the results are presented in Appendix H2. A harvest of three males occurred which was what had been predicted in the justification prepared by the MDFWP (Appendix H,). C. CLOSURE AUTHORITY The MFWPC has the authority to close hunting seasons at any time. When the quota system was established, it was recognized that the total quota or female subquota might be reached before the start of the scheduled hunting season. In that event, the season would not be held that year. A statement to that effect is included in the annual hunting regulations. The grizzly bear season closed early in four of the five years covered by this update when total or female mortalities approached or reached the quotas. In addition, the hunting season in the Flathead BMA did not open in 1989 or 1990 because the female subquota was met prior to October 1, largely as a result of bears being struck by trains at a major grain-spill area. 49 By closing the season as quotas were approached or met, neither the total quota nor the female subquota has ever been exceeded. D. OTHER REGULATIONS Since 1947, the annual limit has been one grizzly bear of either sex per license holder. As stated previously, this was changed to one bear per lifetime in 1987. A person must obtain a trophy license before removing any portion of a grizzly bear from the state. Additional regulations cover hunting hours, tagging requirements, and required clothing color. E. HUNTER SURVEYS Questionnaires have been sent periodically to grizzly bear licensees to obtain information on whether they actually hunted or not, number of days and areas hunted, observations of bears or bear sign, whether they shot at or killed a grizzly bear, plus other information and comments (Greer 1972, 1974a). Following the recommendations of the 1986 EIS, surveys have since been conducted on an annual basis during the period covered by this update (see Table 6.1). Appendix Hj includes an example of the type of surveys which are conducted. F. SEASON SETTING PROCESS Big game hunting season regulations, including those for grizzly bears, are presented to the MFWPC at their December (odd numbered years) meeting biennially. Before adjourning, the MFWPC develops a set of tentative regulations which are sent to interested parties and are available to anyone. Each MDFWP region holds several public meetings to explain, discuss, and solicit public input on the tentative regulations. The MFWPC holds another public meeting in February (even numbered years) to receive further input and adopts a set of fmal regulations one week later. 50 Table 6. 1 . Results of grizzly bear hunter questionnaires for the NCDE, Montana 1985-1990. 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 AVERAGE Number of license holders 306 120 188 226 114 128 180.3 % responding 80 74 74 63 64 70 70.8 % hunted grizzlies 50 83 66 57 64 65 64.2 % did not hunt grizzlies 50 17 34 43 36 35 35.8 % did hunting incidental to elk or deer hunting 62 32 27 17 32 33 33.8 % hunted primarily for a grizzly 38 66 73 83 62 67 64.8 % passed up an opportunity to shoot in iiopcs of seeing a larger bear 9 7 8 10 7 9 8.3 % could have shot a grizzly beai' 23 24 — — — - - % shot at a grizzly bear 23 24 7 5 5 2 11.0 Number that killed a grizzly 5 4 2 2 0 1 2.3 Mean number of days spent hunting grizzlies 8.4 5.7 4.5 3.7 8.4 8.8 6.6 Minimum number of days hunted 1 1 1 1 2 1 1.2 Maximum number of days hunted 35 12 21 10 40 45 27.2 Number of days hunted for those that saw a grizzly 14.0 4.6 3.7 10.0 23.4 11.1 Number of days hunted for those that did not see a grizzly 7.3 5.6 4.5 3.7 7.6 7.3 6.0 Number of days hunted per successful hunter 6.2 2.4 7.0 1 -- 5.0 4.3 Number of days hunted for hunters that passed an opportunity to shoot a bear for a larger bear 25.5 4.8 4.3 3. 1 10.0 23.4 1 1.9 Number of days hunted for hunters not passing up any opportunities 7.7 5.8 4.7 3.7 8.3 7.3 6.3 % not seeing a grizzly 34 33 72 70 76 90 62.5 % seeing a grizzly 66 67 28 30 26 10 42.8 % of above seeing 1 bear 69 79 62 35 33 33 51.8 % of above seeing 2 bears 20 21 15 19 25 17 19.5 % of above seeing 3 or more bears 11 — 23 31 25 50 23.3 % seeing black bear 41 41 — -- -- — % not seeing black bear 59 59 -- -- -- -- — % observing grizzly sign (scat or tracks) 77 -- 60 63 62 50 62.4 % not observing grizzly sign 23 40 37 38 50 37.6 % of hunters hunting in Flntheiid Mgt. Area 56 61 0'' O' 29.3 % of hunters hunting in East Front Mgt. Area 25 27 76 84 53.0 % of hunters hunting in Scapegoat Mgt. Area 19 13 24 16 18.0 ' This question was not included in 1987-1990 Flathead Unit was closed to hunting in 1989 ' Flathead Unit was closed to hunting in 1990 51 VII. GRIZZLY BEAR MORTALITY A. NCDE L Total Human-Caused Mortality Average annual known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities in the NCDE, including GNP, prior to 1986 were 22.7 bears/year (Dood et al. 1986). This declined to 11.6 bears/year from 1986-1990 (Table 7.1, Figure 7.1, Appendix I) with 2.6 bears harvested legally and 9 bears dying from other human causes. Reported non-hunting mortality has exceeded hunting mortalities during every year since 1985. Among bears of known sex, male grizzly bear mortality exceeded female mortality in 3 of the last 5 years and in 15 of the 19 years preceding 1986 (Fig. 7.2). The ratio of male:female mortality averaged 53:47% for the last five years as compared to the previous ratio 59:41 % (Dood et al. 1986). This change is due to implementation of female mortality subquotas and female mortality has not exceeded allowable limits in any year. Among known 1986-1990 human-caused mortalities, the ratio of adult (5 + years): younger animal mortality was 43:57% (Table 7.2). The previous ratio was 49:51% (Dood et al. 1986). Age distribution of female grizzly bear mortalities during 1986-1990 (Fig. 7.3) indicated an average of 6.5 years. The average ratio of adult:younger females for those years was 44:56%. Age distribution of males (Fig. 7.4) from human-caused mortality during 1986-1990 indicated a younger age than for females (X = 5.3 years). Average adult:younger male ratios were 42:58%. Distribution of Grizzly Bear Mortality by Landownership and BMA In the NCDE during 1986-90, 47% of the mortalities occurred on the Flathead National Forest, 26% on private land, 12% on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, 5% on both the Lewis and Clark National Forest and Glacier National Park, 3% on the Flathead Indian Reservation, and 2% on MDFWP lands (Fig. 7.5, Table 7.3). Most (55%) of the known human-caused mortalities occurred on the Flathead Management Area (Table 7.4). 2. Hunting Mortality From 1986-90, 22% (n = 13) of all human-caused mortalities were due to regulated hunting. Average hunting mortality was 2.6 per year (range = 0-5), 62% of which were females (Table 7.1, Fig. 7.6). When sexes were combined, the ratio of adult to subadult animals in the hunter harvest was 69:31% (Table 7.1, Fig. 7.6). Adults comprised a greater proportion of female legal harvest than did subadults (Fig. 7.7). During the period 1986-90, adults constituted 75% and 60% of the total female and male harvest, respectively. 52 Table 7.1. Summary of total known human-caused mortality of grizzly bears in the NCDE, 1986-1990. 1986-90 1967-85 Year 86 87 88 89 90 Total Average Average Hunt c J S 4 U 1 13 2.6 lie 12.5 iNon-nuni Q y Q o J 12 i z 1 1 1 1 4S in 9 Total 14 11 9 12 12 58 11.6 22.7 Hunt Male J 1 1 n u 1 c J 1 .U '7 ^ Female 2 2 4 0 0 8 1.6 5.1 iNon-nuni IVldIC J A t 9 z 7 Q 0 S 2 J . z 4 4 19 3 8 3 6 Unknown sex 2.0 Hunt Adult 3 3 2 0 1 9 1.8 5.9 Subadult' 2 0 2 0 0 4 0.8 5.4 Unknown sex 1 . 1 iNon-nuni AuUll z -5 J J 9 Z 10 j.Z A 1 ouoauuii D 9 1 7 / 7 / Z J 4 '+.0 J.U Tiih 1 1 0 n 2 1 2 0 0 Unknown sex 1.1 Hunt Adult M 1 1 0 0 1 3 0.6 3.3 AHiilt F 7 A, 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 8 Unknown sex 0.6 Non-hunt AUUll IVl 9 1 9 z 4 1 1 10 z.u 9 S Z.J Adult F 0 2 2 1 1 6 1.2 2.0 Unknown sex 1.1 Total Male 8 5 2 7 9 31 6.2 12.2 Total Female 6 6 7 5 3 27 5.4 8.5 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 2.0 Unknown Sex Subadult is any bear that is older than a cub and less than 5 years old. 53 Year Figure 7. 1 . Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by cause of death in the NCDE, 1967-1990. Figure 7.2. Total known mortality by sex of grizzly bears in the NCDE, 1967-1990. 54 Table 7.2. Number of known human-caused adult and subadult grizzly bear mortalities in the NCDE, 1986-1990. 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total % Adult 5 6 6 5 3 25 43 Subadults and cubs 9 5 3 7 9 33 57 Totals 14 11 9 12 12 58 100 Adult- 0 26 ■ 24 ■ 22 20 - 18 ■ 16 - 0 14 ■ 12 ■ 10 ■ 8 6 ■ 0 4 - • 2 •• Cub •• 1986 0 ••• 0 1987 1988 1989 • Nonhunter Kills o Hunter Kills 1990 Figure 7.3. Age distribution of female grizzly bears of total known human-caused mortality in the NCDE, 1986-1990. 55 Adult 26 0 • • 0 24- 22 ■ 20- 18- 16- 14- 12- 10- t • • • 8- 6" 4- 2 Cub- • 0 • •CJ • o • • • • 1 1986 1 1987 1 1988 1989 1 1990 • Nonhunter Kills o Hunter Kills Figure 7.4. Age distribution of male grizzly bears of total known human-caused mortality in the NCDE, 1986-1990. Figure 7.5. Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by land ownership of kill location in the NCDE, 1986-1990. 56 Table 7.3. Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by land ownership of kill locations in the NCDE, 1986-1990. Land Ownership 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total (%) Flathead National Forest 7 2 5 9 4 27 (47) Private - Montana 1 6 3 1 4 15 (26) Blackfeet Indian Reservation 1 1 0 2 3 7(12) Lewis and Clark National Forest 1 1 0 0 1 3(5) Glacier National Park 1 1 1 0 0 3(5) Flathead Indian Reservation 2 0 0 0 0 2(3) Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 1 0 0 0 0 1(2) Total 14 11 9 12 12 58 (100) Figure 7.6. Number by sex of grizzly bears harvested by hunters in the NCDE, 1967- 1990. 57 Table 7.4 Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by Bear Management Area in the NCDE, 1986-1990. 11 ft Bear Management Areas 1 C\0£. lyoo 196/ 19oo 19o9 1 noA 199U lotal 1 Flathead 7 5 5 9 6 32 2 East Front 3 3 2 1 3 12 3 Scapegoat 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 Blackfeet IR 1 2 0 2 3 8 5 Glacier NP 1 1 1 0 0 3 6 Flathead IR 2 0 0 0 0 2 Total 14 11 9 12 12 58 Figure 7.7. Number by age class of grizzly bears harvested by hunters in the NCDE, 1967-1990. 58 Distribution of Hunting Mortality by Bear Management Areas Of 13 hunting mortalities during the five-year time period, 69% occurred in the Flathead BMA and 31% in the East Front (Fig. 7.8.). No hunting mortalities occurred in the Scapegoat Area. Previous information from 1973-1985 indicated 83% in the Flathead, 8% on the East Front, and 9% in the Scapegoat Bear Management Areas. .0^ V Figure 7.8. Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by bear management area in the NCDE, 1986-1990. 3. Human-Caused Nonhunting Mortality a. Control - A grizzly bear legally killed or removed alive from the ecosystem by state, tribal, or federal government officials to defend against damage to property or potential injury to humans b. Illegal - An illegally killed grizzly bear includes marauding bears killed illegally by private individuals, grizzly mistaken for a black bear, poaching, and deliberate vandal killing. 59 c. Trapping Casualty - A grizzly bear accidentally killed by agency personnel during transplant or research operations. d. Vehicle Collision - A grizzly bear accidentally killed when struck by a train or motorized vehicle. e. Unknown/Under Investigation - A grizzly bear mortality that is under investigation. Cause of death can not be determined or has not yet been assigned. f. Legal, Defense of Life - A grizzly bear legally killed by a citizen acting in self-defense or in the defense of others. For the 1986-90 period, an annual average of 9.0 grizzly bears (range 5-12) were lost from the population from known human causes other than hunting (Table 7.1). Distribution of nonhunting and hunting mortalities in the NCDE from 1986-90 (Fig. 7.9) shows a concentration of deaths only along the south border of GNP. These were due to train collisions. Male grizzly bears predominate the nonhunting mortalities (Table 7.1). During the 1986-90 period, females averaged 42% of nonhunting mortality. Subadults and cubs comprised 64% of the nonhunting mortality (Table 7.1). Illegal mortalities comprised 31% (n = 14, Table 7.5) of the total non-hunting mortalities. During 1975-85, most illegal mortalities resulted when marauding bears caused sheep depredation problems. Because of greater agency involvement in recent years, control actions have replaced what would have possibly been illegal deaths in the past. Control actions now constitute 27% of the mortalities and removals compared to 17% reported in the 1986 EIS. Vehicle collisions, especially with trains, increased to 16% compared to 8% reported from 1975-1985. Trapping mortalities increased to 9% from the previous 4% reported due to increased research and management efforts. Defense of life mortalities were similar in both time periods. 4. Unreported Illegal Mortality Unreported illegal grizzly bear mortalities are difficult to document. However, a method to calculate that mortality rate was described by Brannon et al. (1988) using data obtained from radio-monitored grizzly bears including age, sex, and fate. The percentage of unreported mortalities (those that would go undetected without the benefit of radio telemetry) among these monitored bears is extrapolated to the entire population and adjusted to account for vulnerability of the sample and the population (Dood et al. 1986). 60 Figure 7.9. LxKations of grizzly bear mortalities in the NCDE, 1986-1990. 61 Table 7.5. Number of known human-caused grizzly bear mortalities by cause of death in the NCDE, 1986-90. 170/ 1988 1 700 1989 1990 Total Illegal J 1 I J < J n \J 1 rap z 1 1 1 0 u 0 A t Control r 5" 1 0 12 Train/road kill 1 0 0 2 4 7 Hunt 5 3 4 0 1 13 Unknown/Under Investigation 0 1 0 1 2 4 Legal, Defense of Life 0 0 0 4 0 4 Total 14 11 9 12 12 58 ' live removal The list of monitored bears includes all bears known to be alive (outside of GNP) through monitoring or capture within an individual year (Appendix J). Bears that die are included in the list for the year of their mortality because they were known to be alive at least part of that year. The number of unreported mortalities detected only because of use by radio telemetry is divided by the total number of bears monitored during a time period. ^ Unreported mortalities = Unreported x 100 = percent # bears monitored mortality rate mortality rate Several assumptions are made: a. monitored bears are representative of the sampled population (see qualifiers below), and therefore mortality rates of monitored bears can be extrapolated to the entire population b. An upper mortality figure can be estimated by applying the rate of confirmed (unreported) deaths to the estimate of the minimum number of bears in the NCDE (excluding Glacier National Park) 62 c. Transplanted bears are not used in the analysis because their vulnerability may be higher than other bears. d. Because mortalities occur throughout the year, the figure developed includes crippling loss (although crippling loss is not considered an illegal mortality) The unreported mortality rate is considered an upper estimate for the following reasons: a. Research results indicate that all bears in the ecosystem are not vulnerable to this type of mortality and those that are, are not vulnerable all the time. b. The sample of research bears utilized to develop this rate has a higher proportion of subadult animals than the whole population. (An exception to this is in the South Fork Study where a systematic grid snaring program was implemented.) The subadult age class is the most vulnerable to this type of mortality. c. Records from undercover enforcement operations and reports submitted for possible rewards under both the state program and the Audubon reward program indicate that there is not a large unreported kill going undetected. The upper limit in ten year increments varies from 3.5% to 0.7% (Tables 7.6 and 7.7). The rate calculated from the complete data set (1975-1990) is 2.1%. This rate then can be multiplied by the minimum NCDE population estimate (outside of Glacier National Park) of 294 bears. A. 294 X 0.007 = 2.0 bears (last ten years) B. 294 X 0.035 = 10.3 bears (highest rate) C. 294 X 0.021 = 6.2 bears (1975-1990 entire data set) The number of unreported mortalities is determined by taking the mean between no unreported mortalities (0) and the upper limit established by the calculations of the data. In case A, the mean unreported illegal bear deaths is 0-2 = 1 bears, in case B (0- 10) = 5 bears, in case C (0-6) ~ 3 bears. 63 Table 7.6. Unreported grizzly bear mortality data to calculate rate. Total number of bears Number of unreported Year monitored mortalities 1975 2 0 1976 10 2 1977 16 1 1978 15 0 1979 24 3 1980 23 0 1981 20 0 1982 22 0 1983 22 0 1984 27 0 1985 22 1 1986 26 0 1 QQ7 lyo 1 z4 U 1988 33 0 1989 46 1 1990 47 0 Total 379 8 Table 7.7. Summary of unreported mortality rate for grizzly bears in the NCDE by ten-year increments. Number of Total number of unreported % unreported Years bears monitored mortalities mortality rate 1975-84 181 6 3.3 1976-85 201 7 3.5 1977-86 217 5 2.3 1978-87 225 4 1.8 1979-88 243 4 1.6 1980-89 265 2 0.8 1981-1990 289 2 0.7 Total 1975-90 379 8 2.1 64 The total quota of allowable man-caused mortalities in the NCDE from 1986 to 1990 was 21 (6% of the minimum estimated population of 356 outside GNP). This figure was then reduced to 14 to account for an assumed 66% rate of reporting of these deaths. The best available current information indicates that the total quota should be 18 (6% of the updated minimum population estimate of 294). This must then be reduced to account for unreported deaths utilizing one of the following: Case A - last 10 years (1981-1990) = 18 - 1 = 17 bears Case B - highest 10 years (1976-1985) = 18 - 5 = 13 bears Case C - entire data set (1975-1990) = 18 - 3 = 15 bears Case A (an allowable known man-caused quota of 17) should best represent the current situation regarding unreported mortalities. However, to remain conservative Case C was utilized, resulting in a final total quota of 15. There is nothing to suggest that Case B is currently valid or that the female subquota should be altered. In summary, the unreported mortality rate has decreased from previous estimates. Therefore, we recommend that the total quotas should be 15 with a subquota of 6 females. The decrease in unreported mortality is probably related to extensive MDFWP efforts to minimize bear-human conflicts (especially on the Rocky Mtn. Front) and increased undercover enforcement efforts coupled with stiff sentences. B. CYE 1. Total Mortality Grizzly bear data from the CYE were recorded and compiled from public and agency sightings. The file includes records of mortalities from 1950 (Table 7.8), and sightings, tracks, scats, digs, hair, and dens dating from 1960 (Fig. 5.21) (Kasworm and Thier 1990). Six mortaliUes have occurred since 1985 involving two males, three females, and one of unknown sex. The bear listed as a hunter kill in 1988 was killed in the British Columbia hunt. This animal was tagged in the United States and spent most of his time there. All known mortality during the time period occurred north of the Kootenai River in the Yaak portion of the ecosystem. 65 Table 7.8. Grizzly bear mortality in the Cabinet- Yaak area, 1950-1990. Year Location Total Sex/Age Mortality Cause 1950 Squaw Cr 1 Suhadull Unknown 1951 Pclc Cr 1 Ailull M:ilc Nuisance 1951 Papoose Cr 2 Subadulls Unknown 1951 Goat Cr 1 Subadult Male Unknown Felix Cr 6 ^ Adiill Fi^iri'ilt'*; 4 Yfiirlinc** Numant'i* 1953 Obrien Cr 1 ^unauuii iviaic nunicr Kenelty Mt 1 Hiinli^r K^ill nunicr 20-Odd Mt 1 UllMKJWH nuiiicr rvui 1953 Burnt Cr 1 U nknown l-limti>r Will 17-Mile Cr 1 KJ riMlOWII Miintf^r Will 1954 N F Bull R 1 Unknown Hunter Kill 1954 S F Bull R 1 Unknown LI,,-*..- Hunter Niil Cedar Lk 1 1 I nr»\ji/n Hiintc-r Kill Cedar Lk 1 1 I n 1^ n i^xi/fi Himti>r Will nuiiicr i\ui 1 QS4 Taylor Pk 1 1 liiVni^\A/ri Hunter Will 1 QS4. Silverbutte Cr 1 1 1 M If nn\ji/n Himti^r Kill 1954 Silverbow Cr 1 Adult Female Hunter Kill 1955 Wolf Cr 1 Adult Male Control (Depredation) 1955 Mt. Headley 1 Subadult Nuisance 1955 Baree Lk 1 Adult Male U nknown 1955 Baree Lk 1 Adult Female Unknown 1955 Bear Cr 1 Subadult Male Hunter Kill 1958 Squaw Cr 1 Adult Female Nuisance 1959 E F Rock Cr 2 Adult Female, 1 Cub Hunter Kill 1959 W F Thompson R 4 Adult Female, 3 Cubs Unknown 1959 Cliff Cr 1 Unknown Unknown 1960 Prospect Cr 2 Adult Female, 1 Cub Unknown 1964 Graves Cr 2 Subadults Unknown 1964 Wanless Lk 3 Subadults (Adult Wounded) Unknown 1965 Snowshoe Cr 2 Subadulls Unknown 1968 Bear Cr 1 Adult Female Illegal Kill 1968 Granite Cr 1 Subadult Male Nuisance 1969 Priscilla Pk 1 Adult Female Unknown 1970 Thompson R 1 Unknown Unknown 1970 Cameron Cr 1 Subadult Male Unknown 1970 Squaw Cr 2 Adult Female, Subadult Female Nuisance 1971 Murr Cr 1 Adult Female Unknown 1972 Rock Cr 1 Subadult Mistaken Identity 1974 Swamp Cr 1 Adult Male Hunter Kill 1977 Rabbit Cr 1 Adult Male Unknown 1985 Lyons Cr 1 Adult Male Defense of Life 1986 Burnt Cr 1 Cub Unknown 1987 Flattail Cr 1 Female Cub Mistaken Identity 1988 Lewisby Cr 1 Adult Male Hunter Kill 1988 N F 17-Mile Cr 1 Adult Female Defense of Life 1989 Burnt Cr 1 Subadult Female Trap Mortality (Predation) 1990 Poverty Cr 1 Subadult Male Unknown 66 VIII. DAMAGE CONTROL A. NUISANCE GRIZZLY BEARS A discussion of nuisance grizzly bears was presented by Dood et al. (1986). The IGBC guidelines define a nuisance grizzly bear in the following three conditions: Nuisance: Condition A. The bear causes significant depredation to lawfully present livestock or uses unnatural food materials (human and livestock foods, garbage, home gardens, livestock carrion, and game meat in possession of man) which have been reasonably secured from the bear resulting in conditioning of the bear or significant loss of property. Condition B. The bear has displayed aggressive (not defensive) behavior toward humans which constitutes a demonstrable immediate or potential threat to human safety and/or a minor human injury resulted from a human/bear encounter. Condition C. The bear has had an encounter with people resulting in a substantial human injury or loss of human life. To update, better understand, and manage nuisance grizzly bear situations, data on nuisance bears were gathered from records collected by MDFWP, Animal Damage Control, the USFWS, and GNP from the years 1986-1990 (Appendix K). Information contained in these records is not complete because some problem situations involving grizzlies were not recorded, and records indicating that bears were involved without identifying the species were excluded. An "incident" is defined as a unique nuisance occurrence, isolated by location and date. There was a total of 129 incidents recorded during 1986-1990 in the entire NCDE south of Canada including GNP. Groups could consist of one to four bears. An average of 26 incidents occurred per year, involving an average of 24 groups of grizzlies per year (Table 8.1). The maximum number of individual grizzly bears involved in reported problem incidents averaged 35 per year. Many incidents involved grizzlies of unknown identity. Therefore, one bear may have been responsible for several incidents, inflating the number of individual grizzlies involved. Of the average 35 individual bears involved in incidents per year, 17% became mortalities. 