S Dood, Arnold R.
639.9 Grizzly bear
7974446 environmental F2gbep impact statement 1985
E JINARY DRAFT
- Grizzly Bear Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
C
MEPnS COLLECTION
1 JUL ?. 1988
MONTANA STATE UBRARV 1515 E. 6th AVE.
A\»UF'
^Morftaiia ‘Departrqeqt of tFisti,fWildUfe CSL VarH^
1420 East Sixth Avenue Helena, Montana 59620
June 1985
m um
UV 151989
a 2939
MONTANA STATE L BRARY
3 0864 0010 0961 5
MONTANA STATE LIBRARY 1515 E. 6fh AVE.
HELENA, MONTANA 59620
p
5
GRIZZLY BEAR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Preliminary Draft
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Prepared by: Arnold P. Dood Robert D. Brannon Richard D. Mace
June 28,
1985
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was drafted through the efforts of numerous persons from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, universi- ties, and other state and federal agencies. The Department wishes to specifically thank the following persons supplying information for the document:
R. Aasheim, M. Aderhold, K. Aune, G. Bissell, S. Bradshaw, J. Cada, K. Constan, G. Erickson, K. Greer, P. Harris, D. Hyyppa, C. Jonkel, F. Kent, P. Klaver, P. Martinka, C. Martinka, L . Metzgar, J. Mundinger, A. Olsen, J . Posewitz, P. Schlad weiler.
The Department would also like to thank those who edited the preliminary draft, and praise the excellent secretarial work of Margaret Morelli, Marilyn Johnson, Laurie Booth, and Judy Kirkland .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements j
List of Tables v
List of Figures vii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Historical Perspective 2
Circumstances Leading to the Programmatic EIS . 4
Ecosystems Fvaluated in this EIS 7
Historical Review 8
II. DEPARTMENT GOALS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES . . 11
Montana Fish and Game Commission Policy .... 11
Specific Department Goals for the Grizzly
Bear 12
Department Goals 12
Wildlife Program Goal 12
Grizzly Bear Management Objectives 12
Legal Context of Grizzly Management 16
III. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 20
The Natural Environment 20
The Human Environment . . 29
Jurisdiction and Land Use 33
IV. DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT SELECTION 42
Distribution 42
Habitat Selection 42
V. GRIZZLY BEAR POPULATIONS 54
Densities 54
Reproduction 55
Age Structure 58
Mortality 61
Population Regulation 62
Population Status 64
Trend Monitoring 69
Augmentation or Peintroduction 70
«
r
9
ii
TABLF: OF CONTFNTS (Continued)
Page
VI. MANAGEMENT PFOGFAM FEVIEW 72
Mortality Quota 72
Hunting Seasons 7J1
Female Protection 78
Closure Authority 79
Other Fegulations 81
Hunter Surveys 87
VII. GFIZZLY BEAF MOFTALITY IN THE NCDE 85
Total Man-caused Mortality 85
Hunting Mortality 85
Effects of Hunting 96
Nonhunting Man-caused Mortality in the NCDE . . io*l
VIII. DAMAGE CONTFOL 117
IX. HUMAN INTEF ACTIONS 120
Habitat Encroachment 120
Fire Suppression 121
Vegetation Manipulations 122
Disturbance from Motorized Activities .... 123
X. PESEAFCH PFOGFAM 12H
XI. ENFOFCEMFNT 129
XII. PUBLIC I NFOFMATION AND EDUCATION 130
Statewide Activities 130
Fegional Efforts 133
Future Plans 136
XIII. FECPEATION MANAGEMENT 1 3 7
XIV. LAND MANAGEMENT 139
Department Lands 139
Established Department Policies 139
Coordination with Other Landowners 1 M 0
Northwest Power Act-Grizzly Bear Mitigation . 1*12
XV. INTEFAGENCY COOFDINATION 1 *1 *1
TABLF OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
XVI. MANAGEMENT ALTFRNATIVES U6
Management Alternative 1: No grizzly bear
hunting 1148
Management Alternative 2: Grizzly bear
hunting 152
Regulations 163
Grizzly Bear Management Units 168
XVII. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 172
Criteria for Determining Population Status . . 173
Regulations 176
Grizzly Bear Management Units . 177
Recommended Mortality Rate for the NCDF .... 178
XVIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 180
Unavoidable Environmental Effects 180
Irreversible and Irretrievable Resources
Commitment 182
Short-term and Long-term Uses 182
XIX. RECOMMENDATIONS 1811
XX. LITERATURE CITED 189
APPENDICES 206
A. Grizzly Bear Policy 206
P. CFR 50 - 17. 'lO 211
C. Population Density Justifications .... 21*1
D. Correspondence on Bear Relocation .... 220
E. Relocation Guideline 226
F. FWP Species Priorities 252
G. Management Guidelines 253
H. Specific Grizzly Pear Guidelines 257
I. IGBC Agreement 261
ATTACHMENTS 267
I
<4
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 . Table 2. Table 3.
Table U.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7. Table 8.
Table 9. Table 10.
Table 11. Table 1?. Table 13.
Table 1 4 .
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 1 7 .
Table 18.
Table 19.
Montana population, 1950-2000.
Montana hunting and fishing license sales.
Acreages of administrative responsibility in the NCDF .
Pecreational visitor use days on the Flathead National Forest, 1976-1983.
"Visitor Days" in four wilderness areas within the NCDF, 1975-1983.
Visitor use data for Glacier National Fark, Montana, 1956-1981*.
Data on land exchanges within the NCDF.
Percent of radio-fixes in each of 5 habitat component groupings by season (spring-summer/summer- fall)
Major food items of the grizzly bear in the NCDF.
Information on denning behavior of grizzly bears in the NCDF.
Summary of spring den departure information.
Grizzly bear density estimates for the NCDF.
Grizzly bear density estimates from study areas in and adjacent to the NCDF.
Summary of grizzly bear population densities in North America, Europe, and USSR.
Reproductive characteristics of North American grizzly bear populations.
Age structures of North American grizzly bear populations.
Mortality rate (?) in each age class for several grizzly bear populations in North America.
Composition of total mortality within the entire NCDF and within 10 miles of Glacier National Park, 1970-1984.
Recommended and reported grizzly bear mortality rates .
v
Table 20. North American grizzly bear hunting seasons for 198U .
Table 21. Summary of weekly hunter harvest of grizzlybears in northwestern Montana, 1967-1981*.
Table 22. Summary of protection provided female grizzlies in states and provinces with current or historic grizzly bear hunting seasons.
Table 23. Summary of total mortality of grizzly bears in northwestern Montana, 1967-198U.
Table 2 1< . Distribution of hunting mortality by hunti ng district, 1 973- 1 9 8 ^ .
Table 25. Mean age of grizzly bears harvested from the NODE, Alaska and British Columbia, 1 969-1981*.
Table 26. Grizzly bear hunter success for the NCDF, 1967- 198a.
Table 27. Number of elk hunters, elk hunter days afield, and grizzly licenses sold, 1971-1983 from elk hunting districts U0, 1 1* 1 , 150, and 151.
Table 28. Number of grizzly bear/human incidents and human injuries in North America.
Table 29. Categories of known, man-caused nonhunting mortality in the NCDE, 1 975 — 1 g81*.
Table 30. Data on the fate of radio-instrumented grizzly bears from a areas of the NCDE.
Table 31. Data from instrumented grizzly bears used to cal- culate the annual rate of unreported man-caused mortality.
Table 32. Estimated range of annual unreported, man-caused mortality in the NCDE.
Table 33. Summary of average annual man-caused mortality in the NCDE, 1975-198**.
Table 3**. Montana grizzly bear license receipts, 1 9 8 3 and 198**.
«
*
vi
LIST OF FIGUFFS
t
Figure 1. Figure 2 . Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Grizzly bear ecosystems in the United States. Occupied grizzly bear habitat within the NCDF. Occupied grizzly bear habitat within the CYF. Habitat regions in the CYF.
Habitat regions in the NCDF.
Grizzly bear density estimates in the NCDF.
Area in which the annual mortality quota of 25 applies .
Grizzly bear hunting district boundaries in the NCDF.
Figure 9. Grizzly bear license sales in Montana, 1967-1984.
Figure 10. Total mortality of grizzly bears by type in northwestern Montana, 1967-1984.
Figure 11. Total mortality of grizzly bears by sex in northwestern Montana, 1967-1984.
Figure 12. Distribution of age of female grizzly bears in total mortality in northwestern Montana, 1970- 1 984 .
Figure 13. Distribution of age of male grizzly bears in total mortality in northwestern Montana, 1970— 1 984 .
Figure 14. Hunter harvest of grizzly bears by sex in north- western Montana, 1967-1984.
Figure 15. Hunter harvest of grizzly bears by age class in northwestern Montana, 1967-1984.
Figure 16. Distribution of age of female grizzly bears in the hunter harvest in northwestern Montana, 1968- 1 984 .
Figure 17. Distribution of age of male grizzly bears in the hunter harvest in northwestern Montana, 1968— 1 984 .
Figure 18. Location of nonhunting kills of grizzly bears in northwestern Montana, 1970-1984.
vii
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
19. Distribution of age of male grizzly bears in nonhunting mortality in northwestern Montana, 1 968-1 98H .
20. Distribution of age of female grizzly bears in nonhunting mortality in northwestern Montana, 1 968-1 98^1.
21. Location of hunter kills of grizzly bears in northwestern Montana, 1 970 — 1 98li.
22. Two grizzly bear management units in the NCDF divided by the Continental Divide.
23. Grizzly bear management units divided into ecologically similar units.
viii
I
INTRODUCTION
During the 1960s, a wave of environmental awareness swept our nation. This awareness grew from the realization that our natural resources were finite and connected ecologically, geographically, economically, socially, and politically .
The use and development of some of our natural resources had an impact on the abundance and condition of other natural resources. This relationship affected people throughout the country. A protective attitude toward the state of our air, water, and soils soon developed. The condition of our wildlife resources was used as an overall indicator of environmental health and became the focus of this new found interest in conservation.
A long debate arose concerning the role of government in protecting rare animals, especially those threatened by human activities. The result was the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Most states, including Montana, followed in the 1970s with endangered species legislation of their own.
The grizzly bear, Montana’s state animal, was placed on the threatened species list in 1975. This status mandates special management actions to ensure its survival and enhancement .
This environmental impact statement (EIS) is designed to assemble in one document all of the information relevant
to the State of Montana’s grizzly bear management program in northwestern Montana.
This FIS summarizes the information on the grizzly bear and its habitat in northwest Montana. It summarizes the current grizzly management program and the legal, biological, political, and philosophical arguments on which that management program is based. The history of the program's evolution and the state's goals and management objectives are detailed. Future management is addressed, and possible alternatives and their impacts are explained.
The objectives of the FIS are to: 1) give a comprehen- sive presentation of the subject to all interested people, 2) review the many variables involved, 3) develop a frame- work to provide for review of alternatives, and through public discussion, weigh the merits and impacts of various alternatives and select a program for better future grizzly bear management.
A. Historical Perspective
The Furasian brown bear and the North American grizzly are considered the same species ( U r s u s a r c t o s ) (Herrero 1972). Current theory holds that this species developed its large size, aggressive temperament, flexible feeding habits, and adaptive nature in response to habitats created by intermittent glaciation. It is believed that ancestors of the grizzly bear migrated from Siberia across a land bridge at the Bering Strait at least 50,000 years ago. As the continental ice sheet receded approximately 10,000 years
2
Nc>T| oH
& foe y
C
ago, the species began to work its way south over post glacial North America.
When European explorers arrived, grizzlies were found throughout most of the American West, including northern Mexico. It is not known exactly how many grizzlies lived in the continental U . S . before 1700. However, estimates, based on historical sightings and modern-day densities, center around 100,000 bears in portions of 17 states.
The depletion of the grizzly took less than 60 years, from the end of the trapping era in 1840 to the turn of the century. The decline was due to a number of activities, including reduction of the natural prey base through market hunting associated with gold exploration and mining; construction of railroads; homesteading; predator control; livestock industry; and loss of habitat related to farming and human settlement. Much of the killing was based on the notion that the grizzly bear posed a constant threat to individuals and livestock and was incompatible with human
activity .
it) om nrvfe/c^wte SWf
v>| l S a. V 1 1 )e vm'W* ^ Wvwcx/wy
Almost without exception, bear numbers declined where
man and bear came together for any length of time. Grizzlies were gone from west coast beaches by the 1870s, and removed from prairie river bottoms in the 1880s. By the turn of the century, they had disappeared from most of the broad, open intermountain valleys. Fifteen years later most foothill country lacked grizzlies. Grizzlies were last documented in Texas in 1890; North Dakota in 1897; California in 1 9 2 2 ;
3
Utah in 1923; Oregon and New Mexico in 1931; Arizona in
1935; and Colorado in 1979.
In the conterminous U.S., the grizzly survives in six ecosystems (Fig. 1): 1) in and adjacent to Yellowstone
National Park; 2) Glacier National Park and the wilderness areas and associated lands south to the Blackfoot drainage ^ j j and northwest to the Kootenai drainage; 3) the Cabinet
Mountains and Yaak River drainage in the northwest corner of bHo w Ic) -tk Montana; *1) the Bitterroot Mountains and associated wilder-
J- ^
h) Cfw t> urvWtf m flar'd.
O^r ba
Wt,s>4
('OM'tr
ness lands north to the Salmon River and west to the Selway drainage in northcentral Idaho; 5) the Selkirk Mountains in northeast Washington and the panhandle of Idaho; and 6) the northern edge of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington. B. Circumstances Leading to the Programmatic FIS
The degree of protection and the sophistication of management practices has steadily grown. In the 1960s, the importance of protecting fish and wildlife habitat began to emerge as a key public issue in wildlife management. Through all of the previous years, wildlife conservation was sought through the restriction and regulation of hunters and fishermen. Although effective, regulations and laws fail to address a more fundamental issue: the protection of fish and
wildlife habitat.