67 Table 8. 1 . Summary of reported nuisance grizzly bear situations in the NCDB, 1986- 1990. East' West^ GNP' Unknown Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Incidents 67 52 31 24 29 22 2 2 129 Nuisance groups of grizzly bears 61 50 30 25 29 24 2 2 122 Individual bears'* 80 46 39 22 54 31 2 1 175 Transplants due to nuisance situations^ 22 65 10 29 2 6 0 0 34 ' Eiast of the Continental Divide ^ West of the Continental Divide ^ Glacier National Park Indicates maximum number of individual nuisance grizzly bears reported. This may be over-inflated since some individual bears could be reported more than once when identification to specific individuals is impossible * Indicates where transplant originated Of the incidents reported, 52% occurred east of the Continental Divide, 24% were west of the Continental Divide, and 22% were in GNP. This may not reflect a true picture of the situation due to biases in record keeping in different areas and the intensive nuisance bear prevention program occurring on the East Front. In the CYE, only one nuisance bear incident was recorded for the 1986-1990 time period. This was a grizzly bear mortality record resulting from defense of life in 1988. Category and Type of Nuisance In the NCDE, most problem incidents involved the general nuisance category (50%), 45% involved livestock, and 5% involved property (Table 8.2). The predominate type of incident was a threat to people and/or homes (33%). East of the Divide, cattle (39%), sheep (30%), and residence damage (16%) were the major types of problem grizzly incidents. Situations involving danger of injury to people were the predominate grizzly bear problems west of the Continental Divide (43%) and in GNP (90%). 68 Table 8.2. Percentage of nuisance grizzly bear incidents by category and type in the NCDE, 1986-1990. Category East West GNP NCDE Total Livestock 77 20 0 45 Property 6 3 3 5 Nuisance 17 77 97 50 Total 100 100 100 100 TYPE rattle 10 93 Sheep 30 7 0 17 Raided Camp 4 3 3 4 1 f\ 1 D 97 People/home 1 43 90 33 Beehives 6 0 0 3 Other 3 10 6 5 Total 99 100 99 100 Sixty-nine percent of 43 nuisance bears of known fate died during the six-year time period (Table 8.3). Closures on trails and/or campgrounds in GNP average 27 per year from 1986- 1990. These were to prevent dangerous encounters with grizzly bears (Table 8.4). Ten human injuries and two human fatalities resulting from grizzly bears have occurred during those five years (Appendix L). B. AVERSIVE CONDITIONING Recent research (Gillin et al. 1992) on nuisance grizzlies showed positive human avoidance trends to aversive conditioning techniques. This research was conducted in the Yellowstone Ecosystem, but the technique should also be applicable in the NCDE and warrants further investigation. The product "Counter Assault" (investigated by Dr. Charles Jonkel, University of Montana) has also shown positive results in deterring aggressive problem bears in captive situations. However, no quantitative data is available from bears in the wild. 69 Table 8.3. Known fate of nuisance grizzly bears in the NCDE, 1986-1990. Fate Number Percentage Management control 1 1 ZD illegal mortal ity 0 1 A Hunter kill 2 5 Alive 14 33 ^^^1 T-H^^fV*n CP* L' 1 1 1 OCII UCICIIoC Kill J 19 1 Kill under inquiry 2 5 Trap mortality 3 7 Total of Known Fate 43 102 ' 7 of these were live removals to zoos or research facilities Table 8.4. Glacier National Park bear sightings, incidents, and management actions 1986-1990. 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Sightings: Grizzly Unknown 1 44R 1 HHO 1089 259 1 Z.O J 1265 345 890 324 1 900 1,318 327 OOVJ 686 343 TOTAL 2,796 2,895 2,162 2,935 1,909 Human fatalities due to grizzlies 0 2 0 0 0 Personal Injuries due to: Black Grizzly Unknown 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 Closures (temporary trail and/or campground) 31 36 22 27 20 Incidents of Property Damage 2 1 2 2 2 Bear Fatalities from management actions Black Grizzly 0 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 0 0 Bears translocated (within Park) Black Grizzly 6 0 3 2 1 0 4 0 1 0 Bears translocated (outside park) Black Grizzly 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 70 C. TRANSLOCATION OF NUISANCE GRIZZLIES Riley et al. (1992 in press) examined translocation records of nuisance grizzly bears in northwestern Montana. Tiie study: (1) described the type of bears involved in conflicts, (2) determined factors affecting translocation success, and (3) tested the hypothesis that translocation is a feasible method to control mortality of grizzly bears. Males comprised 58% of all translocated bears. The median age of all bears was 3.5 yr., and the modal age was 2.5 year. Subadults comprised a significantly greater proportion of the nuisance bear population than the wild population. Livestock, residential, garbage, and apiary oriented offenses represented 30, 40, 20, and 4% of the total, respectively. Sex was the only variable that significantly predicted success. Females were more likely to be successfully translocated. Bears older than 1.5 yr were successfully translocated 44% of the time among first time translocations; this declined to 15% for bears moved more than one time. Thirty-eight percent of the translocated bears died within two years of translocation. The average cost of a capture and translocation was $1,038.00, not including personnel salaries and administrative costs. An aggressive program focused on preventative action was recommended as a better way to deal with problem situations. The MDFWP is implementing this approach in its management efforts. D. COMPENSATION/REIMBURSEMENT There is no government-sponsored program to reimburse livestock operators for animals lost to grizzly bears. However, during the last five years (1986-1990), the Great Bear Foundation paid $20,000 in grizzly depredation reimbursement claims (Bill Callaghan 1992, pers. comm.). E. SANITATION Sixty-two percent of grizzly bear problems in the Greater Yellowstone area were due to sanitation problems on private lands surrounding the Park (Ellig et al. 1990). The Yellowstone Subcommittee of the IGBC assigned a task force to look into alternatives/ strategies for managing attractants on these private lands. In the NCDE, similar problems exist which contribute to nuisance situations. A sanitation program is currently being developed by the NCDE management subcommittee of the IGBC to address these concerns. In addition, the MDFWP is addressing concerns about possible sanitation related problems through its local management plans (Appendix M). A sanitation program has also been established for the CYE by the Northwest Ecosystem Subcommittee. The program is currently inventorying sites and identifying potential problems. 71 MDFWP and Animal Damage Control (USDA) have a cooperative program to prevent and minimize damage caused by grizzlies, black bears, and mountain lions (Appendix N). 72 IX. HUMAN INTERACTIONS A. HABITAT ENCROACHMENT MDFWP has recognized and is continuing to deal with habitat encroachment problems (see Recommendations section, page 104). The immediate and long-term effects of human activities and habitation within grizzly bear habitat have been well documented and discussed in the EIS (Dood et al. 1986). In addition, McLellan and Shackleton (1988) documented a situation where resource extraction industries contributed indirectly to grizzly bear mortalities. His findings indicated that such activities can disrupt bear behavior, create additional energy costs, cause displacement, alter habitat, disrupt bear social interactions, and improve access to bear habitat for hunters and poachers. Recent human activities involving habitat encroachment are also documented in the CYE (Kasworm and Manley 1988) and on the East Front (Aune and Kasworm 1989). B. FIRE SUPPRESSION Fire is a natural and essential ecological component in the northern Rocky Mountains. Hammer and Herrero (1987) found that snags and deadfalls resulting from fire created feeding sites. They also speculated that in the absence of recurring wildfire, successional trends could result in a loss of grizzly bear feeding habitat. Prescribed fires are recognized by the Forest Service as important management tools, but wildfires are considered undesirable phenomena (Risbrudt 1989, Tomascak 1989). Wildfires are suppressed equally inside and outside of wilderness areas, with objectives being to maintain the least expenditure of funds and loss of value in resource outputs and opportunities (Risbrudt 1989). Table 9. 1 summarizes the number and size of wildfires and prescribed fires in the Bob Marshall/Great Bear, Cabinet and Scapegoat/Danaher wilderness areas during 1986- 1990. Fires in the NCDE have burned over 300,000 -h wilderness acres (Forest Service, National Park, and private) since 1985. This should be good for grizzlies in the long term and was recommended as an important component of grizzly bear management in the 1986 EIS. Although fire in some areas probably has mostly positive effects, in others it can be detrimental because of removal of security cover where this is a limiting factor on bear populations. In addition, allowing natural fires to escape wilderness areas and burn onto private lands has created hardships for some private landowners. 73 Table 9.1. Number and size of fires in the three wilderness areas in the NCDE, 1986-1990. Boh Marshall/ Great Bear Cabinet Scapegoat/Danaher Year w iiurires Prescrihed w iiuiires Prescribed w iiUTire Prescribed sunnrf sswl naturnl tire 'iiinnre'ssed siinnrt^'s*\p(l riHtiirMl firp llCliUlCtl 1 1 1 V/ 1 700 n 1 2 1 1 0 0 Acres 1 1 n u n u A U 1 yo 1 a IT 0 6 0 1 0 1 Acres 0 u 19 1 ji. 1 n u 0 u 0 9 L IQRR M n 36 4 3 0 5 2 Acres 701 50,002 0 8 60,748 # n 6 0 0 0 1 0 Acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990 10 1 0 0 2 0 Acres 1 0 0 0 2 0 TOTAL n 53 13 4 2 8 3 Acres 703 50,324 10 60,750 C. VEGETATION MANIPULATIONS Recent practices involving vegetation manipulation in the NCDE include programs associated with the Libby Habitat Enhancement Project, the Hungry Horse Habitat Enhancement Project, and the Habitat Protection Project (Nyberg 1991). Mitigation plans were developed by MDFWP in 1984 and 1985 to compensate for impacts to wildlife habitat as a result of construction of Libby and Hungry Horse dams (Wood 1991). These plans identified the need to protect 8,950 acres of riparian habitat for grizzly and black bears in northwestern Montana. Habitat protection was identified as the preferred strategy because techniques for enhancing bear habitat on public lands (chiefly USPS) are currently unknown or of limited success or value. The mitigation plans specified that mitigation should occur on lands where secure habitat is at risk. Habitat protection could be achieved by use of a variety of tools including conservation easements, fee-title acquisitions, and/or cooperative agreement with landowners. Initially, projects were developed and funded directly through Bonneville Power Administration. As of January 1, 1991, all projects will be funded by the Wildlife Mitigation Trust Settlement Agreement. 74 To date, two projects specific for grizzly and black bears have been completed. A conservation easement was purchased on the Rocky Bar O Ranch along the North Fork of the Flathead River (Appendix O). A total of 512 acres was restricted by a no- development easement to protect critical riparian habitat. BPA mitigation funds were used to acquire easements on 408 of these acres of the Rocky Bar O Ranch. As a result of these easements and further negotiations, 582 additional acres of this ranch were acquired in fee title. As a result of these negotiations, one section of land (640 acres) in the Swan Valley was also restricted by a conservation easement to protect bear habitat. A total of over 1700 acres of important grizzly bear habitats was protected as a result of this project. A second project to protect bear habitat was completed in September 1990 in the CYE. A conservation easement was placed on 107 acres of private land in the Copper Creek drainage of the Bull River which limits further development of this property and restricts activities that would conflict with bear use. The Bear Tree Challenge, a program on the Lewis and Clark National Forest, is intended to restore about 1 ,000 acres of prime foraging habitat for grizzly bears over five years (1989-1994) through integrated management using tree harvest, planned fires, and planting of forage trees (Diamond 1991). See Appendix P for a more detailed description of the program and the individual environment assessments. D. DISTURBANCE FROM HUMAN ACTIVITIES Effects of roads and access as factors of disturbance and mortality on grizzly bears was reviewed by Dood et al. (1986). Studies since then confirm that discussion. Archibald et al. (1987) found that adult female grizzly bears significantly changed their pattern of use near zones of log-hauling activity in British Columbia. Mattson et al. (1987) indicated that adult female and subadult grizzly bears have higher energy costs due to avoidance of developments and roads which may result in higher mortality and lower productivity among this cohort. Kasworm and Manley (1990) found that grizzlies used habitat 0-9 14m from open roads and 0-122 m. from open trails, significantly less than expected during spring and fall in the Cabinet Mountains. They also determined that when a road was opened, grizzly bears moved greater distances between radio locations than when the road was closed. Research in the backcountry of Yellowstone National Park documented that when such areas were open to hikers, grizzly activity was significantly reduced in areas greater than 500 m from forest cover, and bears avoided areas around occupied campsites (Gunther 1990). 75 A study (Smith and VanDaele 1990) investigating impacts of hydroelectric development on brown bears in Alaska found that bears were not displaced from their home range when the development occurred. However, they did tend to avoid open areas and shifted use to dense, secure cover. These authors expressed concern for potential long-term negative impacts to grizzlies due to improved vehicular and foot access, and increased incentive for development. E. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS Public perception and support of grizzly bear recovery and management programs are pivotal to the long term success of those programs. Scientific research since 1985 has increased knowledge about the impacts and use of these perceptions and tolerances in wildlife management programs. This knowledge is currently being used to improve the long term management program in the NCDE. Steven Kellert (1985) describes the importance of socio-economic and perceptual factors in the management of endangered species. "Most endangered species programs tend to emphasize biological assessments and technical solutions. Additionally, attempts to consider the social context of endangerment are typically narrow in perspective and inclined to stress economic and monetary problems. Despite the mandate of the ESA to consider aesthetic, ecological, education, historical, recreational, and scientific values of wildlife, most endangered species efforts omit consideration of these values." He also stated: "An approach to the species preservation problem suggesting that its causes and solutions are woven into the fabric of modern society implicitly assumes the need to examine fundamental social and perceptual forces." The concept of a social consideration in defining recovery programs was further elaborated in "Toward a Concept of Wildlife Management." (Decker and Purdy 1988). "This concept reflects the maximum wildlife population level in an area that is acceptable to people. Wildlife Acceptance Capacity is particularly useful for assessing how wildlife population management decisions may affect public opinion." They also stated "like biological carrying capacity, several dynamic factors limit wildlife acceptance capacity; therefore, wildlife acceptance capacity is not a static number. These factors include people's acceptance, thresholds for various forms of damage and nuisance associated with a particular wildlife species in a given situation, perceived competition of a species in disease transmission to humans or their domestic animals, and the values humans place on species of concern such as economic, aesthetic, ecological, educational, scientific, and intrinsic values." They further state that "toward that end, we believe the concept of Wildlife Acceptance Capacity can be valuable for developing and applying affective wildlife management strategies." They also suggested that this concept could very well be applied to such wildlife related issues as the presence of grizzly bears. Dood et al. (1986:114) suggested just such an approach when they stated: "public attitudes and perceptions of the grizzly bear and its management are probably the most critical factors for successful management of the grizzly bear." 76 The concept of Wildlife Acceptance Capacity sets the stage for the development of a reasonable program for grizzly bear management. Decker and Purdy (1988) suggest that "just as biological carrying capacity can be affected by purposeful intervention by management (eg. setting back plant succession), Wildlife Acceptance Capacity can also be manipulated (eg. educational efforts)." People not only live, work, and recreate in bear country, but bears in the NCDE have also extended their range into areas occupied by people. Use of the concept of Wildlife Acceptance Capacity allows us to develop a program which will promote bear recovery not only in this ecosystem but also in other areas in the future. 77 X. RESEARCH PROGRAM Grizzly bear research in the NCDE and CYE since the EIS (Dood et al. 1986) has been conducted in the following areas: Study Area Agency(s) Researcher Years/ Status South Fork of the Flathead River Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Keith Aune Rick Mace Tim Manley 1987-1990 Ongoing North Fork of the Flathead River U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, British Columbia Forest Service, British Columbia Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Fred Hovey Bruce McLellan Ongoing East Front Research Validation of the East Front Cumulative Effects Model Montana Department of Fish, wiiuiiie and rarKS Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Keith Aune Keith Aune 1986-1988 1986-1988 Cabinet/Yaak U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Wayne Kasworm Timothy Thier Ongoing Blackfeet Indian Reservation Bureau of Indian Affairs Daniel Carney Ongoing Glacier National Park Glacier National Park, University of Montana Kate Kendall Lee Metzgar Ongoing Wildlife Research Laboratory Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Keith Aune Phil Schladweiler Ongoing For information on publications of these studies, see Literature Cited under the various researchers' names. Objectives of these studies follow: 78 EAST FRONT (1977-1987) Objectives: 1. Review and analyze previously accumulated data on grizzly bears 2. Further delineate and detlne essential habitat and important use areas within the study area 3. Determine impacts associated with oil and gas exploration and other human activities 4. Make recommendations to protect and maintain grizzly populations and habitat. Specific information regarding plant phenology and presence of bear foods, grizzly bear habitat requirements on a seasonal basis, population numbers on a seasonal and year long basis, food habits on a seasonal basis, interaction with other wildlife species, and bear home ranges, movements, and distribution were gathered. SOUTH FORK OF THE FLATHEAD RIVER Population Study 1988 Job Objective - The primary goal of the population study is to identify factors limiting grizzly bears, and develop reliable and practical methods to determine population status and trend. Objectives include: 1. Measure population parameters long term and assess their reliability in determining population status and trend. These include such parameters as population size, density, females with cubs, sex, and age structure 2. Quantify costs associated with population census estimates and trend monitoring programs 3. Identify the limiting factors of grizzly bears in the South Fork Flathead (including habitat availability, habitat modifications and losses, and population related factors such as intra-specific competition, man-caused and natural mortality) 1989 Job Objective - The goal of the program was to develop and test the tools and methodologies to survey grizzly bears using remote, self-activating camera units in a fashion capable of documenting the presence and individual identity of grizzly bears. Specific objectives were to: 79 1. build approximately 30 camera units 2. identify and construct approximately 30 sample sites within the South Fork Flathead study area 3. sample the grizzly bear population during the pre-berry, berry, and post-berry foraging seasons 4. develop the sampling criteria to optimize sample site selection, sampling period, baiting procedures, and camera performance 5. use information from radio-instrumented grizzly bears to document the percent of bears sampled, differences in photographic capture rate among age and sex classes, and optimum sampling intensity 6. evaluate the technique as a grizzly bear sampling method. 1990 Population Enumeration Job Objective 1. develop population size and density estimates 2. determine population parameters including a. age and sex ratios b. litter sizes c. age of first reproduction d. age distribution e. causes and rates of mortality f. reproduction rates 3. develop several reliable trend monitoring techniques 4. determine home range size, fidelity, and overlap 5. determine costs associated with population census estimates and trend monitoring programs 1990 - Use of Systematically Deployed Remote Cameras to Monitor Grizzly Bears Job Objectives - The goal of the program was to develop and test the tools and methodologies to survey grizzly bears using remote, self-activating camera units in a fashion capable of documenting the presence and individual identity of grizzly bears. The specific objectives of the 1990 program were to: 1. Continue testing remote camera sampling procedures to determine best criteria for a. sample site selection b. sampling period c. bait type and baiting procedures d. camera deployment procedures. 