Habitat protection under state authority began with stream preservation in the early 19*J0s and eventually found its way into other Montana law. Generally, concern for, and protection of habitat appeared in state laws dealing with controlling natural resource development. These laws
H
Figure 1. Grizzly bear ecosystems in the United States.
usually addressed specific resource issues such as surface mining and siting of major industrial facilities. An exception to this specific approach was the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) which was passed in 1971. On the national level, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed in 1969.
MEPA, patterned closely after its federal counterpart, includes three basic parts:
1. Tt establishes a policy for a productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.
2. Tt requires state government to coordinate state plans, functions and resources to achieve various environmental, economic and social goals.
3. It establishes that each person is entitled to a healthful environment and has a responsibility to enhance and preserve the environment.
The Montana Fish and Game Commission (MFGC) adopted rules for implementing MEPA. These rules provide for the preparation and distribution of a programmatic review to evaluate a series of actions, programs or policies that affect the quality of the human environment. Grizzly bear management in Montana is being addressed within the frame- work of MEPA and its regulations. This programmatic review concerns that portion of Montana known as the "Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem" (NCDE) and the "Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem" (CYE).
Hunting in general, and grizzly bear hunting in particular, were addressed previously under the provisions of MEPA. One year after the passage of the Act, the "Annual Statewide Harvest of Big Game Animals", an FIS, was written
6
and reviewed. An addendum to the hunting FIS titled, "Environmental Impact Statement on the Sport Hunting of the Grizzly Bear", was written and circulated for public review in July 1975. Both of these documents were written and reviewed before the adoption of the current rules. In the public review of both these documents, no comment critical of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (Department) management program was offered.
In addition to these periodic environmental evaluations, the MFGC holds public meetings as part of the annual season-setting process. The Commission agenda and season-setting procedure is a public process constantly accessible and open to new data, information, and opinion. Tentative seasons and quotas for big game are set every January and copies of those tentative recommendations are mailed to sportsmen and other interested parties. In March, a special public meeting is held and the Commission solicits public comment and suggestion. All season- setting decisions on the coming hunting season are completed by the end of August. This procedure is repeated annually with the more detailed public analysis inherent in MFPA used periodically when the need for such analysis is evident.
It is in this context that this programmatic FIS is prepared and circulated for comment.
C. Ecosystems Evaluated in this FIS
Montana contains all or portions of four of the six areas identified as occupied by grizzly bear in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI 1982). Of these four, only the NCDF and
7
CYE contain enough grizzly habitat within the state to allow for the Department program, by itself, to significantly guide the management of grizzly bear. Although Montana’s management program influences grizzly management in other areas (like the Yellowstone), management in those areas requires a joint effort with adjacent states.
This document, therefore, describes only the Department’s program as it pertains to areas within and adjacent to the N C D E and CYE in Montana. The management directions for the Sel way-Bitterroot and Yellowstone grizzly bear ecosystem are not included.
D. Historical Review
To properly evaluate Montana's grizzly bear management program, it is important to have some historical perspectives on past events and management actions. The outline below provides a brief review. Past actions by the Department are underlined.
1 80*1-06 1 807 1 862 1 872 1885 1889 1905 1910 1913
1917
1921
1923
1929
1930
Lewis and Clark Expedition
Montana's First Settlement
Homestead Act
Yellowstone Park created
Peak of Cattle Boom
Montana becomes a state
First hunting licenses for residents
Glacier National Park Created
Legislation creating the Sun River Game
Preserve
Montana Fish and Game Commission publishes an article seeking game animal status for bears
Use of dogs to hunt bears prohibited
Statute against enticing or luring game
animals is enacted
Bears are declared game animals
Spotted Bear Preserve formed
Predator control (and use of poisons) is
extensive
8
1936
1940
1941
1947
1 948
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
I960 1 964 1967
1969
1971
1 973 1974
1975
Spotted Bear Preserve abolished
First Big Game manager hired for the Montana
Fish and Game Department
Bob Marshall Wilderness created
Grizzly bear survey work by Cooney ( 1 94 1 )
Spring season on grizzlies closed Grizzly bear season closed on the west side of the south fork of the Flathead River
Sun River Game Range acquired
Killing bear cubs or females with cubs
prohibited
Regulations specifically prohibit baiting bears Grizzly bear survey work (Stockstad 1 953. 1 95 4 )
Surveys indicate an increase in grizzly populations ( Marshal 1 1955): however, the need for more accurate population trend monitoring and density estimates was docu- mented
Grizzly bear season on the south fork of
the Flathead River reopened
Grizzly bear surveys ( Marshall 1 95 5 )
Cooney (1956) reports 439 grizzly in Montana outside of parks Rognrud (1956) grizzly bear surveys Survey for possible grizzly bear study area (Onishuk and Stockstad 1957)
Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act Wilderness act passed
First grizzly license sold and trophy license required (resident license $ 1 nonresident $25 )
Mandatory reporting of grizzly kills and submission of heads and hides of harvested bears implemented
National Environmental Policy Act (NFPA)
Grizzly license purchase date by July J.
Resident license fee raised to $5 and nonresident to $35.
Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness created Endangered Species Act passed Moratorium on grizzly hunting in the Yellowstone Ecosystem
Grizzly hunting season in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem closed
Border grizzly project studies initiated Department grizzly bear survey in northwestern Montana (Hamlin & Frisina.
1SLZJQ
First environmental impact statement on grizzly bear management prepared Grizzly bear listed as threatened in the lower 48 states by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
9
1976
1979
1981
1982
1983 1 9 8
1985
Annual quota of 25 man-caused grizzly bear mortalities implemented in northwestern Montana
East Front grizzly bear studies begun Resident license increased to $25 . nonresident $ 1 25 Great Bear Wilderness created Nonresident license increased to $150 Flathead Indian Reservation grizzly bear management plan written Grizzly bear recovery plan approved Nonresident license increased to $175 Mission Mountain Wilderness created Female subquotas established Cabinet-Yaak grizzly study initiated Programmatic environmental Impact statement on all aspects of grizzly management initiated Resident license increased to $50 f nonresident to $300
State law passed restricting sale of grizzly parts
10
II. DEPARTMENT GOALS AND MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES A . Montana Fish and Game Commission Policy
The MFGC is the policy making arm of Montana's Fish and Wildlife Program. Section 87-1-301(1), MCA, requires the Commission to "set policies for the protection, preservation, and propagation of the wildlife, fish, game furbearers, waterfowl, nongame species, and endangered species of the state for the fulfillment of all other responsibilities of the Department as provided by law." This section recognizes the Commission's responsibility to address endangered species.
The Legislature has given specific policy direction to the Commission on the issue of grizzly bears. Section 87-5- 301, MCA, states:
"It is hereby declared the policy of the state of Montana to protect, conserve, and manage grizzly bear as a rare species of Montana wildlife."
Section 87-5-302 describes the Commission's p-o-w-e-r with regard to grizzly bears.