2. Determine percent of known bears sampled by remote camera 3. Document differences in detection by age and sex of bears, by sampling season 80 4. Determine probable sampling intensity required to sample a Bear Management Unit 5. Evaluate the camera technique as a grizzly bear monitoring method. Habitat Use and Disturbance Studies 1988-1990 The primary goal of the habitat study is to obtain quantitative information on how bears select habitat and what influence road traffic has on habitat use. Specific study objectives include: 1. Determine if vegetative community-type importance values correlate with frequency of community types used by radioed bears 2. Determine if the Landsat Vegetation Classification System developed for the study area adequately classify grizzly bear habitat and whether importance values can be derived 3. Compare importance values derived from micro-site analysis of bear locations with importance values derived for community types and associated Landsat class 4. Determine the effects of roads on the use of habitat by grizzly bears and how traffic on roads influences habitat effectiveness. NORTH FORK OF THE FLATHEAD RIVER Objective - 1. Document aspects of grizzly bear population dynamics (bear density rate and causes of mortality, and natality rate) during a period of rapid resource industry development, to determine if and how their demography was affected. CABINET-YAAK 1988 Objectives - 1. Review and analyze all previously collected data on grizzly bear distribution, movements, and habitat-use in the Cabinet Mountains 2. Determine general seasonal patterns regarding distribution, movement corridors, habitat use and preference, food habits, and behavioral patterns of radio-collared grizzly bears 3. Use collected data to make recommendations regarding validation or modification of the Cumulative Effects Analysis Process and other management policies 81 4. Conduct black bear (Ursus americanus) studies incidental to grizzly bear investigations to provide basic ecological data on local black bear populations. Black bear productivity, population status, habitat-use, distribution movements, and behavioral data were gathered and analyzed. 1989 and 1990 Objectives - 1. Document grizzly bear distribution in that portion of the Cabinet/ Yaak Ecosystem north of the Kootenai River consisting primarily of the Yaak River drainage 2. Describe the characteristics of the Yaak area grizzly bear population in terms of reproductive success, age structure, mortality causes, and estimates of numbers of bears using the area 3. Determine habitat use and movement patterns of grizzly bears in the area. Determine habitat preference by season and assess the relationship between habitats affected by man such as logged areas and grizzly bear habitat use. Determine seasonal movement patterns of grizzly bears and movement between the Cabinet Mountains to the south of the Kootenai River and the Yaak area to the north of the Kootenai River 4. Determine the relationship between human activity and grizzly bear habitat use through the description of avoidance zones (should they exist) and the use of habitat in relation to ongoing logging, open and closed roads, and human residences 5. Suggest management techniques to limit human-induced mortality of grizzly bears 6. Provide data in a format that could be integrated in the Selkirk/Cabinet- Yaak Cumulative Effects Model 7. Conduct black bear studies incidental to grizzly bear investigations to determine interspecific relations. Data on black bear densities, movements, habitat use, and food habits relative to grizzly bears will be gathered and analyzed. 8. To test grizzly bear augmentation techniques in the Cabinet Mountains to determine if translanted bears will remain in the area of release and ultimately contribute to the population through reproduction. BLACKFEET INDIAN RESERVATION STUDY 1987-1990 Objectives - 1. Determine the seasonal distribution and seasonal habitat use of grizzly bears on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation 2. Describe and locate grizzly bear habitat on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation 82 3. Determine the extent of movement of grizzly bears between tiie Blackfeet Indian Reservation and neighboring lands 4. Document grizzly bear mortalities and causes of mortality on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. GLACIER NATIONAL PARK Population trends based on ground survey information Objectives - Survey trails in Glacier National Park for bear tracks and scats during five consecutive years. Use this data to generate a model that simulates the occurrence of bear sign on trails to monitor long-term trends of dispersed populations. Berry Production Study WILDLIFE RESEARCH LABORATORY Objectives 1. Determine the cause of death, animal condition, food habits, and relative health of grizzly bears through standard necropsy techniques 2. Monitor the parasites and diseases of grizzly bears in Montana 3. Evaluate the reproductive performance of female grizzly bears in Montana 4. Conduct morphological and comparative anatomical studies on grizzly bears. Other ongoing research in the NCDE includes: Study Area Agencies Researcher Identification of bear scats to species by thin-layer chromatography GNP, MSU, INT Harold Picton Environmental relationships of cow parsnip INT Campbell Communicating appropriate behavior in grizzly country UM, INT McCool Effects of hexazinone on soil water and plants UM, NAPIAP, INT Stark Fate of two forms of hexazinone in huckleberry fields UM, NAPIAP, INT Stark Prototype model for assessment of cumulative effects GNP, USPS, NPS, BLM, SEM, INT Bevan Vegetative productivity of grizzly bear habitat components FWS, INT, USPS Vandehey 83 XI. ENFORCEMENT Department enforcement efforts concerning grizzly bears are focused in three areas: patrols of both wilderness and non-wilderness areas, damage control, and poaching investigation. Wilderness and nonwilderness areas are patrolled during the general hunting season as well as other times. Camps are checked for harvested game and compliance with outfitter regulations. Response to nuisance bear complaints involves many MDFWP personnel in some capacity, although enforcement personnel are frequently contacted first. MDFWP enforcement personnel investigate and prosecute all violations involving illegal mortality. Cases are processed through the county attorney's office or turned over to the USFWS when they appear to involve interstate movement of grizzly bear parts or prosecution under the ESA. The MDFWP also coordinates with federal officials in undercover operations. Ten cases of illegal grizzly bear mortalities were investigated in the NCDE during 1986-1990 (Appendix Q). Three investigations are still open, four were not prosecuted or resulted in acquittals, and five resulted in convictions with a total of $20,000 in fines. One conviction is currently under appeal. The Cabinet- Yaak Grizzly Bear Mortality Task Force was created under the direction of the Northwest Ecosystems Managers Subcommittee. It is comprised of representatives from local industry, USES, MDFWP, USFWS, and other interested members of the public. The charge of this group was to reduce mortality of grizzly bears in the CYE. Methods used to date include public information, law enforcement coordination among agencies, changes in existing regulations, and inventory of sanitation facilities. Suggestions for improving these facilities to reduce human-bear conflicts are being developed. 84 XII. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION Statewide Activities - Grizzly Identification and Conservation Education Efforts 1986- 1990 1. SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS (APPENDIX R) Bear identification posters continued to be distributed until spring 1988 when wallet-sized bear I.D. cards were developed. These were distributed to all MDFWP regional offices and license agents statewide with instructions to give a card to each sportsman purchasing a black bear license or Sportsman's license. Distribution of the cards to black bear license purchasers has continued to date, and they have also proved popular for distribution at sports shows and fairs across Montana. In summer 1990 at the request of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, the cards were adapted for use by several states and federal agencies. Almost 100,000 cards have been printed and distributed throughout Montana and other western states. Bear identification information continues to be included in MDFWP's annual big game hunting regulations as well as in black bear hunting regulations. Montana Outdoors, MDFWP's official publication, is as a valuable means for educating the public about concerns surrounding management of the grizzly. Since 1986, four articles concerning grizzlies and their management have appeared in the magazine (May/June 1986, May/June 1987, May/June 1989, and May/June 1990). The Catchall Section of the magazine's September/October 1986 issue included information and drawings designed to aid hunters in distinguishing black bears from grizzlies. The May /June 1987 issue featured an article accompanied by 18 photographs specifically geared toward educating the public about the differing physical characteristics of black bears and grizzlies. In spring 1989, the Conservation Education Division of the MDFWP contracted with the Department of Speech Communication at Montana State University to develop a comprehensive Public Information Plan for the agency's bear identification program. Information efforts since fall 1989 have followed recominendalions presented by the plan's developers including printing and distributing "Know the Bear Facts" stickers to hunters. 2. MEDIA EFFORT News releases specifically detailing ways to distinguish grizzlies from black bears or advising hunters to learn ways to recognize the different species were sent to over 200 print and electronic news outlets (including most in-state and many national) on the following dates: April 11, April 18, May 2, Sept. 12, and Oct. 3, 1986; April 10, Sept. 85 4, and Sept. 11, 1987; April 8, 1988; April 7, 1989; and April 12, 1991. Montana Outdoors Newspaper Columns dealing with bear identification were included in packets sent on April 11 and June 6, 1986; April 24, 1987; April 22, 1988; and April 13, 1990. Radio Public Service Announcements encouraging bear hunters to know the differences between black bears and grizzlies including brief descriptions of physical characteristics were developed and distributed to over 20 statewide radio stations for play during the following months: April 1986, April and May 1987, Sept. 1987, April and May 1988, April and May 1989, and April 1990. 3. BEAR EDUCATION EFFORTS WITH PROJECT WILD Bear boards exhibiting the differences between black and grizzly bear tracks and skulls were made available to Project WILD facilitators and local Bozeman educators in 1989. A presentation was made on grizzly bears to 50 educators attending the Montana Education Association meeting held in Bozeman October 18, 1990. 4. ADDITIONAL STATEWIDE EFFORTS MDFWP Regional Information Officers continue to emphasize bear identification through radio programs, presentations to various groups, and in talks to hunter safety classes. Hunter safety instructors have incorporated identification of all game animals including bears in their hunter safety curricula. 86 XIII. RECREATION MANAGEMENT Dood et al. (1986) discussed recreational activities occurring in grizzly bear habitat in the NCDE including campgrounds, groomed snowmobile trails, and outfitting. More recently, the grizzly bear compendium (IGBC 1987) presented a literature review pertaining to recreational management which addresses campgrounds, trails and back country use, and consumptive recreational use management. The MDFWP continues to work with the IGBC to further refine its recreation management programs so that the requirements of grizzlies are addressed. 87 XIV. LAND MANAGEMENT A. MDFWP LANDS MDFWP lands where grizzly bear management programs are in place include the Sun River, Ear Mountain, Blackleaf, and Blackfoot Clearwater (Dryer Ranch) Wildlife Management Areas, and the DeRozier Unit of the Kootenai Wildlife Management Area. On the DeRozier Unit, roads are closed yearlong to exclude traffic when elk, deer, and grizzly bears use the area. The Sun River, Ear Mountain, and Blackleaf Wildlife Management Areas are all along the Rocky Mountain East Front and extensively used by grizzly bears. Grizzly bear management on these areas follows the Interagency Rocky Mountain Front Management Guidelines (BLM 1987), These guidelines regulate human activities to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to grizzly bears. Other lands set aside for managing grizzlies on the East Front include the Sun River Game Preserve, the Pine Butte Swamp Preserve, and the Boone and Crockett Ranch. Also, many private ranches are very tolerant of grizzly bear presence on their properties. Six land purchases and leases benefitting grizzlies both directly and indirectly by benefiting other species have occurred since 1986 (Table 14.1). B. NORTHWEST POWER ACT - GRIZZLY 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 2. to develop the region's electric power and conservation plan. The act also specified that the Bonneville Power Authority must use all its funding and legal resources to implement the purposes of the act MDFWP, in conjunction with other entities and agencies, assessed wildlife losses and developed mitigation and enhancement plans for five northwestern Montana hydroelectric projects (Libby, Hungry Horse, Noxon Rapids, Cabinet Gorge, and Thompson Falls). Specific wildlife mitigation projects for each of the five dams, including those to benefit the grizzly bear, have been recommended. Iinpacts to the grizzly bear were identified for all five facilities with the greatest documented for the Hungry Horse project. The Hungry Horse mitigation program is a high priority for the grizzly bear and calls for approximately 10,000 acres of easement or acquisition within 88 Table 14.1 MDFWP wildlife protection areas purchased or leased 1986-1990 in the NCDE and CYE. Date Location Acres Primary Species Benefitted 3/87 Alberton WMA (Dept. State Lands) Clark Fork River lease 666 Elk 9/87 Island - Buffalo Head Park (Stillwater River) 4.5 Nongame bird and mammal species 6/88 Kitpatrick-Kootenai River Wildlife Management Area 65.5 Bighorn sheep 3/89 Thompson Falls, Clark Fork Wildlife Habitat Protection Area 209 Nongame bird and mammal species 10/89 Dryer Purchase in addition, leases with: Chamninn Intprnafinnal Department of State Lands Plum Creek 2,960 12 822 1,640 160 Elk, deer, sandhill crane, riparian bird snecies 1/90 East Thompson Falls (Mt. Silcox) 1,552 Bighorn Sheep the North Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead River. Currently, the Habitat Protection Project addresses concerns for grizzlies (Appendix S). C. BURLINGTON NORTHERN MANAGEMENT A memorandum of agreement signed by Burlington Northern, MDFWP, GNP, and the Lewis and Clark and Flathead National Forests addressed grizzly bear management concerns along the corridor between East and West Glacier (Appendix T). This agreement will greatly assist in assuring grizzly bear use of this area and maintaining the travel corridor between Glacier National Park and the rest of the ecosystem to the south. 89 XV. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION Montana is currently a member of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. The committee meets at least twice a year to coordinate all grizzly bear management and research activities of the agencies involved. Three management subcommittees (Yellowstone, Northern Continental Divide, and Northwest) and a research subcommittee were formed to implement the actions outlined by the IGBC. These subcommittees also meet at least twice each year. MDFWP personnel spend 20-30 days per year attending these committee and subcommittee meetings. Additional time is spent responding to proposals for action presented to the committees. In addition to the IGBC, the MDFWP meets at least once annually with the USPS and BLM to coordinate activities and resolve management problems. MDFWP has three wildlife biologists participating in the interagency cumulative effects process. The MDFWP also coordinates with the USFWS through their local Endangered Species Enhancement office in Helena and grizzly bear recovery coordinator. This coordination primarily involves Section 7 (ESA) consulting on development activities for public land, responding to nuisance grizzly complaints, and reviewing ongoing management programs. The Section 7 consultation procedure begins when a federal agency (usually the USES or BLM) requests a list of threatened or endangered species present in the project area from the USFWS. Next, the requesting federal agency makes a determination, usually in the form of an environmental assessment, as to whether the particular project may affect the continued existence of the grizzly bear or adversely modify its habitat. If the federal agency makes a "may affect" determination, they must initiate the consultation process with the USFWS. A biological opinion is then rendered by the USFWS. A jeopardy opinion must include reasonable and prudent alternatives which must be implemented if the project is to proceed. Unless the measures listed are met by the developer, the federal agency initiating the consultation then denies the project. However, these alternatives may result in some impacts to the grizzly because all impacts cannot be foreseen. Because no legal authority is granted MDFWP in these consultations, our role is primarily to provide information and suggest action. Nuisance grizzly complaints are coordinated with the USFWS through their grizzly bear recovery coordinator. Nuisance grizzly guidelines have been developed for both the NCDE and CYE. Current procedures require a conference call between involved agency contacts prior to any action. The MDFWP has authority to determine the fate of the bear if agreement cannot be reached between the agencies. MDFWP personnel or U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control agents implement relocation or control of grizzly bears outside national parks and Indian reservations. Relocation of a grizzly bear requires prior approval of the appropriate landowner (usually USES) where the bear is to be released. 90 As discussed earlier, cooperative management guidelines have been developed for the RMEF. Guidelines for hardrock mining activities are also being developed in the Cabinet Mountains through a coordinated research study in that area. The MDFWP and wildlife managers in British Columbia and Alberta hold grizzly bear coordination meetings on an annual basis to integrate grizzly bear mortality and habitat management information. Current efforts are being directed toward developing a long term habitat map for Montana and the two provinces in Canada as well as maintaining and promoting shared grizzly bear populations. 91 SECTION XVI. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Management alternatives were presented and discussed in detail by Dood et al. (1986). The preferred alternative, using hunting as a management tool, was being pursued by MDFWP during 1986-1990 and remains the preferred alternative for both the NCDE and the CYE (Appendix A). However, the difference in population status in the two ecosystems dictates a different management option for each. The population status in the CYE continues to indicate that the recommended management action there should be those listed under Population Status A by Dood et al. (1986), and the grizzly hunting season should remain closed. The present status of grizzly bears in the NCDE is stable to increasing at an estimated minimum population of 294 (excluding Glacier National Park). We continue to recommend a regulated hunting season under Population Status C (Dood et al. 1986). In the fall of 1991, a lawsuit was filed against the USFWS in Washington D.C. to stop the hunting of grizzlies. Three days prior to the start of the fall hunt, a preliminary injunction was issued against the hunt. Loss of hunting as a management tool will, in the long run, result in an increase in illegal kills, more self-defense kills, and more people being injured and killed by bears due to reduced wariness and habituation to people. Incentives for grizzly bear recovery in other areas will also decline. Efforts should now be directed at regaining the use of hunting as a management tool. Further, the MDFWP recommends that a hunting season be conducted under a total mortality quota and a female mortality subquota, both of which would apply only to the NCDE. Regulated hunting as a management tool for grizzlies has a long successful history in Montana. Reasons why hunting is such an important tool for promoting long term recovery and survival of grizzlies is discussed briefly. Regulated hunting allows us to select against unwary bears or bears that associate and habituate to people. This selection for a "wariness" in the bear population has long been noted. Theodore Roosevelt in 1885 stated: "Constant contact with rifle-carrying hunters, for a period extending over many generations of bear-life, has taught the grizzly by bitter experience that man is his undoubted overlord, as far as fighting goes; and this knowledge has become a hereditary characteristic (emphasis added). No grizzly will assail a man now unprovoked, and one will almost always rather run than fight; ...". This approach was also recognized in the 1975 USFWS rule which stated that isolated taking of nuisance bears is not sufficient by itself to prevent numerous depredations, threats to human safety, or selection for wary bears. In contrast, a regulated hunt does select against unwary bears and creates a fear of man. This instills wariness in individual bears, keeping them from becoming problem animals and promotes 92 the long-term survival of the bear population and of people who come into contact with bears. Without benefit of a regulated hunt, MDFWP response to conflict situations can only occur after they have developed. Because wildlife populations produce surplus animals, some can be removed, and the population can still increase. Population estimates and trend data for the NCDE as well as other data indicates this is the case. It is important to make the distinction between regulated removal as we now know it and the unregulated mortalities that occurred in the past. Current highly managed and regulated hunting programs can promote population increases and recovery. At the turn of the century, the situation was unregulated. Bears were persecuted and killed without provocation, license, limit, or season and in excessive numbers. The State of Montana's grizzly bear management program uses hunting as only one tool among many to promote the long-term conservation of the grizzly bear. The regulated public hunt must therefore be evaluated in the context of an overall bear management program and its efforts to promote recovery of this species. Evidence from this review demonstrates this management program has promoted recovery of the grizzly bear in Montana. The grizzly bear hunting portion of this program has been modified and quotas reduced despite evidence of an increasing population in the ecosystem. In addition, this management tool has been sparingly applied, and almost half of the ecosystem is totally closed to hunting in any one year. MDFWP's handling of the hunt has been conservative and continues to be so in order to promote long term survival of grizzly bears in Montana in viable numbers. Further, hunting pressure exerted on this population is too limited to result in loss of access by bears to substantial portions of the habitat. Hunting may alter the timing and nature of use of some habitats for short periods of time, but any negative impacts to the population are negligible when considering the size of the ecosystem and the limited amount of hunting allowed. Mortality records for 1975-1990 show that allowable mortality quotas have never been exceeded. These quotas were established at responsible yet conservative levels and have allowed the population to continue to increase. Quotas are reviewed annually. The MDFWP has also responded to recommendations from the USFWS and adjusted quotas in a responsible and reasonable way. Mortality rates in the NCDE are low, and MDFWP has made substantial efforts to protect the female segment of the population. The 1982 Recovery Plan recommended that the grizzly bear hunting program be examined annually in terms of its impact on population goals and to develop alternatives which assure compatibility betv/een sport hunting and goal attainment. Some of the alternatives suggested were to reduce female mortality by prohibiting the shooting of bears in groups of two or more. The MDFWP changed the regulations which prohibited the shooting of cubs or females accompanied by cubs to now prohibiting the shooting of 93 young or females accompanied by young. Young are defined as bears Vh years old and younger. In addition, current regulations request that hunters not shoot at any bear observed in a group to further protect females. The 1982 Recovery Plan also recommended considering a spring hunt (when females are less vulnerable) and dispersing the hunter density by use of special permits. That has been done where appropriate. The plan also recommended there be a set quota on man-induced female mortality. The MDFWP established its own quotas in 1983 and has fully abided by federal quotas since 1985. Additionally, MDFWP established its own female subquotas in an effort to distribute female mortality appropriately in the ecosystem. Finally, the plan recommended that consideration be given to closing the hunting season for grizzly bears in areas where a population segment might be stressed. The MDFWP has accommodated those concerns in areas such as the Mission Mountains where the season was closed even though legal hunting had long been a minor mortality factor in this area. In addition, the regulated hunt applies to only a portion of the ecosystem (approximately 55%). The remainder is closed to all grizzly bear hunting (Glacier National Park, Sun River Game Preserve, Mission Mountains, Blackfeet Indian Reservation, and portions of the Scapegoat and Swan Front density units). Because of female subquotas in the years 1986 - 1990, hunters took only six adult females. This is an additional indicator of how conservative the hunt has been. Another specific purpose of the regulated hunt is to remove nuisance animals. Information from Arizona studies (LeCount 1982) concerning black bear hunts over a period of years shows that 69% of the known nuisance bears were taken by hunters whereas only 14% of tagged "wild" bears were taken. The damage hunt can also be used as an expedient solution for removing nuisance animals in some situations. Finally, since some hunting mortalities occur in relatively remote areas, removal of bears in a regulated hunt allows opportunities for young and subadult bears to establish home ranges in areas away from people, further reducing bear-human conflicts. In summary, we continue to recommend a regulated hunting season for the following reasons: 1. An annual average of 2.6 grizzly bears were legally harvested between 1986-1990 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 or has slowed recovery. This population was increasing despite being harvested at higher rates in the past (Dood et al. 1986). 2. Hunters have legally harvested problem bears and bear/human conflicts have been reduced through such harvest. 94 3. Hunting reduces the need for agency control of problem bears. 4. Hunting selects against unwary bears and causes bears to be wary of humans. This promotes long term survival of the bear population in areas they share with humans. Hunting promotes better acceptance of this large and potentially life threatening animal by the local public who are asked to live with grizzlies, and this acceptance is a key to long term survival of the bear. The key to continued recovery of the grizzly is local public acceptance of the animals and faith in a comprehensive management program. If the local publics feel threatened by grizzlies or the management program, they will defend themselves as necessary. This in turn can have detrimental effects on existing grizzly populations and clearly limits opportunities for expanded recovery efforts due to local resistance. 5. Hunting grizzlies may increase cub survival and recruitment providing for population increase. While there is currently some scientific disagreement on this possibility, there is no question that harvest levels in the NCDE have been so low that any effect of regulated take on increasing cub survival and recruitment would be impossible to measure. 6. Hunters have been and continue to be one of the strongest supporters of long-term conservation efforts. Hunters have purchased more habitat than any other group in the NCDE (over 100,000 acres) and returned them to wildlife use including grizzly bears. This strong connection between hunters and habitat is critical to continued successes at restoring wildlife including grizzly bears. 7. Hunting allows the grizzly to be a social asset instead of being considered by some groups as a liability. Hunting provides revenues to governmental entities for enforcement of wildlife management regulations as well as alleviating potential costs and risks associated with problem animals. Without a regulated hunt, these costs must be paid by the government and the positive effects of grizzly hunting are lost to society. In addition, the presence of licensed hunters serves as a deterrent to illegal take of grizzlies. Regulated hunting has been used as only one tool among many to provide for the long term recovery and survival of grizzly bears. A regulated public hunt must therefore be evaluated in the context of an overall bear management program. A good example of the positive role hunting has played as well as an overall management program is available for the NCDE in northwest Montana (Dood et al. 1986). The role of hunting in this program was also recognized by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) when they unanimously passed the following resolution on August 27, 1991. The resolution states "That the IGBC go on record as being in support of Montana's Grizzly Bear Management Program, and specifically the use of hunting in the spring and fall as a sound biological approach to further the conservation and recovery of the grizzly bear in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem." 95 For these reasons, as well as others, it is imperative that efforts be directed at making necessary policy and statutory changes to ensure that regulated hunting remains available as an option for grizzly bear recovery and conservation programs. A. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING MANAGEMENT DIRECTION. The MDFWP continues to recommend that future management actions in each ecosystem be based on the population status of each area as determined by reviewing criteria listed below. It should be recognized that population status will not be determined by any single criteria; rather, the best available information from all 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. Several important factors were identified by Dood et al. (1986) that must be evaluated 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 Code of Federal Regulations, and the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan will be consulted. Observation of female with cubs and females with young will be compiled in reference to Recovery Plan criteria. 2. Results of grizzly bear population trend surveys. A systematic method to survey public and professional sectors will be developed. A survey has been developed for use in the Yellowstone area. The MDFWP is currently evaluating the applicability and necessity of this for the NCDE. 3. Professional opinion will be gathered at the annual meeting of the NCDE managers' subcommittee. 4. Public opinions and perceptions from biennial tentative season meetings will be solicited and evaluated, 5. Results of population and habitat research will be consulted. Specific changes in age structure, unreported 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 monitored as well. 96 7. Changes in the population status in Canada, and in U.S. and Canadian parks will be gathered through discussions with the appropriate management agencies. 8. Changes in state and federal road closure policies will be evaluated because they influence the susceptibility of grizzly bears to mortality. 9. Realized or perceived changes in the price of grizzly bear parts will be evaluated. Such changes may affect the level of profiteering. 10. Data, such as observations of and bear sign observations, will be gathered to document grizzly bear range expansions or contractions. This data will help evaluate changes in the population status. 1 1 . Management areas or management unit boundaries will be evaluated using all available evidence. 12. The number of conflict situations will be recorded annually. If a trend is apparent in four or five years of data, the program will be re-evaluated. 13. Grizzly bear management policies in Glacier National Park, the Flathead Indian Reservation, and the Blackfeet Indian Reservation will be evaluated in relation to MDFWP policies. 14. The number of transplants from or into each ecosystem will also be documented. As further information is accumulated on transplant success, the opportunities and limitations of transplants will continue to be evaluated. 15. Examine population augmentation as an effective management tool. 16. Evaluate the following mortality statistics: a. Sex ratio b. Median age by sex. c. Trends in total mortality should be evaluated in conjunction with other population statistics to determine if changes in mortality quotas are needed. 17. Record and evaluate litter sizes throughout the ecosystems each year. 97 18. Evaluate information from the annual hunter questionnaire to aid in the interpretation of population status. B. REGULATIONS Because the recommended management of the CYE population comes under Population Status A with a closed hunting season, no hunting regulations are recommended for the CYE at this time. However, because the NCDE population is judged as being under Status C (Dood et al. 1986) with the recommendation that the grizzly bear hunting season be open, the following new hunting regulations were recommended in 1986: 1. Bag limit of one grizzly in a lifetime. (Implemented) 2. Prohibit the taking of young and females accompanied by young. (Young are defined as two-year olds or younger). (Implemented) 3. 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. (Implemented) 4. Hunters must retain the hide and head from each grizzly bear taken. Evidence of sex must remain intact on the skin or carcass. (In effect since 1967) 5. Prohibit all persons from removing any portion of a grizzly bear from the State of Montana without first purchasing a trophy license. (In effect since 1967) 6. Hunters taking a grizzly bear must report the kill within 48 hours to an officer of the MDFWP. Furthermore, the hunter must personally present the hide and skull within 10 days to the MDFWP for inspection, tagging, and recording of kill. (Implemented in 1967) 7. Adjust the total or female mortality quota annually. (Implemented) 8. Request that hunters not shoot any bear in a group. (Implemented) C. GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT AREAS (BMAs) The MDFWP prefers to treat the entire CYE as one management unit for mortality management purposes. Little population or habitat information is available to recommend any other alternative. Research currently in progress (Kasworm and Manley 1988 and 1990, Kasworm and Thier 1990 and 1991) may provide information that would 98 change this recommendation. The FWS currently recognizes 22 BMUs in the NCDE (Fig. 5). However, these were established for reasons other than population management. Within the NCDE, the MDFWP recommended establishing five BMAs. However, practical concerns resulted in establishing three BMAs shown in Fig. 1.1. D. RECOMMENDED MORTALITY RATE FOR THE NCDE The total known human-caused mortality in the NCDE from 1986-1990 has averaged less than 12 bears annually. This is 4% of the current estimate of the minimum population (294) outside Glacier National Park. Based on this population estimate, calculated unreported man-caused mortality averages 1-3 bears a year for a total mortality of 13 to 15 bears or 4-5% of our estimate of the minimum population. Harris (1984a, b) indicated that an annual mortality rate of 6.5% is sustainable based on efforts to model the NCDE population as of 1985. The assumptions, methods, results, and interpretations of this stochastic, density-dependent model were presented by Dood et al. (1986). It should be noted that his model is based on very conservative assumptions and has not been validated. The ten-year review will consider Harris' model in more detail and make recommendations on its future use in our program. The current population status in the NCDE, the apparent trend of this population, and recommended and reported mortality rates in the literature indicate that a proposed total man-caused mortality rate (known and unreported) of 6.0% (18 bears) will not be excessive for the NCDE population and will allow for a continued population increase. Although MDFWP has chosen to exclude GNP from management consideration, it is important to relate the proposed mortality rate to the entire NCDE. The estimate of the minimum population for GNP is 198 bears. Thus, the estimate of the minimum population for the NCDE is 492 bears. Under the present quota recommendation, a maximum of 18 deaths would be allowed from this population. The mortality rate for the entire NCDE is less than 4% which easily allows for continued population growth. The female subquota is based on an allowable ratio of 40% females:60% males. Although it is important to minimize female mortality and MDFWP has worked to achieve this objective, such losses can not and do not need to be eliminated. Proposed harvest restrictions on females and relocation guidelines regarding females have reduced female mortality from that of previous years. 99 SECTION XVII. 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 MDFWP must demonstrate that the extraordinary case does exist before authorizing the taking of grizzly bears. Based on the past and current reviews, it is our judgement that the extraordinary case does in fact exist in the NCDE at this time and has since the 1975 listing of the bear. However, it is extremely important to realize that not only are biological considerations involved with the extraordinary case, but social concerns as well (see public perception discussion, page 76). Grizzly bears are extraordinary in that they do come into direct conflict with people (i.e. they do kill people and livestock and cause significant property damage). Therefore, it would be inappropriate to manage them in the same way as, for example, a peregrine falcon (also listed under the ESA). People will tolerate falcons in close proximity (in fact they nest on skyscrapers). However, the same cannot be said for grizzly bears. Most people are very uncomfortable in close proximity to grizzly bears, and many become very antagonistic where livestock depredation or property damage 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 foreseeable 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 The concept of carrying capacity as applied to population pressure has not been well-defined, and in the scientific community there is a difference of opinion as to its definition, application, and validity. However, the definition of carrying capacity and how it is applied is one that is critical to how the programs for grizzly bear recovery are perceived. It has been suggested that to demonstrate that the NCDE is experiencing excessive population pressure, it is necessary to document that the ecological carrying capacity of the land has been met or exceeded. "Ecological carrying capacity" is only one of many definitions of carrying capacity. Ecological carrying capacity is a theoretical concept that has not been clearly defined for any wildlife population (Moen 1973). To measure ecological carrying capacity requires extensive data on the bioenergetics of all age and sex classes (Kcal expended per day) and an in depth measurement of habitat quality (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 100 measure ecological carrying capacity with any reasonable accuracy nor is it necessary for effective management. Picton (1983) has developed an index to ecological carrying capacity utilizing climate. However, it does not include human influences on the system. Obviously, humans are part of the NCDE and influence carrying capacity. Caughley (1977) recognized four classes of overpopulation, the first of which occurs when "The Animals Threaten Human Life or Livelihood". This concept was further refined by Decker and Purdy (1988) and termed Wildlife Acceptance Capacity (see public perceptions discussion, page 76). This concept of "carrying capacity" is one which is most appropriately applied to grizzly bears in the NCDE. When the concept of Wildlife Acceptance Capacity is considered in light of the current situation in the NCDE, there is no question but that grizzly bear "population pressures" exist and that these pressures must be handled in a reasonable way which will allow the State of Montana to continue to promote recovery of the species. B. POPULATIONS Federal regulations define population as "a group of fish or wildlife in the same taxon and below the subspecific level in common spacial arrangement that interbreed when mature." Applying this definition to the NCDE, it is clear that it contains one continuous bear population. The grizzly bear population in the NCDE is not isolated from the remainder of the North American population, and interchange occurs freely between those segments of the population north of the NCDE in Canada and those to the south in Montana. Research projects have demonstrated that grizzly bears have the ability to freely move across all portions of the NCDE and beyond in certain locations. 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 on precise determinations of populations, but instead commonly utilizes professional judgments based on the best data available. Some critics of the 1986 EIS have asked for a high level of statistical confidence on population estimates that is in fact unattainable. Although it appears that statistical confidence across ecosystems is not possible in grizzly bear research, it is possible to have reasonable confidence as managers using the approach described in the density estimation section, and we are refining our estimates to increase statistical confidence on our study areas. The 1982 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982) estimated a population for the NCDE of 440-680 bears. The 1986 EIS, utilizing information which became available after 1982, estimated the population in the NCDE at a minimum of 549 bears and possibly as high as 813. These estimates indicated that the NCDE population was numerically at the levels required for recovery. Review of the best available information for this update (which uses more conservative estimates) 101 indicates the total population is currently 481-678 (X = 580). The population continues to be above recovery levels required in the 1982 plan. Population pressure should also be evaluated in light of the population trend. MDFWP recognizes that no single source of information is available that clearly indicates population trend in grizzly bears. For that reason, it has relied on a wide variety of indicators and analyses to make a determination of the status of the NCDE population. The population trend in the NCDE is stable to increasing. This conclusion, based on scientific evidence, is also supported by anecdotal information published in the Draft Revised Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990) indicating that many ranchers raised in the foothill areas along the east and south borders of the NCDE have commented that present populations appear to be greater in recent years than they were in the 1920s and 1930s. Similarly, Keating (1986) states "trends and sighting rates and population estimates indicated Glacier National Park's grizzly population increased significantly about 1930 and 1965." The only evidence of a decline in a segment of the NCDE population was presented in 1983 (Claar et al. 1986). Based on an estimate of 25 bears for the Mission subpopulation and the mortality rates which were occurring, that paper indicated that the mortality rate was excessive. However, current information from the South Fork Grizzly Bear Research Project shows that grizzly bears move freely between the Missions and other segments of the NCDE. This indicates that analysis and conclusions Claar et al. (1986) were incorrect because they were based on the false assumption of limited interchange between the Mission segment and the remainder of the ecosystem. In addition, the mortality of grizzlies in the Mission Mountains has been drastically reduced since 1985 (Appendix I), which should promote grizzly use of this area. Grizzly bear population pressure can be demonstrated. The meaning of excessive population pressure, however, is not clearly defined. In our judgement, it is a social consideration, not solely a biological one. Many newspaper articles, meetings, and individual letters have expressed concerns about grizzly bear population pressures along the East Front. Therefore, the problem is that we must balance bear numbers with what society (especially those living with the bears) will accept while attaining recovery levels to meet the requirements of the ESA. There is a finite amount of habitat available to grizzly bears in this area due to changes in the environment brought about by human settlement and occupancy of the land. Because of this, it is not possible to continually expand the zone of occupancy of grizzly bears into areas of human habitation. The finite nature of the ecosystem and increasing grizzly bear populations in some areas results in manifestations of population pressure. Manifestations of pressure may include, but are not limited to, one/all or a combination of the following: conflicts with human interest, range expansion, dispersal, home range contractions, natural mortality rates, intra-specific mortality, empirical data 102 from core areas, human social concerns, sex/age structure of the population, and reproductive parameters such as the number of females with cubs. In the NCDE, these population pressures have been manifested in some of the following ways: data from core areas indicates an extensive population, demonstration of population expansion in some areas and dispersal as well, and the elevation of human/social concerns and conflicts in portions of the NCDE. These factors, and others, together with the population estimates and trend information clearly show that population pressure exists in the NCDE. Before a regulated harvest may occur, the extraordinary case criteria requires that two conditions be met: 1) population pressure and 2) population pressure cannot be otherwise relieved. The MDFWP, in both 1975 and 1986 EISs, examined other possible ways to relieve population pressure. The following suggestions made by experts in the field were examined. Bears sent to zoos add nothing to the recovery of the species or to the wild population. Translocation of animals to other ecosystems offers no relief because the MDFWP receives no offers from any state in the historic range of the bear to take grizzly bears, problem or otherwise. Moving bears within the ecosystem does not relieve population pressure, even on a local basis, because bears often move back to their previous home range. Also, moving bears within the ecosystem may result in some negative impacts on the areas where the bears are moved, and many moved bears soon die despite the effort. Finally, capture of bears in the rugged back country of the NCDE is difficult and usually not possible. The MDFWP is still firmly committed to utilizing surplus bears in the NCDE to augment populations in other areas or to reintroduce this species where recovery areas have been identified. The MDFWP program utilizes the best available biological and social information, allows for a continuing increase in numbers, is designed to achieve recovery goals, and meets the requirement of the Endangered Species Act and the test of the extraordinary case. 103 XVIII. RECOMMENDATIONS The Preferred Alternative presented earlier and the recommendations presented here provide a reasonable and responsive grizzly bear manageinent program for northwestern Montana. A. HABITAT PRESERVATION, 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 MDFWP: 1. Address needs that provide for social acceptance of grizzlies 2. Lead in designating areas that will be required for grizzly bear survival 3. Monitor changes in these habitats 4. Pursue habitat acquisition, easement, and improvement in key areas 5. Work with federal, state, and local agencies to preserve key habitats. 