Within this legal framework, the Commission developed a grizzly bear policy in Section 12.9.103, ARM (Appendix A). That policy addresses the need to protect grizzly habitat, the need to pursue grizzly research, the role of sport hunting and grizzly management, depredations and the appro- priate department response to depredations, and requires compliance with federal regulations relating to grizzly bears. It is within this framework and that described by the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531, et seq.)
1 1
that specific department goals for the grizzly bear are developed .
P. Specific Department Goals for the Grizzly Bear
1. Department Goals
To provide the people of Montana and visitors with the optimum outdoor recreational opportunities, emphasizing the tangible and intangible values of wildlife and the natural and cultural resources of authentic, scenic, historic, scientific and archaeological significance, in a manner:
a. Consistent with the capabilities and require- ments of the resources,
b. Pecognizing present and future human needs and desires ,
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 Kcosysten (NODE)
To maintain grizzly bear distribution in all currently occupied habitat within the NCDE as defined in Fig. 2 and seek to maintain the habitat in a condition suitable to sustain the population (excluding Glacier National Park) at an average density between 1 bear/ 30
c
c
Figure 2
Occupied grizzly bear habitat within the NODE
9
NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE ECOSYSTEM (NCDE)
( EXCLUDING GLACIER NATIONAL PARK)
DEPARTMENT GOAL I 1
NUMBER OF BEARS O 280 540 800
| 1 I 1
BEARS/MI o 1/30 i/is i/io
Cablnet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE):
To maintain grizzly distribution in all currently occupied habitat within the CYE as defined in Fig. 3 and seek to maintain the habitat in a condition suitable to sustain the population at an average density of 1 bear/HO mi^ to 1 bear/30 mi^.
CABINET YAAK ECOSYSTEM (CYE)
DEPARTMENT GOAL
NUMBER OF BEARS o
BEARS/ Ml2 o
90
— t—
— I 125
1/40
1/30
200
I
1/18
Justification for these objectives comes from several sources. Schaffer (1983) determined the minimum viable population size (the smallest population with a 95%
1 1)
Idaho
Canada
LIBBY
: Noxon R«i«rvol
\
10 MILES
CABINET YAAK - Occupied Grizzly Habitat
INTENSIVE STUDY AREA - Density = 1 Bear/ 17 Mi. No. of Bears = 6
McOrigor
Laka
SCALE
Figure 3. Occupied grizzly bear habitat within the CYE
, r probability of surviving at least 100 years) of grizzlies to
{teArdlo* C\
r S
i I %<. 0 v / be 50-90 bears.; Data from the Yellowstone population
t> r — — '
QjC 'rvdi^on O-i (Craighead et al. 197*1) were used to determine this minimum
kvvbi VzcV ff
population size. Franklin (1980) suggested that continued evolution of a population would require a minimum effective population number of at least 50 0^ The grizzly bear recovery plan (USDI 1982) established a goal of 560 bears for the NCDF. However, evidence exists that very small populations of grizzly bears have existed for long periods of time and remain stable. Roth (1976) reported a stable population of approximately 10 animals in the Trentino, Italy, prior to 1969. Sorenson (pers. comm., Norwegian ic/ Directorate for Wildlife and Freshwater Fish, Trondheim) stated that several distinct populations in Norway,
numbering approximately 30-50 animals, have remained stable
for many years. Roth (1976), Flgmork (1978) and Mysterud
^ / (1977) report on small populations which have existed near
^ h densely populated (human) areas by becoming nocturnal,
'^a voiding confrontation with humans, and withdrawing from
t\, tL human contact.
,'^/Y ??
C. Legal Context of Grizzly Management
As noted in Section IT. A., state law and the MFGC have
described the state policy for grizzly bear management. In
addition, a number of other specific laws address the
Commission's and the Department's authority to manage
grizzly bears. Section 87-5-302 states:
"The commission shall have authority to provide open and closed seasons; means of taking; shooting hours;
16
tagging requirements for carcasses, skulls, and hides; possession limits; and requirements for transportation, exportation, and importation of grizzly bear."
This section was enacted in 1969, prior to the
enactment of the Endangered Species Act. Tn addition,
grizzly bears are treated as a game animal under Montana
law, Section 87-2-101(5), MCA. As such, they come under the
Department’s authority to establish hunting seasons, 87—1—
30M, MCA.
Ultimately, federal law controls the Department’s authority to manage grizzly bears. The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) was enacted in 1973. Section 16 U.S.C. 1531, the purposes and policy statement of the Act, describes the congressional commitment to protect and conserve endangered and threatened species. The Department of Interior is authorized (16 U.S.C. 1533fc]) to list endangered and threatened species. Federal regulations, 50 C.F.F. Sec. 17.11 list the grizzly as threatened in the 1(8 conterminous states. Prohibitions that apply to grizzlies are described in 50 C.F.P. Sec. 1 7 . U 0 [ b ) (Appendix B). Among actions allowed with regard to grizzly bears in that regulation are the taking of grizzlies in self defense, the taking of nuisance bears when it has not been reasonably possible to eliminate the threats posed by such bears by live capturing and releasing in a remote area, and the taking of bears by hunting. Tn addition, the regulation contains prohibitions on import and export of the bear, on the sale of unlawfully taken bears, and on the transport of bears for commercial purposes.
»>
IS
fcrnn U..
re. r»veV e f • * •
i tK
" SuiVft-WU
17
The Endangered Species Act addressed the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Section 16 U.S.C. 1532(1) defines the terms "conserve," "conserving" and "conservation" to mean:
"... to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping and trans- plantation, and, jt ri _t h_e extraordinary case where population pressures within a. given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved. may include regulated taking" (emphasis added).
A recent case, Sierra CJ, u b v_, Clark , F . 2 d , No. 84 — 5042,5134 (1985) construed 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1532(2) to mean that the Department of Interior, prior to allowing a regulated sport season on wolves, had to make a finding, supported by evidence, that wolves, a threatened species in Minnesota, were so populous as to meet the extraordinary case criteria. Eased on that case, the Department and Commission must be able to establish that grizzly bear population pressure in an ecosystem are so extraordinary as to warrant a regulated taking, in order to justify a hunting season on grizzlies.
Finally, the Endangered Species Act, through its definition of "conservation," sets a clear mandate that the goal of endangered and threatened species conservation is recovery of the species. Likewise, a number of Federal Court decisions have held that the responsible agencies must
18
do far more than merely avoid elimination of a protected species. D_e fenders of Wildlife v, Andrus , 4 2 8 F. Fupp. 167 ( 1977) .
The Department of Interior, the MFGC and the Department have a mandate to manage the grizzly bear in a fashion best intended to assure its recovery from the status of threatened species.
19
ITT. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
A . The Natural Environment 1 . Geological History
The geological history of northwestern Montana has been described by Deiss (1958) and Montagne and McMannis (1961). The area is of a rugged mountain topography separated by intermountain valleys. The Continental Divide of the Rocky Mountain Cordillera extends through Glacier National Park south to Rogers Pass. The mountains in northwestern Montana rarely exceed 10,000 feet. Thus, they do not reach the elevations observed elsewhere in the Rocky Mountains.
During the Proterozoic Era (approximately 600 million years ago), western North America was covered by marine waters. Sands, silts, and clays were deposited across what is now northwestern Montana to an estimated thickness exceeding 15,000 feet. These deposits hardened and compressed into what are now termed limestones, sandstones, shales, and argillites. Subsequent erosion during the Cambrian Period again reduced the area to sea level. Inland seas covered the area during the Paleozoic Era and deposited sediments known as the Cambrian, Devonian, and Mississipian rock formations.
1. and was uplifted and tilted between 60-70 million years ago. Older deposits slid above younger formations and resulted in the Overthrust Belt, a formation with oil and gas deposits. Mountain glaciers began to carve the mountains
20
one million years ago, forming today's U-shaped valleys, cirques, hanging valleys, and horns.
2. Climate
The area is strongly influenced by maritime air masses moving east from the Pacific Ocean. Arctic air masses flow into northwestern Montana from the north. This oceanic influence decreases from north to south in northwestern Montana (Daubenmire 1969). Much of the moisture in these air masses has been depleted upon reaching the Continental Divide .
For every 1000' of elevation, there is an average 3°F decrease in temperature. This has a marked influence on the length of the growing season which varies greatly throughout the Divide.
The lowest temperature ever recorded in the conterminous U.S. (-70°F) was set in northwest Montana near Rogers Pass. Conversely, most area meteorological stations have recorded temperatures in excess of 100°F. Such extremes, however, are unusual although the annual and daily temperature ranges are large. Mountain nights above 70°F are unusual.
3. Vegetation
The rugged mountain topography of northwestern Montana creates complex local weather patterns and an array of vegetation. Relatively dry slopes occur in rain shadows, and cool and moist drainages occur in areas of high precipitation and cloud cover (Arno 1979). Major forest habitat types include the Douglas-fir ( £ ,s.e u. d. ,o.t .s u..g. a.
21
mejizie sii) , spruce (Pice a spp.), subalpine fir (Abies lasi.ocarpa) , and western red cedar (Thuga plicata) types (Pf ister et al. 1977).
Many plant taxa have adapted to natural fire. Serai vegetation forms complex mosaics throughout the area. The history and influences of fire in the northern Pocky Mountains are given by Steele (I960), Habeck and Mutch (1973), and Arno (1980).
Occupied grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana was stratified into 6 major regions (Figs. l| and 5) discernible on the basis of major climax forest communities, understory unions, precipitation, and landform. Region boundaries and vegetative descriptions were assessed using Arno (1979), Pfister et al. (1977), and Daubenmire (1969). Primary river drainages were considered separately because they provide unique and superior foraging habitat for the grizzly bear.
.Region J_:
Region 1 occurs in extreme northwestern Montana and includes the CYF and a small area east of Lake Koocanusa. This area is under the strong influence of Pacific maritime air masses. The region experiences high precipitation, and is generally humid and cloudy (Arno 1979). Representative coniferous vegetation includes western hemlock (Tsuga --e t e r °.£jLZjla. ) and western red cedar. Grand fir (Abies Erandls) and western white pine (Pinus monticola) are also more prominent here than in other regions of the state. The
22
Figure 4. Habitat regions in the CYE.
Figure 5
Habitat regions in the NCDE.
region's mildest weather conditions are in the vicinity of the Kootenai River drainage.
Region £:
Arctic air masses are much more frequent here than in Region 1. As a result, the representative conifers listed for Region 1 are much less abundant and are restricted to valley bottom lands and other sheltered areas. Climax forest habitat types typical of Region 2 include the Douglas-fir, spruce and subalpine fir. Ponderosa pine forests ( P i nu s ponderosa ) are more common in the southern portion of this region. Extensive stands of serai lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and climax or serai Douglas fir can be found throughout the region. Region 2 extends from the western edge of the NCDF east to the Continental Divide. Region 3.:
Region 3 is much higher in elevation and drier than the other habitat regions. This region includes much of the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas. Dramatic temperature fluctuations and severe Chinook winds influence the vegetation on the west side of the Continental Divide. Much of the precipitation moving east from the Pacific Ocean has been depleted before air masses reach the Divide. Precipitation also decreases in a southerly direction along the Divide. Because of winter Chinooks and generally
lower snowpack, this region often experiences severe drought conditions during the summer. Subalpine fir is the most extensive forest habitat type, with white- bark pine (Pinus albicaulis ) stands dominating high elevation ridges. The
25
most expansive areas of alpine vegetation occur in this Pegion .
Region
Region 4 is that area of occupied habitat along the interface between the Pocky Mountain Cordillera and the Great Plains. This region extends from the international border south to the Rogers Pass area. This 1 o w - e 1 e va t i o n Region is a complex mosaic of grasslands, shrublands, and aspen (Populus tremuloides) grovelands. Limber pine (Pinus ) savannas are common on dry sites at low elevations. Wet seeps, bogs, marshes, and glades are especially prominent microhabitats in this Region.
Region 5:
Region 5 lies in the southern portion of occupied grizzly bear habitat in the NCDF. The region includes the Rattlesnake Wilderness Area and a narrow band south of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. Many of the conspicuous plant taxa of the more northern and western regions are rare or absent here. Although the Region is under the influence of Pacific climate, precipitation is relatively low. Inter- mountain forest species such as western larch ( L a r i x occidentalis ), alpine larch ( L_^ 1 v a 1 1 i i ), ponderosa pine, and beargrass (Xerophvllum tenax) characterize this region (Arno 1979). Broad valley grasslands dominated by bunchgrasses occur within intermountain valleys.
26
Region
This region includes large intermountain river floodplains. Such river bottoms provide unique and superior foraging habitats. Vegetation composition in river floodplains is similar among all regions. Deciduous trees and shrubs (Sal ix spp., Cornus spp., A 1 nu s spp., Populus s p p . , and Betula spp.) are common. Coniferous overstory is variable, depending on location. This region, while of utmost importance to grizzly bears, is the most limited. The North Fork of the Flathead and Swan rivers are considered superior to the upper South Fork of the Flathead, Kootenai, and Clarkfork rivers.
M . Wildlife
The habitat occupied by the grizzly bear in northwest Montana is rich in other forms of wildlife. The variety is a function of great diversity in climate, soil and topography. The abundance of many species is also a function of this diversity, but mainly is related to the unusual security of grizzly country.
All ten of Montana's other big game mammals share the grizzly's occupied habitat. The general lack of roads, year-round residents, intensive farming and heavy livestock use benefits every big-game animal.
Antelope and woodland caribou occur in very small portions of the grizzly's range. Antelope are restricted to the very small amount of prairie land bordering the east front. Caribou are very rare and have only been observed in
27
the Whitefish Mountains and the northern edge of the Yaak drainage a few times in the last 30 years.
Whitetail deer, elk, black bear and mountain lions are found throughout grizzly country in some of the richest populations found anywhere in the U.S. Mule deer are also found throughout the grizzly’s range, but they prefer the drier more open country bordering the occupied habitat.
Moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goats are found in relatively small numbers scattered in numerous drainages throughout the CYR and NCDR.
In addition to the big-game animals, at least 41 other species of mammals are found in grizzly habitat including four shrews, eight bats, three rabbits, four squirrels, two marmots, two chipmunks, and thirteen other rodents.
The lynx, wolverine, wolf, northern bog lemming and hoary marmot seem to survive best in country used by the great bear. All of Montana’s predators and furbearers except the least weasel and northern swift fox use the same habitat .
The third edition (1985) of P.D. Skaar's Montana Bird Distribution lists 381 species sited in Montana. Of this number, 273 have been observed in the northwest corner. This is the greatest variety found anywhere in Montana. About 1 8 0 bird species breed in the area; over 120 species overwinter in portions of the CYR.
Occupied grizzly habitat supports two endangered bird species: the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. Between 1000 and 1500 bald eagles feed along portions of the
28
Flathead Fiver drainage during their fall migration and about 16 pair nest in occupied grizzly habitat every spring. Peregrines are reported several times each year in the Flathead River drainage.
At least 30 of Montana's 84 species of fish are found in northwest Montana. Of this number, 23 are known to occur in habitat occupied by grizzlies. All of the state's salmonids except coho are present and grizzly habitat supports some of the best bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and kokanee spawning sites in Montana.
Occupied habitat contains 10 of Montana's 17 species of reptiles including at least six snakes, two turtles, one lizzard and one skunk. The same country supports 10 of the state's 17 amphibian species, including five frogs, three salamanders, one toad, an one newt.
P. The Human Fnvironment,
1 . Social/Economic Considerations
a . Population and Distribution
Table 1 shows human census figures for the entire state compared with those for 14 northwestern Montana counties, including Cascade, Flathead, Glacier, Granite, Lake, Lewis and Clark, Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula, Pondera, Powell, Sanders, Teton and Toole.
The proportion of Montana's population in northwestern Montana has grown from 38? in I 960 to 42? in 1 970 to 43? in 1980. The 1984 Census placed Montana's total population at approximately 824,000. (Figures for 1984 are unavailable
29
Table 1. Montana Population, 1950-2000.
Year |
State |
Northwest Montana |
% Total Population |
Population |
Population |
in Northwest Montana |
|
1950 |
591 , 0 2 *4 |
N/A |
N/A |
I960 |
674,767 |
259,100 |
38.4 |
1970 |
694,400 |
294,200 |
42.4 |
1980 |
786,690 |
340,000 |
43.2 |
1983 |
816,300 |
345,400 |
42.3 |
1990 |
859,900 |
372,700 |
43.3 |
2000 |
935,600 |
410,000 |
43.8 |
Source : |
1 950-80 |
- MT Dept of Commerce |
, Census and Economic |
Information Center |
Figures |
||
1983 |
- Census and Economic |
Information Center; |
|
Estimates October 1984 |
|||
1990-2000 |
- Census and Economic |
Information Center |
Projections
by county.) Kstimates of the 1 9 8 3 population indicate that 42^ of Montana's population is located within northwestern Montana. Projections indicate that northwestern Montana's population will be approximately 43? of the total state population by 1990 (Table 1). b . Economy
1 . Timber
The 1983 production of lumber, paper, and wood products in Montana was valued at $750,000,000. This represents 14.4? of the Montana economy. Total timber harvest in Montana in 1 9 B 1 was 1,035 million board feet (MMBF), with 8*1? (867 MMBF) coming from northwestern counties. Lincoln,
Flathead, Missoula, and Sanders counties accounted for 70 percent of Montana's timber harvest in 1 9 8 1 (Keegan et al. 1981, Montana Department of State Lands, 1982).
2. Agriculture
Agriculture is Montana's number 1 industry, accounting for approximately 1/3 of the state's total annual income.
30
Montana ranks second nationally in the amount of land in farms and ranches. Cash receipts from agriculture in Montana totaled over $1.8 billion in 1 982, with the 1*1 northwestern counties contributing 23? of this total (Montana Department of Agriculture, 1 9 8 ll ) .
3. Tourism
The value of t ravel- ind u st ry receipts in Montana was $625 million. Nonresident visitors totaled over 2.2 million and contributed $*123 million to Montana's economy in 1983. There are approximately 20,200 t r a v e 1 - r e 1 a t e d jobs in Montana with Glacier County having the highest number of travel-related jobs in the state. Other northwest Montana counties also rank high, including Flathead, Powell, Cascade, Lewis and Clark, Missoula and Lincoln (Dailey, 1983) .
k . Pecreation
The total number of public recreation sites in Montana is I19M with 2/3 being state owned. One hundred forty-two of these sites are located within northwest Montana. (Visitation figures are available only for state-owned sites.) Visitation at all Montana state-owned sites was i*, 1*69,700 visitor days in 1 983. Northwestern counties received 23? of this use.
a. Hunting and Fishing
Fifty-six percent of the total license sales in Montana in 1983 were within northwest Montana (Table 2).
31
Table 2. Montana hunting and fishing license sales.
Year |
It Sales-Montana |
it Sales-Northwest Montana |
1950 |
285 ,150 |
N/A |
1 960 |
375,196 |
N/A |
1 970 |
967,9*17 |
N/A |
1980 |
1 ,120,1*1** |
N/A |
1983 |
1 ,250,51 8 |
697,423 |
5. Hydroelectric Production
Eight of Montana’s 22 hydroelectric plants are located within the northwest. These eight plants have a total production capacity of 1331. 3 megawatts, nearly 63? of the state's total hydroelectric capacity (Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1984).
6. Hydrocarbons
a . Coal
Coal accounted for 65? of the total energy produced in Montana in 1982. One quarter of the U . S . demonstrated reserve base of coal is in Montana. Tn 1 983 , Montana provided 28,660,28*1 tons of coal, none of it coming from the northwest (Ibid).
b . Natural Gas
Natural gas accounted for 7? of the total energy produced in Montana in 1982. The U . S . Dept, of Energy estimated Montana Reserves at 870 billion cubic feet in 1982. Total Montana production was 52. *1 billion cubic feet in 1983. The northwest accounted for 27? of this production (Ibid) .
c . Crude Oil
Crude oil accounted for 22? of Montana’s total energy production in 1982. Montana reserves were estimated to be
32
216 million barrels in 198?. The total amount of crude oil produced in Montana in 1 9 8 3 was 29.7 million barrels with 10? coming from the northwest (Ibid), d . Minerals
Lincoln County has recently become western Montana’s leading mineral producer after the closure of mines in Butte. The W. P. Grace Co. operates a vermiculite mine near Libby and A s a r c o operates a silver/copper mine near Troy, which is the nation’s largest silver producer (Ibid).