6. Work with federal and other state and local agencies to develop standards and guidelines for: a. Road densities b. Logging activity c. Subdivision/urbanization d. Recreation activities e. Sanitation f. Mining g. Snowmobiling 7. Develop an ecosystem habitat evaluation/monitoring program through research 8. The MDFWP continues to support an interagency program with our personnel routinely working with federal land management agencies to integrate MDFWP goals into federal programs. Identified habitat areas of key importance are: a. CYE, primarily along the Bull River Valley and corridors between the Yaak and Cabinet mountains, and between these areas and Canada 104 b. Rocky Mountain East Front c. North Fork of the Flathead River d. Swan River Valley e. Area between the towns of East Glacier and West Glacier along Highway 2 d. The Mission Front. The MDFWP will also encourage private conservation groups to acquire habitat and obtain conservation easements in these areas. B. MANAGEMENT AREA CHANGES MDFWP recognizes that grizzly bears can and do live outside the boundaries of management areas defined in the 1986 EIS. The presence of bears outside these boundaries will be encouraged as long as conflicts with humans do not occur. If a conflict occurs, the bear responsible will be treated according to MDFWP and interagency guidelines. If sufficient numbers of grizzlies occupy land outside current management area boundaries without conflict, MDFWP will evaluate modifying the boundary to include the newly occupied area(s). If new areas are incorporated, MDFWP will seek necessary changes from federal agencies which allow implementing the management program in those areas. C. INTENSIVE RESEARCH Research on grizzlies is difficult and requires a long-term commitment of funds. The MDFWP is committed to long-term (8 to 10 years) efforts in grizzly research. However, as long as the NCDE and CYE grizzly populations are federally listed as threatened, the MDFWP will need a stable funding source from the USFWS to conduct such work. Federal funding since 1986 has not been stable, and the MDFWP is working to change federal allocations to solve this problem. D. POPULATION TRENDS The ability to document long-term population trends is an important aspect of grizzly bear management. MDFWP is assisting in developing and evaluating new trend monitoring techniques, including systematic subjective surveys of professionals and various user groups. Surveys will be developed by professional surveyors to ensure statistical validity. 105 E. DAMAGE CONTROL Because there is a need to actively deal with nuisance bears, it was therefore recommended that MDFWP employees in each region continue to be trained to deal with damage control and bear handling. Response to any grizzly bear damage complaints should be rapid and recorded accurately. MDFWP 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, the technique should be adopted as a management tool. MDFWP has recommended and established a limited entry damage hunt for problem grizzlies. This hunt would be conducted anytime a damage situation occurred and conditions were appropriate for such a hunt. If a damage hunt is held, hunters successful in drawing a permit would be directed by MDFWP personnel to the nuisance site or be directed to a specific hunting location for the purpose of harvesting the nuisance bear(s). This recommendation from the 1986 EIS was implemented but is now on hold until legal issues can be resolved. F. MORTALITY REPORTING It is important that all known mortalities be reported and records maintained at one source. MDFWP should remain the sole mortality coordinator to which all mortalities for the state from all agencies and causes are reported. G. ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS Enforcement efforts by all agencies should be concentrated in those areas with the greatest potential for problems. These areas include the Mission Mountains, Badger-Two Medicine, the North Fork of the Flathead River and the entire CYE. Enforcement efforts should be directed toward roaded areas in the spring and summer and toward backcountry areas during the fall. Continued enforcement is important to minimize bear parts profiteering. MDFWP recommended in the 1986 EIS that a civil penalty for the illegal taking of grizzly bears be implemented, and this has occurred. This penalty serves as an additional deterrent to potential poachers. H. UNREPORTED MORTALITY The importance of this mortality factor dictates that it must be evaluated in the biennial season-setting process. Information from research projects, grizzly parts values, efforts to decrease conflict situations, undercover enforcement operations, etc. will be reviewed in these evaluations. Major changes in the level of unreported mortality would dictate changes in the management program. MDFWP will also review any new approaches to estimating this mortality source in order that the most accurate estimates are used. 106 I. HUNTER SURVEYS In the 1986 EIS, MDFWP recommended and implemented an annual survey of all hunters obtaining a grizzly bear hunting license. Information obtained from these surveys primarily include hunter effort, but the number of bears or bear sign observed, dates hunted, areas hunted, hunter comments on regulations and season, etc. are also recorded (Appendix H, ). Evaluation of these surveys will substantially aid in setting seasons and interpreting population data. J. BEAR RELOCATIONS All relocated grizzly bears should be radio collared and monitored for two years to determine transplant success. A thorough review of this technique will improve our understanding of its viability. The US Fish and Wildlife Service should support this effort until all grizzly bear populations are recovered. It is important that all nuisance complaints, relocations, and other control actions be reported and records maintained at one source. MDFWP should be the coordinator to which all such actions by any agency and for any cause are reported. Further, MDFWP recommends that all agencies use the same form for recording such actions. This update presents a first attempt to summarize these complaints on an ongoing basis. K. AUGMENTATION Augmentation involves the transplanting of individuals from areas with a population surplus into areas with existing populations in need of bolstering. In the past, transplants have proven unsuccessful largely because they involved problem bears. To increase success, augmentation should involve bears in sex and age groups that have no history of conflicts (i.e. not nuisance bears) and are from remote areas. The USFWS and MDFWP have worked with the British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch to transplant bears from adjacent British Columbia into the CYE. Bears from British Columbia have had less contact with humans because there is less development in their range and the habitat there is similar to that in the CYE. Therefore, they are less likely to cause nuisances where transplanted. In addition, the further a bear is moved from its original capture site, the more likely the success of the transplant. MDFWP recommends that augmentation or reintroduction through the use of transplanting be initiated in other identified ecosystems, especially the Bitterroot and North Cascades, on an experimental basis to determine its efficacy. Bears should be radio-instrumented and monitored for an extended period. There are currently sufficient numbers of bears in the NCDE to allow proactive removal and relocation of grizzlies to these other ecosystems. Bears removed from the ecosystem for augmentation would be subtracted from the ecosystem's annual mortality quota. Augmentation will require close coordination with land management agencies and extensive public review before 107 implementation. If it is determined to be unsuccessful, more extreme measures will be required to recover populations in other ecosystems. L. NATURALLY OCCURRING FIRES MDFWP will continue to encourage land management agencies to allow fires to burn in wilderness and other appropriate areas to maintain or improve habitat in a condition best suited for grizzly bears. M. LEGAL MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES The boundary established in the Federal Register within which MDFWP may conduct grizzly bear hunting (i.e. Flathead National Forest, Bob Marshall, and Mission Mountains Wilderness areas) was in need of modification, and this was accomplished in 1986. MDFWP requires flexibility to implement seasons when and where appropriate within and adjacent to the present boundary. N. FOCUS CONCERN FOR THE GRIZZLY BEAR TO OTHER ECOSYSTEMS It is MDFWP' s position that an effort must be made to focus concern for the grizzly to other ecosystems identified in the grizzly bear recovery plan. Accomplishment of this will require the cooperation of the public and all agencies dealing with grizzly bear management. MDFWP believes this is important because the grizzlies in the NCDE are biologically least vulnerable due to the size of the current population and its proximity to the rest of the population in Canada. In addition, bear habitat is most secure in the NCDE as a result of 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 more isolated from areas with a healthy population. Suitable habitat is much less secure in most of these ecosystems than in the NCDE. If agencies continue to focus so exclusively on the NCDE, vital opportunities to recover the bear in some of the other ecosystems may be lost. Once grizzlies are totally eradicated from an area, the record is clear that the support for their re-establishment is minimal. As progress is made toward recovery in other ecosystems, management will be more flexible and the public's support will increase. It is very important for the public to recognize that continuing to focus on grizzly bears, a species that is not biologically threatened with extinction, increases the risk of extinction to other species which are endangered. Kellert (1985) reported that a majority of America's public would accept increases in energy costs to protect species with public appeal such as the eastern mountain lion (Felis concolor) but were unwilling to render 108 sacrifices for such species as the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi). The time, money, and other resources which are expended on grizzly bears removes those resources from species which are truly endangered. For the public to make valid decisions on grizzly management, they need to be aware of this risk. O. MANAGEMENT PLANS BY AREA To improve grizzly bear management, MDFWP will develop management plans for each bear management area (BMA) 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, the program for the ecosystem can be more responsive to changing local conditions and needs while still maintaining the overall direction recommended in the EIS and this update. 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 also be subjected to local review and comment 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. Plans have been completed for the RMEF (Appendix I) and are underway for those areas west of the Continental Divide. P. BLACKFEET INDIAN RESERVATION The Blackfeet Indian Reservation represents a significant portion of the NCDE. Reservation management policies are critical to cooperative management of the grizzly bear in the NCDE. Since the early 1980s, the tribe has made significant progress on grizzly management, and MDFWP encourages the Blackfeet Tribe to continue to formulate their management program for their Reservation. MDFWP further offers its full cooperation in developing such a program and welcomes the opportunity for continued cooperation. Q. SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT The sociological aspects of grizzly bear management in Montana are very important to its success. Public perception, locally as well as nationally, of grizzly bear population status and of the management abilities of responsible agencies greatly influence management programs. People place different values on the preservation of endangered species (Kellert 1985), and this variation requires systematic consideration in determining preservation priorities and implementing effective recovery programs. Because social concerns are such an important aspect of grizzly bear management, MDFWP recommends that a study be initiated by the State of Montana (funded by the USFWS as long as the grizzly is listed as threatened) to determine public perceptions, 109 on a local and national level, concerning the status and management of grizzly bears in Montana. The results of such a study will indicate possible changes in direction which would make the program more effective. R. FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION It is recommended that all new information be evaluated annually and incorporated into the management program. A more thorough review of the management program every five years should also serve to incorporate new information. At these five-year intervals, indications of population changes for either the CYE or the NCDE will be evaluated to determine if management direction should be altered. The EIS will be reviewed and updated every ten years, and a determination of population status in both the CYE and NCDE will be made. The Wildlife Program EIS, to be completed in 1995, will serve as a further review of the grizzly bear management program and may sufficiently address the need for a revision of this EIS in 1996. MDFWP, after reviewing input from wildlife professionals, the public, etc., maintains the option to change the management program at any time as is appropriate to better manage grizzly bears. S. REGULATED HUNTING It is our judgement that the use of regulated hunting is critical to the long term success of bear management efforts in Montana. If judicial interpretation of language in the Endangered Species Act or of congressional intent is such that we cannot regain the use of hunting as a conservation tool, the ESA should be amended to address this problem and MDFWP should assist in developing these amendments. T. MISTAKEN IDENTITY Although accidental killing of grizzly bears by black bear hunters is not a significant problem affecting the long term survival of the grizzly, it does receive public scrutiny. It is therefore recommended that MDFWP educational efforts to deal with this problem be continued. U. DATA REPORTING FORMS There is a great need for uniformity and coordination of reporting forms used for grizzly bear nuisance situations, relocations, mortalities, and trapping. Currently, each area has individualized forms. Leadership needs to be assigned for coordination and communication, and annual departmental coordination meetings would be beneficial. MDFWP will work with the IGBC and Canadian authorities to achieve more uniformity. 110 XIX. LITERATURE CITED Archibald, W. R., R. Ellis, and A, N. Hamilton. 1987. Responses of grizzly bears to logging truck traffic in the Kimsquit River Valley, British Columbia. Intl. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:251-258. Aune, K. 1991. Validation of the East Front cumulative effects model. Mont. Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 69 pp. Aune, K. and W. Kasworm. 1989. Final Report: East Front Grizzly Bear Study. Mont. Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 332 pp. Aune, K, R. Mace, and D. Carney. 1992. The reproductive performance of female grizzly bears in the NCDE. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. In press. Aune, K. and P. Schladweiler. 1991. Wildlife laboratory annual report. Mont. Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 52 pp. Aune, K., T. Stivers, and M. Madel. 1984. Rocky Mountain Front grizzly bear monitoring and investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 239 pp. Bissell, G. N. and C. A. Yde. 1985. Wildlife and wildlife habitat mitigation plan for Hungry Horse hydroelectric project. MDFWP, Helena. USDE BPA. Project 83-464. 46 pp. Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Interagency Rocky Mountain Front wildlife monitoring/evaluation program. Butte, Mt. 63 pp. Brannon, R., R. Mace, and A. R. Dood. 1988. Grizzly bear mortality in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 16, No. 3:262- 269. Carney, D. and R. Skinner. 1988. Blackfeet grizzly bear study. Ann. Rept. BIA, Blackfeet Tribe. Browning, MT. 16 pp. . 1990. Blackfeet grizzly bear study. 2nd Ann. Rept. Browning, Mt. 21pp. Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. Wiley Press, London. 234 pp. Claar, J., R. Klaver, and C. Servheen. 1986. Grizzly bear management on the Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conf. on Bear Research and Management. Grand Canyon, AZ. Pp. 203-208. Contreras, G. P. and K. E. Evans. 1985. Proceedings - Grizzly bear habitat symposium. Intermountain Res. Sta. Ogden, UT. 252 pp. Ill Curatolo, J. A., and G. D. Moore. 1975. Home range and population dynamics of grizzly bear in the eastern Brooks Range, Alaska. In : R.D. Jakimchiik, ed., studies of large mammals along the proposed Mackenzie Valley Gas pipeline route from Alaska to British Columbia. Artie Gas Biol. Rept. Ser. Vol. 32. 79 pp. Dean, F. C. 1976. Aspects of grizzly bear population ecology in Mount McKinley National Park. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:111-119. Decker, D. J., and K. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:53-57. Diamond, S. 1991. The Beartree challenge: from conflict to collaboration. Rocky Mountain Ranger District, USPS, Choteau, Mt. 4 pp. Dood, A. R., R. Brannon, and R. Mace. 1986. Final programmatic environmental impact statement: The grizzly bear in northwestern Montana. Mont. Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 287 pp. and H. I. Pac. 1988. Montana statewide grizzly mortality studies. July 1986-June 1988. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 30 pp. Elgmork, K. 1978. Human impact on a brown bear population (Ursus arctos L.). Biol. Conserv. 13:81-88. EUig, L., R. Inman, L. Hancock, B. Christensen, R. Meyer, G. Brown, and L. Lewis. 1990. Final 1988 report and 1989/1990 updates of the Gateway Community Sanitation Task Force. Unpubl. Report, USFS, Bozeman, Mt. 43 pp. Gillin, C. M., F. M. Hammond, and C. M. Peterson. 1992. Evaluation of aversive conditioning techniques on grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Int. Conf. Bear Conference 9:00-000. In press. Greer, K. 1971. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1970. Job progress report W-120-R-2, Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 44 pp. . 1972. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1971. Job progress report W-120-R-3, Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 30 pp. . 1973. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1972. Job progress report W-120-R-4, Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 51 pp. . 1974a. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1973. Job progress report W-120-R-5, Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 24 pp. 112 . 1974b. Montana grizzly bear management and public harmony. Montana Dept. 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, Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 20 pp. . 1976a. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1975. Job progress report W-120-R-7, Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 20 pp. . 1976b. Managing Montana's grizzlies for the grizzlies! Int. 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, Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 18 pp. . 1978. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1977. Job progress report W-120-R-9, Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 13 pp. . 1979. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife research. Job progress report W-120-R- 10, Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 22 pp. . 1980. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife research. Job progress report W-120-R- 11, Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 22 pp. . 1981. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife research. Job progress report W-120-R- 12, Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 20 pp. . 1982. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife research. Job progress report W-120-R- 13, Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 29 pp. . 1985. Grizzly bear mortality studies, (1983-1984). Job progress report W-120-R- 15. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 51 pp. Gunther, K. A. 1990. Visitor impact on grizzly bear activity in Pelican Valley, Yellowstone National Park. Intl. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:73-78. Hadden, D. and C. Jonkel. 1983. An inventory and evaluation of wildlife and wildlife habitat on the Big Mountain, Montana. Border Grizzly Proj., Univ. Mont., Missoula. Spec. Rep. No. 64. 129 pp. Hamer, D, and S. Herrero. 1987. Wildfire's influence on grizzly bear feeding ecology in Banff National Park, Alberta. Intl. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:179-186. 113 Harris, R. B. 1984a. Harvest age-structure as an indicator of grizzly bear population status. M.S. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula. 204 pp. . 1984b. Grizzly bear population trend monitoring - a resource for decision makers. U.S.F.W.S. Tech. Note. Unpublished Report. Herrero, S. 1985. Bear attacks - their causes and avoidance. Nick Winchester Press, New Century Pub., Inc. Piscataway, NJ. 287 pp. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1987. Grizzly bear compendium. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, MT. 540 pp. Jonkel, C. and I. M. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir forest. Wildl. Monogr. 27:1-57. Kasworm W., and T. L. Manley. 1988. Grizzly bear and black bear ecology in the Cabinet Mountains of northwest Montana. Mont. Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 122 pp. , and . 1990. Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana. Intl. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:79-84. , and T. J. Thier. 1990. Cabinet- Yaak ecosystem grizzly bear and black bear research. 1989 Prog. rept. USFWS. 62 pp. Keating, K. A. 1986. Historical grizzly bear trends in Glacier National Park, Montana. Wild. Soc. Bull. 14:83-87. Kellert, S. R. 1985. Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:528-536. Kendall, K. C. 1985. Grizzly bear population trend studies Apgar Mountains, Glacier National Park. National Park Service Progress Report. . 1986. Grizzly and black bear feeding ecology in Glacier National Park, Montana. Progress Report. Glacier National Park Science Center, West Glacier, MT. 42 pp. , L. H. Metzgar, D. A. Patterson, and B. M. Steele. 1991. Power of sign surveys to monitor population trend. J. Wildl. Manage. In press. LeCount, A. L. 1982. Characteristics of a central Arizona black bear population. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:861-868. 114 Lortie, G. M. 1978. A new management system for Yukon grizzly bear. Yukon Territory Wildl. Branch. 15 pp. Unpubl. Mace, R. D. 1985. Analysis of grizzly bear food resources in the valley bottom lands and avalanche tracts of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, Montana. Paper presented at the Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium. April 30-May 2, 1985, Missoula, MT. Pp. 136-149. . and T. Manley. 1990. South Fork Flathead River grizzly project. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 41 pp. , T. Manley, and K. Aune. 1990. Use of systematically deployed remote cameras to monitor grizzly bears. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 40 pp. . and C. Jonkel. 1980. Grizzly bear response to habitat disturbance. Pages 70-98 in: C. Jonkel ed.. Annual Rep. 3. Border Grizzly Proj. Univ. Montana, Missoula, Madel, M. 1989. Rocky Mountain Front grizzly bear management program. Mont. Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 52 pp. Martinka, C. 1971. Status and management of grizzly bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. Pages 312-322 in: 36th North Am. Wildl, and Nat. Resour. Conf. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. . 1974. Population characteristics of grizzly bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. Mammal. 55(l):21-29. Mattson, D. J., R. R. Knight, and B. M. Blanchard. 1987. The effects of developments and primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Intl. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 7:259-274. McLellan, B. 1984. Population parameters of the Flathead grizzlies. Canadian Border Grizzly project. 28 pp. , and D. M. Shacketon. 1988. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: Effects of roads on behavior, habitat use, and demography. J. Applied Ecology 25,451-460. , and . 1989a. Immediate reactions of grizzly bears to human activities. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 17:269-274. , and . 1989b. Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: habitat displacement in response to seismic exploration, timber harvesting and road maintenance. J. of Applied Ecology 26: 371-380. 115 , 1989a. Dynamics of a grizzly bear population during a period of industrial resource extraction. I. Density and age - sex composition. Can. J. Zool. 67:1856-1860. . 1989b. Dynamics of a grizzly bear population during a period of industrial resource extraction. II. Mortality rates and causes of death. Can. J. Zool. 67:1861-1864. . 1989c. Dynamics of a grizzly bear population during a period of industrial resource extraction. III. Natality and rate of increase. Can. J. Zool. 67:1865-1868. . 1990. Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. Intl. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:57-64. Mealey, S., L. Marcum, R. Righter, C. Jonkel, and G. Joslin. 1976. Vegetation studies of disturbed grizzly habitat. Pages 5-34, in C. Jonkel ed., Ann. Rept. 1. Border Grizzly Proj. Univ. Montana, Missoula. Miller, S. D. and W. B. Ballard. 1982. Density and biomass estimates for an interior Alaskan brown bear, Vrsus arctos, population. Canadian Field-Nat. 96(4):448-454. Moen, A. N. 1973. Wildlife ecology: an analytical approach. W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. 458 pp. Montana Department of Fish and Game. 1975. Environmental impact statement on the sport hunting of the grizzly bear. Montana Dept. of Fish and Game, Helena. 7 pp. 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. Nyberg, H. F. 1991. Montana wildlife mitigation program: Annual report FY91. Montana Dept. Fish, Wild, and Parks, Helena. 22 pp. Pac, H. I., and A. Dood. 1989. Grizzly bear mortality studies in the conterminous 48 states. Research Progress Report. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 28 pp. . 1990. Grizzly bear mortality studies in the conterminous 48 states. Research Progress Report. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 25 pp. Palmisciano, D. 1986. Montana statewide grizzly bear mortality studies. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 5 pp. Pearson, A. M. 1975. The northern interior grizzly bear. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rept. Ser. No. 34. 86 pp. 116 . 1976. Population characteristics of the Arctic mountain grizzly bear. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:247-258. Picton, H. D. 1983. Grizzly Link? Yellowstone and Glacier, its biology and dynamics. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage., Grand Canyon, AZ. 6:7-10. Reynolds, H. V. 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. Riley, S. J., K. Aune, R. Mace, and M. Madel. 1992. Translocation of nuisance grizzly bears in northwestern Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. In press. Risbrudt, C. D. 1989. The chief's perspective on fire policies and management strategies in wilderness and national parks. Presented at the Wilderness/Parks Fire Conference, Bozeman, MT. Unpubl. Roosevelt, T. 1902. Hunting trips on the prairie and in the mountains. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London. 197-201. Russell, R. H., J. W., Nolon, N. A. Woody, and G. Anderson. 1979. A study of the grizzly bear in Jasper National Park, 1975 - 1978. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rept. 136 pp. Servheen, C. 1981. Grizzly bear ecology and management in the Mission Mountains, Montana. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 138 pp. Smith, R.B. and L.V. VanDaele. 1990. Impacts of hydroelectric development on brown bears, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Intl. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 8:93-104. Tomascak, W. 1989. The future of prescribed natural fire in wilderness management northwest Fire Council, Wash. Unpubl. 5 pp. Tompa, F.S. 1984. Grizzly bears in British Columbia - harvest must be reduced. British Columbia Wildl. Branch, 9 pp. Unpubl. Troyer, W. A., and R.J. Hensel. 1964. Structure and distribution of a Kodiak bear population. J. Wildl. Manage. 28(4):769-772. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Grizzly bear recovery plan. Missoula, Mt. 195 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Conservation strategy for the grizzly bear Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, Montana. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT. 67 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, MT. 152 pp. 117 Van Drimmelen, B. 1984. Grizzly bear management plan for the Skeena Region. British Columbia Wildl. Branch. 20 pp. Unpubl. Wood, M. A. 1991. Northwest Montana wildlife mitigation program. Habitat protection, annual report. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Kalispell. 15 pp. Woodgerd, W.R. 1974, Letter to Lynn A. Greenwalt. Montana Dept. of Fish and Game, Helena. 2 pp. Zunino, F., and S. Herrero. 1972. The status of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Abruzzo National Park, Italy, 1971. Biol. Conserv. 4(4):263-272. 118 APPENDIX A IGBC Resolution Supporting Hunting of Grizzlies Action/Decision Items and Observations Interagency Grizzly Bear Meeting Many Glacier, Montana August 27, 1991 The IGBC unanimously passed the following resolution regarding support of the Montana Department's grizzly bear hunt: "That the IGBC go on record as being in support of Montana's Grizzly Bear Management Program, and specifically the use of hunting in the spring and fall as a sound biological approach to further the conservation and recovery of the grizzly bear in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem." 119 APPENDIX B Grizzly Bear Policy MCA 12.9.103 MCA 12.9.103 GRIZZLY 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 1850 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 acljacent 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 120 (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 management 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 property losses shall be evaluated on an individual case basis. 121 (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) Depredating 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. (0 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, IME, 87-1-201, 87-1-301 MCA; Eff. 12/31/72; AMD. 1977 MAR p. 257, Eff. 8/26/77.) 122 APPENDIX C NCDE Management Area Boundary Description Occupied habitat in the NCDE is bounded on the west by U.S. Highway 93 from the U.S. -Canadian border, south to the junction with Montana Highway 82, then east along Highway 82 to the junction with Montana Highway 35 then south approximately 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 River, then east approximately 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 Bynum 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. -Canadian 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. 123 APPENDIX D CYE Management Area Boundary Description The western boundary follows the Montana-Idaho border south from the U.S. - Canadian border to the intersection 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 the point on the highway approximately 1 mile north of Plains, then approximately 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 28 to the east end of Rainbow 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 along the Kootenai River and north along the west shore of Lake Koocanusa to the U.S. - Canadian Border. The northern boundary follows the international border from this point to the Montana - Idaho border. 124 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 feel generate reasonable and conservative estimates of the minimum and maximum population, 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 (Zuninotand 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 a few areas in the NCDE with higher mortality, 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 and low bear density resulting, at least partially, from the patchy distribution of important habitat components (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. Individuals do not remain within the boundaries of one unit. 125 RATIONALE BEHIND EACH DENSITY ESTIMATE Density Unit No. 2 Red Meadow Location: Eastern half of Whitefish Range from North Fork Flathead River to Tobacco Valley. USA-Canadian border to Red Meadows Creek. Habitat Unit Region 2. Past Density Estimates: Jonkel and Cowan (1971) gave an estimate of 1/13 mi^. Thier (USD A 1982) estimated 1/15 mi^ for the area from Red Meadow Creek north to the International border based on instrumented bears and untagged bear observations. 1986-Dept. FWP Density Estimate: 1/15-1/10 mi^ (14-22 bears) 1991-Dept. FWP Density Estimate: 1/15-1/10 mi^ (14-22 bears) Unit Size: 215 mi^ Discussion: It would be inappropriate to extrapolate the density estimate for Glacier National Park (Martinka 1974) to this area. McLellan's 1984 estimate of 1 per 3-6 mi^ 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 mi^) and British Columbia (5-7 mi^), but lowered to account for mortality and habitat differences. No additional information is available to change previous 1986 density estimates (Bruce Campbell, MDFWP, pers. comm. 1991), however bear mortality in this area has been very low since 1985 and, in all likelihood, density is increasing. Density Unit No. 3. Southern Whitefish Range: Location: Red Meadow Creek south to Columbia Falls, MT. Habitat Unit Region 2. Past Density Estimates: None for this area. 1986-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/25-1/18 mi^ (33-46 bears) 1991-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/25-1/18 mi^ (33-46 bears) Unit size: 831 mi^ Discussion: Grizzlies are less commonly observed (or harvested) in the area south of Red Meadow Creek as compared to the Northern Whitefish Range (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 126 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 (pers. comm. 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". No additional information is available to change previous 1986 density estimates (Bruce Campbell, MDFWP, pers. comm. 1991). Density Unit No. 4. Glacier National Park: Lx)cation: Glacier National Park, Northwestern Montana. Habitat Unit Region 2. Past Density Estimates: Martinka's (1974) estimate of 1/8 mi^ for a 390 mi^ area within the park extrapolated to the entire Park. 1986-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/8-1/6 mi^ (198-264 bears) 1991 -Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/8-1/6 mi^ (198-264 bears) Unit Size: 1583 mi^ Discussion: The Department used Martinka's (1974) estimate of 1 grizzly per 8 mi^ 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, McLellan 1984). Glacier National Park is an unhunted population where human impacts are strictly controlled. No additional information is available to change previous 1986 density estimates (Kate Kendall, NPS, pers. comm. 1991). Density information from the N. Fork of the Flathead in British Columbia indicates high densities are possible and it may be that the current density estimates for this unit are overly conservative. Density Unit No. 5. St. Mary: Location: Western edge of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, next to Glacier National Park. Habitat Regions 3 and 4. Past Density estimate: None for this unit. 1986-Dept. FWP density estimate: 1/20-1/10 mi^ (11-21 bears) 1991-Dept. FWP density estimate: 1/20-1/10 mi^ (11-21 bears) Unit size: 211 mi^ 127 Discussion: Current research confirms that the Blackfeet Indian Reservation is primarily seasonal grizzly bear habitat. Most of the bears that occupy the Reservation during their active season den in Glacier National Park. Most grizzly bears captured on the Reservation stayed in lower elevations during spring but spent from 25% to 100% of the summer and fall seasons in higher elevations of the Park. Population density data are still being gathered for analysis, but capture and sighting data suggest that current estimates of 1/20-1/10 mi^ are probably accurate. Grizzly bear density varies depending on season but considering the amount of time bears spend in the Park vs. the Reservation, 1/20 mi^ is probably the more appropriate estimate. Density Unit No. 6. Badger-Two Medicine: Location: Eastern front of Rocky Mountains. Unit includes Badger and Two Medicine Creeks on the Blackfeet 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 (Aune and Kasworm 1989). 1986-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/20-1/16 mi^ (16-20 bears) 1991-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/38-1/27 mi^ (9-12 bears) Unit site: 323 mi^ Discussion: Current low density estimate is based upon the average density of marked bears and attendant young within a modified composite polygon for three years of study (Aune and Kasworm, 1989). The composite polygon was generated with data from 4-6 marked bears radio monitored from 1984-1986. The high density estimate is derived by adding the marked bears and observed unmarked bears and assuming all unmarked bears occupy home ranges within the composite polygon derived for marked bears. The low density estimate is a very conservative estimate of bear density for this area since the study duration and intensity were limited. In addition, current bear management efforts in the Blackfeet Reservation have undoubtedly enhanced bear survival in this area. Density Unit No. 7. South Fork: Location: From Hungry Horse Reservoir 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 Region 2. Past Density Estimates: Mace and Jonkel's (1980) density estimate of 1/10 mi^ for a 128 mi^ study area. 128 1986-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/15-1/10 (108-162 bears) 1991-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/13-1/10 mi^ (125-162 bears) Unit Size: 1624 mi^ Discussion: Population estimates for the western side of Hungry Horse Reservoir were obtained in 1989 and 1990 using data derived from an intensive capture/ recapture and telemetry study. Grizzly bear densities were derived by determining the percent of aerial telemetry locations within a 321 mi^ study area for all age and gender classes. Percent use of each observed or photographed bear within the study area was summed (Mace and Manley 1990) using specific criteria described in "South Fork Grizzly Project Draft Population Update - January 1990" (FWP Region 1). In 1989, 24 marked bears (plus attendant young) were radio-monitored and 11-17 unmarked bears were detected on film. Percent use of the study area revealed 24.20 grizzly bears of all age/sex classes were present within this study area. In 1990, 28 marked (plus attendant young) and 7-10 unmarked bears were identified; 24.38 bears met the criteria. Using this information, a density estimate of a grizzly/ 13 mi^ was derived each year. 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). In 1986, a minimum density estimate for this area was recalculated using only tagged bears and their composite home range, yielding a density of 1/19 mi^ We extended this density estimate into the Bob Marshall as far south as Big Salmon Lake. South of this, the habitat is drier and fewer bears are observed. As stated previously, this Unit includes both wilderness and non- wilderness acreage. Additionally, five grizzly bears were subtracted from the density estimate because habitat was lost when Hungry Horse Reservoir was inundated (Bissell and Yde 1985). Density Unit No. 8: East Front: Location: East of the Continental Divide from Birch Creek to Sun River. Includes part of Bob Marshall Wilderness and Sun River Game Preserve. Habitat Regions 3 and 4. Past Density Estimates: Aune et al. (1984) gave a density range of 1/11.5 mi^ in the spring to 22.2 mi^ in the fall. Reevaluation of Aune's 1984 data (based on marked bears only) yielded a density of 1/22 mi^. 1986-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/18-1/12 mi^ (62-93 bears) 1991-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/31-1/25 mi^ (36-45 bears) Unit Size: 1,119 mi^ Discussion: Current low density estimate is based upon the density of marked bears and attendant young within a modified composite polygon for five years of study (Aune and 129 Kasworm, 1989). The composite polygon was generated with data from 12-26 marked bears radio monitored from 1981-1985. The high density estimate is derived by adding the marked bears and observed unmarked bears and assuming all unmarked bears occupy home ranges within the composite polygon derived for marked bears. The low density estimate is a very conservative estimate of bear density for this area because of the known and consistent observation of 7-14 additional bears each year within the unit. Most of the unmarked bears were observed repeatedly and clearly identified as residents within the unit. Little immigration into the unit was documented by telemetry studies while a substantial number of bears emigrated during the study. Density Unit No. 9. Swan Front: 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 Estimate: None for this unit. 1986-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/30-1/20 mi^ (26-39 grizzlies) 1991-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/30-1/20 mi^ (26-39 grizzlies) Unit Size: 780 mi^ Discussion: Telemetry data 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 12 bears monitored in the South Fork used 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 of bear professionals and wildlife managers in the area we felt it was appropriate to apply a density of 1/30 mi^ for this unit. No additional information is available to change previous 1986 density estimates (Shawn Riley, MDFWP, pers. comm. 1991). Density Unit No. 10. Mission 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 mi^ (Servheen 1981) based on tagged and untagged observations in a core study area. 130 1986 - Dept. FWP Estimate: 1991 - Dept. FWP Estimate: Unit Size: 1044 mi^ 1/45-1/25 mi^ (23-42 grizzlies). 1/45-1/25 mi^ (23-42 grizzlies). Discussion: Servheen's (1981) estimate of 1/19 mi^ 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 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 Rattlesnake (Servheen 1981). The Rattlesnake Wilderness is considered sparsely populated at present. Servheen (1981) reported a density of 1/80 mi^ 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 mi^ from Lost Creek north. R. Klaver (pers. comm.) reports that black bear problems in cherry orchards are frequent, but grizzly bear problems are infrequent. Based on comments received, professional consultations, and a reevaluation of Servheen's (1981) dissertation, the Department combined several units, and developed an estimate of 1 bear/45 mi^ No new information is available to change the 1986 density estimate. However, decreased observations and complaints in the last 5 years indicate that the lower estimates are a more accurate indication of the density in this area (Dale Becker, pers. comm. 1991). DensityUnitNo.il. 