C. Jurisdiction And Land Use In The NCDF
1 . Jurisdiction
The grizzly bear occupies over 5.5 million acres of land in the NCDF. Occupied habitat transcends federal, state, private, and corporate ownership. The U . S . Forest Service is the largest single public landholder, controlling 63? of the ecosystem (Table 3). Four wilderness areas (the Bob Marshall, Scapegoat, Great Bear, and the Mission Mountains) constitute approximately 36? of the ecosystem. The National Park Service, with administrative responsibili- ties or Glacier National Park, controls 18? of the ecosystem. The Blackfeet and the Confederated Salish/Kootenai Peservations manage 7? of the ecosystem. Corporate owners of grizzly bear habitat include Plum Creek Inc., Champion International, Montana Power Company, and Anaconda Mining Company. Private in holdings are most prevalent along the North Fork of the Flathead Fiver, and in the Swan River Valley. Other private parcels occur along
33
Table 3. Acreages of administrative responsibility in the NCDF (USD A Forest Service, Flathead National Forest).
Agency or Unit
Acres (thous.) % of Fcosystem
U.S. Forest Service
Flathead N.F. |
2056 |
|
Lewis and Clark |
776 |
|
Lolo |
281 |
|
Helena |
1 80 |
|
Kootenai |
207 |
|
Subtotal |
3500 |
63.0 |
National Park Service |
1014 |
18.0 |
Bureau Land Management |
24 |
0.4 |
Department of State Lands |
1 96 |
4.0 |
Indian Reservation |
362 |
7.0 |
Private* |
454 |
8.0 |
Wilderness Acreage |
||
Bob Marshall |
950 |
|
Scapegoat |
240 |
|
Great Bear |
709 |
|
Mission Mountains |
73 |
|
* Includes private and corporate |
ownership. |
the Middlefork of the Flathead River and along the Pocky Mountain Front.
2. Habitat Management Situations
The U.S. Forest Service has stratified grizzly bear habitat in the NCDF into 3 management situation categories following the general methods outlined in the Management Guidelines for the Greater Yellowstone Area. Three management situations were developed, based on habitat values and grizzly bear distribution, which set the framework for land management in the NCDF.
These management situations are currently being delineated by the U.S. Forest Service and are in the public
34
review stage. When finalized, the detailed map will be incorporated into the FIS.
Management situation 1 areas are considered the most important for recovery of the species. These areas contain important seasonal or year long habitats for natural, free- ranging grizzly bears. Federal management direction will seek to minimize grizzly/human conflict and will favor the
needs of |
the |
grizzly |
bear over |
land use practices, |
but |
nuisance |
bears |
will be |
control led. |
As currently mapped, |
67? |
of the federal land in the NCDF is considered management situation 1 (U.5.D.A. Files, Flathead National Forest).
Approximately 10 ? of the federal land in the NCDF is currently mapped as management situation 2. These are areas which lack distinct grizzly population centers and highly suitable habitat does not occur. Grizzly bears are important, but are not the primary consideration in these areas. Federal direction may maintain or improve habitat and may seek to minimize g r i z z 1 y / h u m a n conflict. However, these are not the most important considerations and other land use needs will be maintained. If future information demonstrates that these areas are needed for recovery then the area would be reclassified as management situation 1.
Management situation 3 areas are those where grizzly bear presence is possible, but infrequent. These areas are human population and development centers where grizzly bear presence is untenable for humans and grizzly bears. In management situation 3 areas grizzly bear habitat maintenance or improvements are not management
35
considerations.
Grizzly bear presence and factors
contributing to their presence will be discouraged. All grizzly bears frequenting an area will be controlled. Approximately 3% of all federal land in the NCDF is presently considered management situation 3.
3. Changes in Land Use Patterns
Patterns of land use in the NCDF are best described in terms of major resource uses, including timber, recreation, hydro development, grazing, and subdivision, discussed below.
a . Timber Resource
Approximately 59? of the grizzly bear habitat administered by the U . S . Forest Service in the NCDF is on the Flathead National Forest (Table 3). Thus timber related activities on this forest are particularly relevant. To track all changes in the land base within the Forest would be difficult. Nonetheless, several data sets are useful. By examining the acres of the Flathead Forest altered by clear cutting and seed-tree cutting in ten-year blocks, it is possible to trace changes in grizzly bear habitat. Timber harvest greatly increased during the period 19^0 to 1 979. Approximately 35 thousand acres (55 mi^) were clear cut or seed-tree cut during the period 1970-1979 (USDA Forest Service files). Approximately 157 mi*' of timber have been cut on the Flathead since 1910 using these methods. Many of the older cuts now support productive second-growth stands. Since 1910, 30, 27, and 25 thousand acres have been
36
cr M
cut from Glacier View, Swan, and Hungry Horse ranger districts, respectively.
Of the 5,588 mi of non- wilderness grizzly bear habitat in the NCDF, approximately 45? of the sections contain a road. Poad closures instituted by the U.S. Forest Service seasonally or permanently restrict traffic in 23? of these roaded, square-mile sections.
b . Pecreation
Patterns of recreational activities for the Flathead National Forest, expressed in "Recreational Visitor Use Days" ( RVUD ) , are given in Table 4. These data, for the period 1976-1983, incorporate primitive, dispersed, and developed recreational use. Between 1976 and 1981, the Flathead National Forest experienced an increase in recre- ational visitor use days. This trend appears to be reversing from 1981 to present. The Hungry Horse and Spotted Bear ranger districts receive the most recreational use of the Forest .
Table 4. Recreational Visitor Use Days on the Flathead National Forest, 1976-1983.
District3 |
1976 |
1977 |
1978 |
1 979 |
1980 |
1 981 1982 |
1983 |
|
Hungry Horse |
36 b |
N/A |
210 |
309 |
N/A |
278 |
334 |
281 |
Glacier View |
9 |
50 |
52 |
88 |
85 |
91 |
||
Swan Lake |
68 |
132 |
144 |
125 |
1 1 4 |
107 |
||
Spotted Bear |
“ - |
201 |
200 |
19* |
215 |
138 |
||
TOTAL |
113 |
593 |
705 |
785 |
748 |
617 |
Tally Lake not included.
In thousands.
SOURCF: Flathead National Forest files.
37
cr Q)
Visitor use days in the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas increased during the period 1975-1980, and have gradually declined from 1981 to present (Table 5). While dispersed recreational activities appear to be increasing within the wilderness areas over recent years ( R. Lucas, pers. comm., U S D A Forest and Range Experiment Station, Missoula, MT), most activities occur along several major arteries. Since its official wilderness designation in 1979, recreational use In the Great Bear Wilderness has exceeded 20 thousand visitor days per year.
Table 5. "Visitor Days" in four wilderness areas within the NCDF : 1 975-1 983.
Visitor Days3
Mission
Year |
Bob Marshall |
Great Bear |
Scapegoat |
Mountains |
1975 |
1 24 , 700 |
15,300 |
38,100 |
|
1976 |
142,000 |
— |
4 1 ,400 |
47,100 |
1977 |
149, 400 |
— |
32,900 |
39,100 |
1978 |
156,300 |
b |
33,700 |
18,000 |
1979 |
156,300 |
22,100 |
36,300 |
19,300 |
1980 |
166,300 |
23,300 |
48,400 |
13,500 |
1981 |
154,000 |
30,400 |
32,600 |
13,300 |
1982 |
178,200 |
57,300 |
27,900 |
12,500 |
1983 |
152,300 |
37,600 |
25,950 |
11,900 |
c
Visitor Day = 1 person for 12 hours or any combination thereof, data not available
ceastern side of wilderness only. Data from 1975-77 are felt to be inaccurate (P. Lucas pers. comm.)