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 mi^ yielding a density of 1/26-1/28 mi^ 1986-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/30-1/18 mi^ (63-106 bears) 1991-Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/1 12-1/56 mi^ (17-34 bears) Unit Size: 1,903 mil 131 Discussion: The current low density estimate is based upon tiie density of marked bears and attendant young within a modified composite polygon for two years of study (Aune and Kasworm, 1989). The composite polygon was generated with data from 6-8 marked bears radio monitored from 1985-1986. The high density estimate is derived by adding the marked bears and observed unmarked bears and assuming all unmarked bears occupy home ranges within the composite polygon derived for marked bears. Consistent sightings of 12-15 bears in this unit suggests that the percent of marked bears in this unit was low. The low density estimate is extremely conservative in this unit because of the low proportion of marked bears and limited duration of intense study in this unit. The actual bear density of this unit is probably nearer the high density estimate for this unit (Keith Aune, pers. comm.). 132 APPENDIX F Title 50 - Code of Federal Regulations PART J7— ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS S«bp«rt A — Inlf •du<1i«4< »n4 C »ifrml 6l I ulf.-;--.^n iil.' »nd - l.-.m."; IRf sern-(l 1 '.46 Sp<-ci»l rii'oi- • I jvla(.-a:i.^ IH< served) J. 47 Special rules -ii:.sects '.48 SiKClal rules — common sponges and other forms. I Reserved) Subpart f — Simito/ity of App*aiant* '.50 ("icncral. ..M Tr- alinrnl a.s r.i(J;«ni,'' f • •I >•> llife;ii ened. .52 Permit'— similAfit y of ;tp|K-ara(icc ivibpart F — End.nngere~d Plantt 7.C1 /'u.liil'lliolis. 7.01 I'lrniii' fiT 3i.iLHli''C (lufixiM • i.t (>" ll:e e.iliHiiCfii.'.-iil of prop.-c.ilioii (>i turvlvol. 7.C1 Economic liAfisSin pcrinil.4. 7.(M-17,r,9 IHctcrve.i/ SubpoH C — TKraal«n«d Plonf« I'rc-liitiitioiis t.T'i Permits - ifi-no( .il 7.7J I7.7ij IKr.srr-.edl Subp.r* H— I (.,.,v,d I (Mot Included) S4y>p«-t J — M*f\«t»« Prot^ctioo Ar»« 17.100 Parpo*«. 17.1(71 Scop«. 17.102 D«fWtlonj. 17.103 Eatablithinaot of protection aroat. 17.104 ProhlbllJona. 17.105 Pennlta and exceptloot. 17.10 Native village or Native town Any cm zen enrolled by the Secretary pursu ant to .section 5 o( the Alaska Native 133 why the applicant la juatiflcd In ob- talnLnc the permit. IncJudlnr (I) The dcUlU qt the activities jought to be authorised by the permit; (ID The df UlU of how luch actlvltica will be carried out: (III) The reiatlorxship of lUch actlvi- llfs to aclentlfic objectives or to objec- tlvcJ enhancing the propagation or jurvlval of the wildlife sought to t>e covered by the pcrmJU and (Iv) The planned dIapoalUon of auch vlldllfe upon termination of the actlvl- ll« sought to be authorlzf the National Park Service shall ;ovem all taking of grizzly bears In National Parlu. (11) UnlaxafuUy taken orizzly bears. A) Except as provided In paragraph (bXlKIIXB) of ihU section, no person shall po&sesa. deliver, carry, transport, ship, export, or sell grirzly bear taken unlawfully. (B) Authorized Federal or Stale cm- I ployccs may for scientific or research ' puri>oses po&scss. deliver, carry, trans- I port. ship, or export unlawfully taken I grizzly bears. (Ill) Import or export (A) Except as provided in this paragraph (bXIXlllKA). below, no person shall Import any grizzly bear Into the United Slates. (/) Federal or State scientific or re- search activities. Authorized Federal or Stale employees may Imijort grizzly bears Into the United Stales for scien- tific or research purposes. 12) Public zoological institutions. Public zoological insliluliorvs (see 50 CPU 10.12) may import grizzly bears into the United States. (D) 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 Slates. (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, traris- 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 aitempl to commit, cau.se to be com- mitted, or solicit another to commit .my act prohibited by this paragraph (a)( 1 ) of this section. (2) Definitions. As used in para- graph (b) of Ihis section the term "grizzly bear" means any member of the species. Ursus arctos horribilis of the <8 conterminous stales of the United Stales, 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 '■ provLsiorvs of { 17.31 shall apply to the j Les.ser slow lorls, Nycticebiu pvo- maeiLs: Philippine tarsier. Tarsitu syr- ichta; White-footed tamarin. Saffuiniu leucopiu: Black howler monkey, j Atouatta piffra; StumptaJl macaque. Macaco arctoides; Gelada, Theropithe- cits ffelada: Formosan rock macaque. Macaca CvclopU: Japanese macaque. Macaca fuscata: Toque niacaque, Macaca sinica: Long-tailed langur. Presbvtis potemani: Purplc-faccd langur. Presbvtis scncx: Tonkin snub nosed monkey. Rhiiiopilhccus avuncu- lus: Pigmy chimpanzee. Pan paniscus; 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 SUt« 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 ihc United States after the effective date of the final rulemaking. Provided. That the person wishing to engage in any activity which would olherwl.se be prohibited must be able lo shou .satii factory documentary or other evidence as lo the captive status of the parlicu 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 Slates after the effective dale of this rulemaking. Identification of the par- ticular member to a record in, the In lemational 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 sludbook.s or inventories kept in the normal course of bubine.Si. shall be acceptable as evidence, pro vided that a notarized statement is in serted in such record to the i-ffi-ci that: (i) The records were kept in ih* normal course of busine.s^s prior lu No vember 18. 1976. and accurau ly :d<-!;i- fy (by use of markers. ta>:s. or uitc-; acceptable markine device.M ifu^; vio-.n, animals: or (ii) That the indiviaual an:i:i;ii lOeii lified by the records wa^ born m cap tlvity 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 (cK2)(ii). of this section, shall be acceptable only if the nolarization 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 Stale of Minne- sota Is divided Into lhe following five zones. 135 APPENDIX G State Law 87-2-702 - Restrictions on Special Licenses •ri ^ . « g . CO GQ CC 5 " s ! i JSgSS ..■aviai£ 'ill O V V ■5 2 a Ql r 4) o « E a oi c o z •o c a E o o ■o c u « Q. (A 136 1973; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 261, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 408, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 49, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 91, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 289, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 417, L. 1975; amd. Sec 1, Ch. 548, L. 1975; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 169, L. 1977; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 235, L. 1977; amd. Sec. 13, Ch. 417, L. 1977; RC.M. 1947, 28-202.1(13); amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 100, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 14, Ch. 478, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 10, Ch. 554, L. 1981; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 680, L, 1983; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 568, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 598, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 401, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 13, Ch. 592, L. 1991. Compiler's Comment* 1991 AmendmenU: Chapter 401 deleted (IXg) establishing wild buffalo license with resident fee of $200 and nonresidential fee of $1,000; and made minor changes in style. Amendment effective April 9, 1991. (Version effective March 1, 1992) Chapter 692 in (IXb) increased resident moose license fee from $50 to $60 beginning March 1, 1992, and to $75 beginning March 1, 1994, and non- resident fee from $320 to $450 beginning March 1, 1992, and to $475 beginning Mtirch 1, 1994; in (l)(b) increased resident mountain goat license fee from $50 to $60 beginning March 1, 1992, and to $75 beginning March 1, 1994, and nonresident fee from $320 to $450 beginning March 1, 1992, and to $475 begin- ning March 1, 1994; in (IXc) increased resident mountain sheep license fee from $50 to $60 beginning March 1 , 1 992, and to $75 beginning March 1, 1994, and nonresident fee from $320 to $450 beginning March 1, 1992, and to $475 beginning March 1, 1994; and in (IXd) in- creased resident antelope license fee from $6 to $9 beginning March 1, 1992, and to $11 beginning March 1, 1994, and nonresident fee from $120 to $145 beginning March 1, 1992, and to $150 beginning March 1, 1994. (Version effective March 1, 1996) Chapter 592 in (IXa) increased resident moose license fee from $50 to $75 and nonresident fee from $300 to $455; in (l)(b) increased resident mountain goat license fee from $50 to $75 and nonresident fe« from $300 to $455; in (IXc) increased resident mountain sheep license fee from $50 to $75 and nonresident fee from $300 to $455; and in (IX^) increased resident an- telope license fee from $6 to $11 and nonresi- dent fee from $100 to $130. Amendments effective March 1, 1992. Extension of Termination Date: Section 3, Ch. 319, L. 1991, amended sec. 12, Ch. 598, L. 1987, to provide that the wildlife habitat ac- quisition program terminates March 1, 1996. Amendment effective April 2, 1991. 87-2-702. Restrictions on special licenses. (1) A person who has killed or taken any game animal, except a deer or an antelope, during the current license year is not permitted to receive a special license under this chapter to hunt or kill a second game animal of the same species. (2) The commission may require applicants for special permits authorized by this chapter to obtain a valid big game license for that species for the current year prior to applying for a special permit. (3) After March 27, 1987, a person may, during his lifetime, lawfully take only one grizzly bear in Montana with a license authorized by 87-2-701. (4) A person who receives a moose, mountain goat, or limited mountain sheep license with the exception of an adult ewe license, as authorized by 87-2-701, is not eligible to receive another special license for that species for the next succeeding 7 years. History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 267, L. 1955; amd. Sec 1, Ch. 65, L. 1963; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 72, L 1969; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 48, L. 1971; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 167, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 195, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 28, Ch. 9, L. 1977; RC.M. 1947, 26-202.2(1), (2); amd. Sec. 15, Ch. 478, L. 1979; amd. Sec. U, Ch. 554, L. 1981; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 241, L 1987; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 431, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 57, L. 1991. Compiler's Comments that species for 7 years. Amendment effective 1991 Amendment: Inserted (4) prohibiting February 27, 1991. a person who receives a certain special license from eligibility for receiving another license for 87-2-703. Repealed. Sec. 16(1), Ch. 554. L. 1981. History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 287, L. 1955; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 16, L. 1957; amd. Sec 1, Ch. 100, L. 1957; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 38, L. 1959; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 36, L. 1963; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 55, L. 137 APPENDIX H, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks SPRING GRIZZLY BEAR HUNTING SEASON JUSTIFICATION Office Memorandum Date: 12/7/90 To: Graham Taylor From: Michael Madel, John McCarthy, Gary Olson Subject: Region Four 1991 grizzly bear hunting season recommendation. Provided is the justification and supporting information for the addition of a limited entry spring grizzly bear hunting season within the boundaries of the Region Four Rocky Mountain East Front Bear Management Area. Species Grizzly Bear. Ursus arctos Region Four Year 1991 Hunting District Rocky Mountain East Front Bear Management Area 1. Describe proposed season change and give summary of prior history. 1991 Season Proposed: The addition of an early spring grizzly bear season, beginning April 1 and running through the end of the first week of May (5/4/91). A limited entry hunt during the five week season with 50 permits would best provide for a recommended spring harvest level of 3 bears under the existing annual quota system. Furthermore, a spring season subquota of 2 females bears would protect the integrity of the RMEF BMA annual female subquota prior to the end of the year. The fall grizzly bear season would be maintained within the current season regulations with a beginning date of October 1, 1991. 1986 to 1990 Season History: The Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Ecosystem (NCDE) is divided into 3 bear management areas of which the Rocky Mountain East Front Bear Management Area (RMEF BMA) is one. In 1986, the quota was set at a total of 14 grizzly bears with a subquota of 6 females taken by hunting or other human caused mortalities. All three BMAs are open to hunting October 1 for any grizzly bear license holder, and will continue until 48 hour notice in appropriate BMA if total mortality quota or female subquota are reached, but will close no later than the end of the general big game season. 138 2. Why is the proposed change necessary? What is the population and habitat objective and how does this change relate? Provide prior years of survey, harvest, or other related information that supports this change. The objectives of the proposed season change are: a) Continue to manage for a viable, recovered grizzly bear population through an intensive management program and the use of restricted mortality quotas. b) To provide predictable hunter opportunity on an annual basis, while concentrating hunter effort in low effort in low elevation areas that experience grizzly- human conflicts. c) To minimize the possibility of female bears being taken in the harvest while increasing the potential for removing problem bears in the male and subadult classes. d) To maintain consistent hunting pressure on the RMEF grizzly population in order to retain a certain level of behavioral wariness towards people and property. MDFWP goals for the NCDE are to manage for a recovered grizzly bear population, to maintain distribution in the management area, and to maintain the habitat in a condition suitable to sustain the population at an average density between 1 bear/30 mi sq to 1 bear/15 mi sq (excluding Glacier National Park) (Dood et al. 1986). Additionally, the proposed season would assist in meeting specific objectives established to remove the grizzly bear from its threatened status in the NCDe, which briefly are: to observe 12 adult female grizzly bear with cubs (10 FWC inside GNP) over a running ea year average, 20 of 23 BMUs occupied by females with young from a 3 year sum of observations, and known mortality outside GNP not to exceed 14 total or 6 females annually on a running 6 year average (USFWS 1990 draft). The most current population estimates for the ecosystem vary from 440-680 bears (USFWS 1990 draft). Aune and Kasworm (1989) stated that trend data collected from the RMF core area (Deep Creek north to Birch Creek) indicated that a stable or slight increasing population existed during 1977-87. In addition, these data suggested that the population in the core area may have approached the carrying capacity of the habitat in which the bear is being allowed to exist. Grizzly bear densities varied geographically within the RMEF BMA. The estimated mean density of bears between the Badger-Two Medicine area (north Birch Creek drainage) and the core area was similar, but there was significant difference with the area south of the Sun River where the density was much lower (Aune and Kasworm 1989). Under the constraints of the NCDE season structure, the annual grizzly bear hunting season over the past five years has become unpredictable in nature. Because of this and 139 season timing, hunter opportunity afield is unpredictable, hunter success has decreased (less than 2%), harvest rates have decreased, and the ratio of females in the harvest has increased (for 1986 to 1990); 38% males to 62% females compared with 1975-1985 of 63% males to 37% females). Season length has varied considerably for a minimum of six days in 1987 to 57 days in 1989 (Table 1). Annual harvest rates have declined from a mean 10.8 bears/year (1980-1985) to 2.6 bears/year (1986-1990). There has been expressed dissatisfaction by a significant proportion of bear hunters regarding the uncertainty of the grizzly season during this period. Specifically, the RMEF BMA average harvest rate has been 0.6 bear/year (86-90), with a mean 39 hunters afield/year and a success rate of 1.7 percent (1987-1990 for which data was available) (Fig. 1). Although total problem grizzly bear situations (including human foods, carrion related, people-bear encounters, and depredations) have decreased since 1986 in the RMF area, livestock depredations have increased and the Department continues to respond to human- bear conflicts. Nuisance grizzly bears involved in recurring conflicts are predominately subadults and yearlings (79%). Aune and Kasworm (1989) found that of problem bears captured over a ten-year period on the RMF, 81 % were males with subadults comprising 86%. Most problem bear situations occur prior to the beginning of the fall grizzly hunting season; consequently, bears captured n a second or third offense and considered poor candidates for the damage hunt must be removed from the population. Intensive control management actions are expensive and time consuming, and often oriented to lowland subadult bears that have become habituated to people, food conditioning, or predating on livestock. An early spring hunting season would tend to concentrate hunting pressure on the male and subadult portion of the population using lower elevation habitat. More visible or less wary bears will have a higher probability of being harvested, and possibly a learned patter of avoidance strengthened in other individuals. The indirect effects of hunting indicate that bears survive because of genetic selection and learned behavior in avoiding confrontation and withdrawing from human contact (Mysterud 1977, Sevheen 1981, Herrero 1985). Hunting season dates influence sex ratio of bears in the harvest. Male bears are more vulnerable to harvest as affected by earlier emergence from dens and greater mobility (Nagy et al. 1983). Early fall and late spring seasons result in a higher percentage of females in the harvest (Dood et al, 1986, Troyer 1961). By adjusting season dates to coordinate with adult female grizzly denning chronology, the take of the most important sex-age class can be reduced. In the RMEF BMA, adult female median den emergence dates range from April 4 (with no cubs) to May 1 (with cubs) (Aune and Kasworm 1989). The average time interval between den emergence and movement away from the dean was 10.1 days for females, giving median range of April 14 to May 11. Assuming that hunting pressure is relatively consistent over the season, a closing of the end of the first week of May should adequately protect adult female bears. 140 Table 1. Grizzly bear hunters and harvest rates for the RMEF' BMA and the NCDE^ 1986-1990. Year KMEr Hunters KMbr Harvest NLUb Hunters NCDE Harvest Season Length 1985 0 306 6 30 days 1986 0 120 5 11 days 1987 28 1 188 3 6 days 1988 35 1 226 4 8 days 1989 55 0 114 0 57 days 1990 1 129 1 40 days ' Rocky Mountain Front Bear Management Area ^ Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem BEARS 16| Figure 1. NCDE grizzly mortality, 1988-90. 141 The Waterton Bear Management Area of Alberta is ecologically similar to that of the RMF BMA with its eastern front of prairie and riparian habitat. The Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division operates a spring-only grizzly bear season from five to six weeks under a restricted permit system (Alberta F&W Div. 1989). Hunter success over an eight-year period in the Waterton unit averaged 6% with a 95% hunter participate rate (351 permits/21 bear harvest). During this same period, the mean sex ratio of the harvest was 85% males to 15% females (J. Gunson, pers. communication 1990). As it relates to harvest rates, Miller (1990) stated that under optimal conditions for reproduction, natural mortality, and with males twice as vulnerable as females, maximal sustainable hunting mortality was estimated as 5.7% of the total grizzly bear population. A harvest rate of 3-4% is a normally sustainable level of annual harvest as documented by several management agencies (LeFrance et al. 1987). Based on this information, a spring harvest level of three bears in the RMEF BMA would be anticipated.. Oriented to the male segment, this harvest would be biologically sound and compatible with an average fall harvest rate of 0.6 bear. Total hunter harvest would then account for 3-4% of the minimum RMF grizzly bear subpopulation estimated by Dood et al. (1986). Assuming 100% hunter afield participation at 6% success rate allows for a total of 50 permits in the spring hunt to meet the three-bear harvest rate. Although the NCDE fall hunter success rate has been between 2-3% (1985-1990), spring bear hunting is generally more successful because of vulnerability of bears on low elevation habitat (Troyer 1961). Greater hunter participation can also be expected under a limited entry permit system compared with a general license hunt. A female subquota (two) is applied to the spring season, which upon being reached would close in 48 hours notification, will further assure that the annual RMF subquota (three) is not met prior to the end of the year. 3. Provide pertinent information related to any weather of habitat factors that have relevance to this change. Due to the timing of the proposed spring season, all the MDFWP Wildlife Management Areas located along the RMF (Blackleaf, Ear Mountain, and Sun River WMAs) will be closed to bear hunting until May 15, and thus will generally provide geographically spaced islands of habitat security. Certain patterns of private land ownership containing spring grizzly bear habitat will preclude any bear hunting. This is particularly relevant in the area south of the Sun River where large tracts of private land are closed to bear hunting. This will likely distribute much of the early spring hunting effort, which occurs before vegetation greenup in the foothills on low elevation lands north of the Sun River to Birch Creek. A certain amount of hunting effort will occur on lower elevation U.S. Forest Service lands depending on seasonal weather variations. 4. Briefly describe the contacts you have made with individual landowners or sportsmen, public groups, or organizations regarding this proposal and highlight their comments. 142 The idea of a spring grizzly bear season on the RMEF has been discussed with many local landowners and interested bear hunters over the past three years. In general, there has been overall support for a more reliable spring season even though there may be fewer bears available to hunt at this time of the year. Following is a partial list of landowners, groups, and agencies contacted regarding the proposed season. Mr. and Mrs. Jack Hayne, Dupuyer Legislative Representative Mr. John Schuler, Dupuyer Mr. and Mrs. Mark Taliaferro, Dupuyer Mr. and Mrs. Bill Jones, Bynum Mr. Earl Perkins, Bynum Mr. Chip McGillis, Choteau Mr. Roy Jacobs, Choteau Mr. Stan Rasmussen, Choteau Mr. and Mrs. John Cobb, Augusta Legislative Representative Mr. Richard Jackson, Outfitter/Guide, East Glacier Mr, and Mrs. Norm McDonough, Wolf Creek The Nature Conservancy Great Bear Foundation U.S. Forest Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Bureau of Land Management Most landowner and sportsmen contacts supported the spring season as it is proposed. Agency and private groups listed above supported the concept of a limited entry spring season, but commented that the fall grizzly season would need to be reduced, started at a later date, or eliminated on the RMF in order to have beneficial results from a spring season and to further assure protecting females on an annual basis. 143 LITERATURE CITED Alberta Fish and Wildlife division. 1989. Grizzly bear management plan. Alberta Fish nd Wildl. Div., Edmonton. Aune, F., and W. Kasworm. Final report East Front grizzly bear study. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildl. and Parks. 332 pp. Dood, A., B. Brannon, and R. Mace. 1986. Final programmatic EIS: The grizzly bear in northwestern Montana. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 287 pp. Gunson, J. 1990. Personal communication. Edmonton, Alberta. Herrero, S. 1985. Bear attacks - their causes and avoidance. Nick Winchester Press, New Century Pub., Inc., Piscataway, NJ. 287 pp. LeFrance, M. N., Jr., M. B. Moss, K. A. Patnode, and W. C. Sugg, III, eds. 1987. Grizzly bear compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Comm., Bozeman, Montana. 540 pp. Mysterud, I. 1977. Problems in research management of the brown bear in Norway. Viltrapport 4:19-51. Nagy, J., R. Russell, A. Pearson, M. Kingsley, and C. Larsen. 1983. A study of grizzly bears on the Barren Grounds of Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula and Richards Island, Northwest Territories, 1974 to 1978. Canadian Wildlife Service. 135 pp. Reynolds, H. V. 1975. Big game investigations. Movements and population discreetness of North Slope grizzly bears. Fed. Aid Wildl. Rest. Project W-17-6, Final Report, 1973-1975. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau. 21 pp. Servheen, C. 1981. Grizzly bear ecology and management in the Mission Mountains, Montana. Ph.D. Diss., University of Montana, Missoula. 139 pp. Tompa, F. S. 1984. Grizzly bears in British Columbia - Harvest must be reduced Annual Conference West, Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies, July 1984, Victoria, B.C. 9 pp. Troyer, W. A. 1961. The brown bear harvest in relation to management on the Kodiak Islands. Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 26:460-468. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Draft grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 117 pp. 144 APPENDIX H2 Summation of 1991 Spring Season Grizzly Bear Questionnaire. A questionnaire (at end of this Appendix) was developed and ajl 50 permittees were contacted by phone. The following information was obtained by the survey: Fifty permits were issued. Forty-eight permittees bought licenses. A total of 47 permittees hunted. These hunters spent 488 man-days hunting for an average of 10.4 man-days per hunter. One hunter used the services of an outfitter, others hunted on their own (Questions 1, 2, and 3). Figure 1 displays hunting pressure (man-days of hunting) according to logical geographic areas and boundaries along the RMF. The three most popular hunting spots were Blackleaf Creek-Cow Creek area, the Dupuyer Creek drainage and the Teton River bottom and its forks. These three spots had 149, 98 and 74 man-days respectively, and accounted for 66% of all hunting effort. Sixty-six percent of the effort occurred on private lands; the remainder on public lands (primarily National Forest) (Question 4). Each hunter was asked if he had any problem obtaining access on private lands. Seven hunters stated that they were turned down by landowners, however two of these hunters said that they did not actually receive a "no" and that the landowner simply said that there were no bears present on their lands at that time. Twenty-six hunters stated that they had no problems with obtaining access. This was also emphasized in the comment section where nine hunters stated that landowners were great, happy and cooperative (Question 4). Eighteen grizzly bears were observed by hunters. Three of these bears were killed. Three sows were observed with young: one with 2 yearlings (Lubec Ridge), one with 2 cubs (So. Fork of Birch Creek), and one with a cub (Blackleaf Creek). In addition, tracks of a sow and two yearlings were observed on the Lower Teton River bottom. The remaining 10 bears were loners. All grizzly bears observed are plotted in Figure 2 (Questions 5 and 6). Twenty-nine hunters observed grizzly bear tracks. Figure 3 displays, by location, all grizzly bear track locations. Both the bear observations and observations of tracks indicate that the late spring and deep snowpack did not prevent a significant number of bears from emerging from their dens (Question 7). Three hunters shot at a grizzly bear and each of these hunters killed the bear they shot at; no bears were wounded. Two hunters passed up an opportunity to shoot a grizzly bear in hopes of seeing a larger bear. The three grizzly bears killed during the hunt were all adult males (see attached bear records) (Questions 8, 9, 10). 145 Twelve hunters observed 17 black bears and three black bears were killed by grizzly bear permit holders during the spring grizzly season. Only one black bear sow with cubs was observed (Questions 11, 12). Hunters were asked for their comments regarding this spring hunt and/or bear management programs in Montana. The following is a summary of their comments: a) The largest response was made by 35 hunters who thought that the season was a great or a good idea. Nine hunters specifically supported this season and the Department by their comments and volunteer of assistance. Four hunters stated that everyone was very cooperative, including FWP personnel, and four hunters felt that the season was set up in a professional manner. Five hunters said that landowners were helpful and happy with the season. One hunter said all landowners he met disliked the season. b) The second-most frequent comment was hunter thoughts on anti-hunters and the Department's "fight" with anti-hunters and grizzly hunting. Six hunters didn't like the anti-hunters: "Tell Easterners to stay out of our business". Four hunters wanted the Department and K. Cool (MDFWP Director) to fight these people, and two were very happy that K. Cool took a strong position and stood up against them. One hunter volunteered his services in establishing a trust fund to combat "anti-" sentiment. c) Five hunters thought 50 permits were too many and two said 50 permits were the right amount. d) Four hunters said the season timing was just right and three more stated that it was a great time to be out. Eight hunters said that the season should be later; one suggested a month longer. Four of these eight hunters wanted a later hunt because of the late spring weather (snow) experienced this year. e) Three hunters did not like the carcass disposal program conducted by MDFWP, independent of this spring season. One hunter said that if we have a carcass disposal program then we should open the WMAs. Three more hunters and one landowner wanted the WMAs open. f) One hunter stated that there are now more grizzly bears everywhere in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, and one hunter was disappointed that he saw no grizzly bear sign. g) Three hunters saw 4 wolves while hunting grizzly bears. 146 History of three grizzly bears killed during the 1991 Spring Grizzly Bear Season. #1. The first bear killed was a huge male, known age 21 years old. He was killed April 13, 1991, on the Teton River. This bear had a lip tattoo (#218) from when he was captured in 1978 at an age of 8 years. This old bear had no previous history of causing trouble, however circumstantial evidence indicates that he may have killed a calf just before he was killed. #2. The second bear killed was a large male, known age 5 years old. He was killed April 21, 1991, in Harrison Basin. This bear was captured in 1987 as a yearling while using the Dupuyer community garbage dump. He was relocated west of the Continental Divide on the Spotted Bear River. He returned to the Dearborn River area where he spent much of his time staying in the lower foothills of the Dearborn River drainage adjacent to the National Forest. #3. The third bear killed was a large male, estimated to be 4 years old. He was killed May 4, 1991, on Little Skunk Creek. This bear had no previous history of causing problems and he was unmarked. The area he was killed in has been the site of several incidents of grizzly bears killing livestock during recent years. 147 Dale of Survey Surveyor Name y Spring Season Gmzly Bear Questionnaire 1991 1. Did you hunt Grizzly Bear in Montana during the spring season in 1991? yes no 2. Who did you hunt Vv-ith? (Outfitter, other grizzly bear hunter, friend?) 3. How many days did you hunt grizzlies? days 4. Please describe the specific area you hunted in (if you hunted in more than one area, how many days did you hunt in each area?): (a) Was it on private or public land? How many days on each? If on private land, did you have any access problemjs? 5. Did you see any grizzly bears? yes no If so, describe them the best that you can (Age, sex, color, tags or collars, cubs/yeariings present v/ith sow, etc.): ■ i 6. Please describe the general location of each grizzly bear you observed. (Interviev.'er - indicate locations on enclosed map with an X). 7. Did you observ'e grizzly tracks or scat? ...yes no If so, please describe the general location of the grizzly sign. (Interviev/er - indicate locations on enclosed map with O's). ■ 8. Did you shoot at a grizzly bear? yes no (a) Did you wound a bear that subsequently escaped? yes no 9. Did you kill a grizzly bear? yes no 10. Did you pass up an opportunity to shoot a grizzly bear in hopes of seeing a larger bear? yes no 11. Did you observe any black bears while hunting grizzlies? yes no If so, how many? 12. Did you kill a black bear while hunting grizzlies? yes no Describe location. (Indicate location of kill on map with EB), ' 13. Please provide below any comments you may have on the spring bear hunting season or bear management programs in Montana: IN MM ROCKY MCUlvITAIN EAST : P-CIi? Mark an X where tr.e - obser-7ed each grizzly fKUR£Z - a/zziy ems dBS^/iy'ffS \ % : ROCKY MOUNTAIN EAST FP.CMT BEAR I-IANAGZMENT AREA 1. an X where the hunte observed each grizzly. HOC KY HOUNTAI.M 1 AST f.-' i'l' r/ A:i APPENDIX I Individual Grizzly Bear Mortalities in the NCDE, 1986-1990 Location Ownership Codes: FIR - Flathead Indian Reservation BIR - Blackfeet Indian Reservation GNP - Glacier National Park FNF - Flathead National Forest LCNF - Lewis and Clark National Forest PR-MT - Private land - Montana MDFWP - Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks land 152 o s (-1 1 o 2 « < s 5 00 00 00 1 «s 0\ o f») )le 1 robl s o o Details ol illegal(?) or possil jeen trapped 10/9/ 1 at feed lot. - Hit by train Unknown - : found; had I on carcasses Vehicle kill Sutus Known Known UTM 3759- 53153 3150- 53460 ition : rship MDFWl FNF ition 'Game Loci S -* bit J g CO > Weight Obs.) Age ■* Cub X s vo 00 vo 00 « o a fS vo ^0 Ov o 8 o> -< — 1^ Ref. Number N86-14 N86-15 8 =S .2 C A 3 e •s B E c > o 1^ ■> s 3 i i vo o O Q f 1 154 5 a o ■a I 73 > s JS •a d at ~ 'u 8 n ^••s 1 ill s I I G 7 " ill " i I < <2 S 90 Z 'J2 :5 ^ 00 3 e 1 2 ^1 ao 5 o •a 5 a c at) I 0\ 00 o r~ r- 00 OO c O ■a ^1 a o •s o Z O o g B 1 o O 00 0\ ^ \0 =«fc »-< 00 00 Z s 00 ri — • Q c 3 JS •a 00 (1. z 2 U c o c 3 00 o 'i2 B •a 00 o 3 O 11 u3 |0 o 3 o 3 IT •s 3 •a o •a <« Z o B •a o Hi o u "2 '? (5 1 u a •a c o O J) 4> •3 ^ <0 5 00 157 3 or JD 3 JS 5 o o 5 i i 11 § I 156 o a a a oo oo W Q U o B N N c 01) 13 3 > '•3 c s CO 4> ^1 o Z 1 o O «*1 90 Ov 00 — . o >ri 00 u VI 00 c 3 O >" i . o o 3 -< =* XI •a on I o o ■* >rt — ■ Q c 3 73 oo :3 22 (J c o c 3 °J2 a c 3 JS -a 60 O « U I I CO ^ S eg « 3 o 3 3 1 o ■s c o ■o «> o c o T3 l2 O o Z 00 00 0\ 157 o XI a e o I ^ a 1 « « * o c o -a I e I Z ^ "5 .2 3 g o! E .2 I M eg ^ 2 I ca i Pi o o c ao — 00 .•3 <^ .s-s li D g 2? « :3 •a o I . o S a. o O r~- O ro c "n o r- 00 m 6 O <*> 00 r-i 6 - r- 00 — .5 .5 .3 u > .5 2 CO u ?2 "> =1 M.5 C u -o o o 00 - 2 i| J o If - 2 I) -q 1^ I a 5 s > I o- p 3 E C JO o J § CQ C O E ^ .5 I s : i 25 i3 00 o c o 3 1 r<^ I 00 —I 00 o n OS 1 o — ■ CO >o 1 r4 — ro o a: z z z 0^ z c o CS o o 2 > u3 CO U U U In U OQ is 60 .5 I o u CQ U w u S CQ 00 8 c 3 U 60 + o 00 o 3 X) 3 X u 1/3 00 00 CQ o Z 5 On z 9 o OS Z < On z 5 o O 0\ Z ca E c 3 9 o OS Z o\ z 60 0\ z 160 o O Vi 3 C/5 H o u X u c3 m Is C u i! > O VO 3 2 z 3 o "B X5 ^ := ° I u, ' 3 fas On m Z UL, u 0Q o a o Z u OH 6 o Z o 2 £ . > y ■= o O E B o u 1) > I— I l-i ^ I o Tt- in a: o Z a. .5 e .5 e > 1 — < >o LU Z UL, 0\ O O On z u I o ON ON Z u B 3 (/5 O o ■s E . • AN On S Ov 't \0 >ri •c -8 u r3 5J «» u -O 3C ca ■s 3 3 c E VI o Q e ^ a.Z o u c x: « c jz u ^ E ■o « S U) Sen _ C E t« 5 E J3 1 i 2 2 8l 8 s j! <^ O G, On ca z « S n u VI C o .2: « •S 5 E 2 2 - ta ea 1 3 ^ o = g o -o ON Z c 3 O (J 3 ^ 2. 5 s c u E u ca c ca m ■8 u XI E u > o Z c o U JO O o O c o ■s B O B O .5 E 3 73 o On On O Y c ca E 3 X Hi T3 2 B U .5 E O u e u t: o Z & ca E E 3 CO 1 3 s a o ^ E. «» 2 < M 3 ca o B ca E 3 x: eS E E 3 161 Appendix J. Individual records of grizzy bear monitored in the NCDE, 1975-1990. A = alive in that year I : =- known illegal L = legal: hunter kill/self defense U = unreported death R = relocated or control kill N = natural D = dead C = capture related death Study areas are: NF = North Fork Flathead River SF = South Fork Flathead River EF = East Front MM = Mission Mountains BIR = Blackfeet Indian Reservation 1975 Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate —7* rm lUl Kl — T"? — rar A A ID IVl 1 < J .J A n 1 oiai — L II — fl Year nPag No Sex ^tiiHv Arf*fi Fate .__ .... /o ■ ' MSH' ■ M INr* T A /o 1 TO IVl 1 c 1 .J INr A n /O 111 r 1 C i.J NIC INr A A 10 M i.J or f 1 U nfi. 12/ M 1 .3 cc or r r U 10 1Z7 M iC c o.y or A A /o lUB M 1 c cc or A A 10 1 /I M J.J cc or A A 10 I ly M 1 1.3 SF A 76 114 M 5.5 SF A Toul = 10 U =2 1977 Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate 77 113 NF A 77 227 M 16.5 NF A 77 284 F 8.5 NF A 77 257 F 8.5 EF A 77 271 M 1.5 EF A 77 273 F 3.5 EF A 77 129 SF A 77 108 SF A 77 171 SF A 77 119 SF A 77 114 SF A 77 145 M 9.5 SF A 77 230 F MM A 77 206 M MM U 77 229 M MM A 77 116 F MM A Toul = 16 U = 1 162 1978 Year "78 Tag No. to 7B /o 237 F 78 /O 271 78 /B 273 78 218 M 78 282 M 78 229 M 78 il9 78 to 114 78 17< is p 78 297 F 78 230 78 116 78 305 P 78 297 F Toul = 15 Age at Capture Study Area Fate 4.5 W A EF A EF A EF A 8.5 EF A 2.5 EF A 5.5 MM A SF A SF A 6.5 SF A 8.5 SF A MM A MM A MM A 8.5 SF A 163 Appendix J. Individual records of grizzy bear monitored in the NCDE, 1975-1990. Fate codes are: A = alive in that year I = known illegal L = legal: hunter kill/self defense U = unreported death R = relocated or control kill N = natural D = dead C = capture related death Study areas are: NF = North Fork Flathead River SF = South Fork Flathead River EF = East Front MM = Mission Mountains BIR = Blackfeet Indian Reservation 1975 Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate "^75 m fH 73 FIT A— 75 106 M 3.5 NF A Total = 2 U =0 1976 Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate 76 106 M NF A 76 179 M 1.5 NF A 76 113 F 3.5 NF A 76 102 M 2.5 SF U 76 127 M 1.5 SF U 76 129 M 6.5 SF A 76 108 M 1.5 SF A 76 171 M 3.5 SF A 76 119 M 11.5 SF A 76 114 M 5.5 SF A ToUl = 10 U = 2 1977 Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate 77 Hi NF A 77 227 M 16.5 NF A 77 284 F 8.5 NF A 77 257 F 8.5 EF A 77 271 M 1.5 EF A 77 273 F 3.5 EF A 77 129 SF A 77 108 SF A 77 171 SF A 77 119 SF A 77 114 SF A 77 145 M 9.5 SF A 77 230 F MM A 77 206 M MM U 77 229 M MM A 77 116 F MM A ToUl = 16 U = 1 162 1981 Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate 81 ? '/ ? ' NF A 81 452 NF A 81 453 NF A 81 454 NF A 81 ? F AD NF L 81 230 MM A 81 028/029 M MM A 81 420 MM A 81 305 MM A 81 257 EF A 81 273 EF A 81 218 EF A 81 282 EF A 81 220 EF A 81 333 EF A 81 203 EF A 81 335 EF A 81 223 EF A 81 297 F SF A 81 363 F SF A Total = 20 U = 0 1982 Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate 85 453 NF A 82 257 EF A 82 273 EF A 82 218 EF A 82 282 EF A 82 220 EF A 82 333 EF A 82 203 EF A 82 335 EF A 82 223 EF A 82 529 M 1.5 EF L 82 518 F EF A 82 519 M 0.5 EF L 82 544 M 2.5 EF A 82 548 F 10.5 EF A 82 230 MM A 82 028/029 MM A 82 117 M MM A 82 420 F MM A 82 305 MM A 82 297 F SF A 82 363 F SF A Toul = 22 U =0 165 1983 Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate "83 257 EF X — Oj 273 EF 83 218 EF 282 EF 220 EF 81 335 EF 83 518 EF A 83 544 EF A 83 548 EF A 83 500 F 9.5 EF A 83 498 M 3.5 EF A 83 485 M 6.5 EF A 83 333 EF A 83 GARY NF A 83 ETHYL NF A 83 SUE NF A 83 230 MM A 81 ni8/01Q MM A 83 305 MM A 83 420 MM A 83 297 SF A 83 363 SF A Total = 22 U =0 1984 Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate U GARY NF A 84 ETHYL NF A 84 SUE NF A 84 257 EF A 84 273 EF I 84 282 EF L 84 220 EF A 84 333 EF A 84 335 EF A 84 518 EF L 84 544 EF I 84 548 EF A 84 500 EF A 84 498 EF A 84 485 EF A 84 328 M 2.5 EF A 84 313 F 3.5 EF A 84 366 F 5.5 EF A 84 355 M 8.5 EF A 84 317 F 3.5 EF A 84 392 M 0.5 EF A 84 326 M 1.5 EF A 84 305 MM A 84 028/029 MM N 84 420 F MM A 84 297 F SF A 84 363 SF A Toul = 27 U =0 166 198S Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate 85 316 F 3.5 EF A 8S 346 M 6.5 EF A 85 301 F 12.5 EF A 85 257 EF A 85 220 EF A 85 548 EF A 85 498 EF A 85 485 EF A 85 313 EF A 85 366 EF A 85 355 EF A 85 317 EF A 85 392 EF A 85 305 MM D 85 ETHYL NF A 85 SUE NF A 85 500 EF R 85 335 EF R 85 326 EF R 85 420 F MM U 85 297 F SF A 85 363 SF A Total = 22 U =0 1986 Year Tag No. Sex Age Study Area Fate i6 41J M 7.5 eP A 86 466 F 15.5 EF A 86 464 F CUB EF A 86 ? 7 CUB EF A 86 467 M 3.5 EF A 86 316 EF A 86 346 EF A 86 301 EF A 86 257 EF A 86 220 EF A 86 548 EF A 86 498 EF C 86 485 EF A 86 313 EF A 86 366 EF A 86 355 EF A 86 317 EF A 86 392 EF A 86 341 F 2.5 EF R 86 101 F 3.5 EF I 86 106 M 4.5 EF D 86 410 M 3 EF N 86 326 M 3 EF R 86 500 F EF A 86 297 F SF A 86 363 F SF A Toul = 26 U = 0 167 1987 Year Tag. No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate 07 ■ 0 1 EF .. _^ . 87 0 / 464 EF \ 87 ?(466's yearling) EF A 87 467 (slipped collar. 7/87) EF D 87 0 / 316 EF L 87 301 EF A 87 0 1 257 (observed) EF 87 0 / 313(slipped collar) EF 87 366 EF 87 3S5 (hunter killed 10/87) EF L 87 50 F 3-4 BIR A 87 1 F 11.5 SF A 87 2 F 1.5 SF A 87 3 F 1.5 SF A 87 4 F 7.5 SF A 87 107 M 1.5 EF A 87 108 M 1.5 EF R 87 110 M 1.5 EF D 87 117 M cub EF A 87 0 / 412 M 87 49-50 F 4 BIR A 87 500 F EF A 87 297 F SF A 87 363 F SF A Total = 24 U =0 1983 Year Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate 412 M 10.5 EF R 88 107 M EF A 88 117 M EF A 88 301 F EF A 88 366 F EF A 88 466 F EF A 88 257+132 F EF A 88 500+138 F EF A 88 49-50 F BIR A 88 44-46 F 14 BIR A 88 47-48 F 2 BIR A 88 11-12 M 18 + BIR A 88 35-36 M 4 BIR A 88 9-10 M 3 BIR A 88 94 F 8.5 SF A 88 96 F 15.5 SF A 88 97 F 15.5 SF N 88 98 M 1.5 SF A 88 136 M 6.0 SF A 88 137 F 1.5 SF A 88 139 F 4.5 SF A 88 143 F 5.5 SF A 88 144 M 11.5 SF A 88 146(381) M 4.5 SF A 88 147 F 2.5 SF A 88 148 M 8.5 SF A 88 149 M 8.5 SF A 88 150 M 6.5 SF A 88 297 F SF A 88 1 F 11 SF I 88 335 F EF D 88 363 F SF D 88 4-5 F SF A Toul = 33 U = 0 168 Year 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Toul = 46 U = 1 1989 Tag No. Sex Age at Capture Study Area Fate 51 F 2 BIR T 1 53 F 2 BIR 1 55 M 3 BIR A n 57 F 6 BIR 62 M 6 BIR 257+132 F 22 EF A n 134 M 1 EF A n 317 F 8 EF A n 135 F CUB EF A n 136 F CUB EF A n 137 F CUB EF A n 500+138 F 11 EF A n 139 M CUB EF 140 F CUB EF 107 M 3 EF 301 F 20 EF A 117 M EF 13 M 7 SF D 147 F 3 SF 14 F 11 SF 12 F 3 SF I 137 F 2 SF A /% 3 F 3 SF 4-5 F 9 SF 5A unk CUB SF 139 F 5 SF 143 F 5 SF 42 M CUB SF 43 M CUB SF 150 M 7 SF 144 M 12 SF 146 M 6 SF 148 M 9 SF 136 M 7 SF A n 98 M 2 SF D 18 F 2 SF 94 F 10 SF A 94A unk CUB SF A 297 F SF A 149 M SF A 50 F BIR A 44 F BIR A 48 F BIR A 35 M BIR A 10 M BIR A 96 F SF A 169 I wo Year Tag No. Sex Age SiuJy Area Fate Cominenls % " 71-72 F BIR A 90 60-59 M BK A 90 464 F BIR A 90 25-23 M BIR A 90 50 F BIR A collar fell off summer 1990 90 44 F BIR A collar fell off summer 1990 90 48 F BIR A recaptured & retagged spring 1990 90 10 M BIR A collar fell off summer 1990 90 57 F BIR A 90 55 M BIR L killed in reported self defense on Res. 90 134 M BIR A signal died summer 1990 90 62 M BIR A 90 500 + 138 F EF A 90 117 M EF R sheep depredation, live removal 90 144 F EF L possible self defense 90 137 F EF A radioed animal 90 135 F EF A 90 136 F EF A 90 147 F SF A 90 14 F SF A 90 144 M SF L defense of life 90 43 M subadult SF c snare mortality 90 47 F subadult SF N natural mortality 90 297-45 F SF A 90 25 M SF A 90 48 F SF A 90 22 M SF A 90 96 F SF A 90 143 F SF A 90 71 M 2 SF A 90 4-5 F SF A 90 42 M SF A 90 149 M SF A 90 136 M SF A 90 137 F subadult SF A 90 139 F SF A 90 150 M SF A 90 146 M SF A 90 94 F SF A 90 44 F SF D 90 18 F SF A 90 1-2 F MM A 90 5-6 M 2.5 NF R tivp rpirrnvftl momt mntml 90 317 F EF A 90 257-132 F EF A 90 C2325 M SF R 90 228 M 2.5 SF A Total = 47 U =0 170 Appendix K Nuisance Grizzly Bear Incidences in the NCDE and Glacier National Park, 1986-1990 171 It] 00 ON Q U § c N N •d o 3 2 •a a. 5 V o. e u o •a i2 BQ O § 8 O 3 3 •s g a I? 8 so (rt ^ a ^ •a 3 3 M C «0 ^ O 00 5 E ^ O LJ i > 2 I is ft. " o Is ^ S H u< .5 n u o u. 8 i o NO u •§ •c . ft* «> 2 S o o a o *> 5 - U 172 Fate Retagged 7/11/87 near Femdale Management control mortality 8/3/87 Illegal mortality 10/11/86 1 Inside Glacier National Park || Source' FWP ADC FWP ADC FWS FWP FWS, FWP FWP FWP Explanation Sheep depredation ($330) Sheep depredation ($180) Sheepherder shot at a grizzly Livestock (cattle kill) $500. Traps set, no capture. Cow depredation ($550) Livestock (sheep kill) $100. Traps set, no capture. Sheep depredation ($75) 2 bears broke into home Transplant Nuisance at residence, eating horse pellets. Previously trapped 10/16/83 W. Glacier dump Nuisance in garbage. Transplant, (preventative action) illegal mortality Grizzly attacked a hunter Release Site Unknown So. Fork of Flathead Blackleaf (within home range) Location Pendroy Blackleaf Ck. W. Bynum Codette Creek. South end Helena F. Deaibom/Elk BMU 25 SW Augusu BIR South Teton BMU 20 Miller Hutterite Colony Bynum Smith Creek, SW of Augusta Mission Mountains M I u Teton McCabe Pi. Bear ID Number 4039 Age unk sub ad unk sub ad unk •o a unk 3 3