SOURCE: Use of National Forest Units, National Forest Preserva-
tion System (U.S. Forest Service).
Glacier National Park is a focal point for recre- ationists in the NCDF. Park visitations increased from 718,938 in 1956 to over 2 million in 1983 (Table 6).
38
Table 6. Visitor use data for Glacier National Park, Montana, 1 956—1 9P^.
Year |
No. Visitors |
Backcountry Camp Days |
1956 |
718,938 |
not aval 1 able |
1957 |
759,161 |
|
1958 |
706,841 |
|
1959 |
722,338 |
|
1960 |
724,538 |
|
1 961 |
739,982 |
|
1962 |
966,100 |
|
1 963 |
811,214 |
|
1964 |
642,000 |
|
1965 |
847,104 |
|
1966 |
907,839 |
|
1 967 |
884,049 |
6,665 |
1968 |
964,493 |
5,131 |
1969 |
1,051,165 |
6,872 |
1970 |
1,241,603 |
6,592 |
1971 |
1,303,073 |
24,765 |
1 972 |
1,392,145 |
26,574 |
1 973 |
1,398,958 |
27,538 |
1974 |
1,406,643 |
28,257 |
1975 |
1,571,393 |
24,785 |
1976 |
1,662,678 |
28,978 |
1977 |
1,656,21 2 |
30,109 |
1978 |
1,601,131 |
24,395 |
1979 |
1,446,236 |
25,323 |
1 980 |
1,475,538 |
22,640 |
1 981 |
1,786,843 |
17,744 |
1 982 |
1,666,431 |
16,198 |
1983 |
2,204,131 |
15,507 |
1 984 |
1,946,783 |
15,032 |
SOURCE: Glacier National Park files.
c
39
c.
Subdivision
Several areas within the NCDF contain private land where subdivision is presently occurring. Because Montana has few subdivision, zoning, or building regulations, the extent of land development within grizzly bear habitat is difficult to assess (Jonkel and Demarchi 1 9 8 14 ) . However, the Border Grizzly Project (Jonkel 1983) has inventoried land ownership patterns and land exchanges in several areas of the NCDF. From 1950 to 1 984 , a minimum of 584 land parcels have been exchanged (Table 7). These parcels total 28,477 acres (approximately 45 mi2), Of the 4 areas inventoried, 66% of the acreage sold was located in the North Fork of the Flathead River. Private lands in these areas are located primarily in the valley bottoms and benchlands. Information obtained for the Swan River Valley indicates an 86? increase in housing units, and a 78? increase in population between the years 1 970 and 1 9 8 0 (letter from Lake County Lands Services Department 1 985).
Subdivision is also occurring on the Rocky Mountain- East Front. Particularly relevant subdivision locations occur along the Dearborn, Sun, and Teton rivers. No systematic inventory has been conducted in this portion of
40
the NCDE.
Table 7. Data on land exchanges within the NCDE
Period |
No. Parcels Exchanged |
No. Acres |
HUNGRY |
HORSE-MARTIN CITY-CORAM-WEST |
GLACIER: |
<1950 |
13 |
321 |
1950-54 |
3 |
170 |
1955-59 |
5 |
238 |
1 960-64 |
1 |
53 |
1965-69 |
14 |
800 |
1 970-74 |
18 |
726 |
1975-79 |
29 |
933 |
1980-84 |
28 NYACK-ESSEX-PINNICLE: |
1,085 |
<1950 |
7 |
392 |
1 950-54 |
2 |
8 |
1955-59 |
1 |
5 |
1960-64 |
3 |
10 |
1965-69 |
5 |
14 |
1 970-74 |
13 |
612 |
1975-79 |
15 |
345 |
1980-84 |
9 BLANKENSHIP BRIDGE AREA: |
193 |
<1950 |
0 |
0 |
1954-54 |
0 |
0 |
1855-59 |
3 |
53 |
1 960-64 |
6 |
878 |
1 965-69 |
7 |
498 |
1 970-74 |
7 |
377 |
1975-79 |
46 |
1,415 |
1980-84 |
18 |
497 |
NORTH FORK |
OF FLATHEAD RIVER (EXCLUDING |
POLEBRIDGF) : |
<1950 |
5 |
1 96 |
1950-54 |
6 |
377 |
1955-59 |
2 |
260 |
1960-64 |
9 |
535 |
1 965-69 |
40 |
2,990 |
1970-74 |
54 |
2,436 |
1 975-79 |
103 |
3,311 |
1980-84 |
112 |
8,749 |
TOTAL |
584 |
28,477 |
41
IV
DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT SELECTION
A. Distribution
Grizzly bear range in northwestern Montana is contiguous with Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Alaska (Herrero 1985). Evidence is also presented by Picton (In Press) indicating a sporadically occupied corridor of habitat between the NCDE and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The present distribution of grizzly bears in northwestern Montana (Figs. 2 and 3) is a small portion of the total North American Range. It is recognized that grizzly bears can and do occur occasionally outside of these designated boundaries.
B. Habitat Selection
The process of habitat selection can be described as a stratification, with an increasing number of environmental constraints being imposed upon the grizzly bear from one level to the next (Johnson 1980). These four types of selection, described below, are referred to as available habitat, home range location, habitat unit selection, and food item selection.
1. Available habitat:
Within occupied habitat not all elevational zones are available to the grizzly bear in all areas. Intermountain valleys of Montana, such as the lower South Fork of the Flathead River have been drastically altered by man, and this segment of the NCDE population now has restricted opportunity to use river floodplain vegetation types. Telemetry data from the South Fork (Mace and Jonkel 1980)
H2
showed that grizzlies occupying areas to the west of Hungry Horse Reservoir generally do not cross the Swan Crest to use the Swan River floodplain, although they are physically able to do so.
Grizzly bears do not presently use bottom lands along the main stem of the Flathead River adjacent to the Mission Mountains, as they no doubt historically had (Servheen 1981). Bears in this region now confine certain seasonal activities to the 1 o w- e 1 e va t i on habitat units directly abutting the mountain front. Grizzly bear distribution at low elevations along the Rocky Mountain Fast Front (RMEF) (Schallenberger and Jonkel 1 979, Aune and Stivers 1 9 8 2 ) is closely tied to the level of human activity and habitation.
The North Fork of the Flathead River presents a different picture of habitat availability. Jn this area grizzly bears still maintain the opportunity to use low elevation river bottom habitat. This undoubtedly reflects the relatively low levels of human encroachment into these habitats as compared to the other areas discussed.
Telemetry data from all areas of Montana show that, at least seasonally, grizzly bears use the lowest elevations permitted by man. This suggests that the riparian vegetation of intermountain valleys is of special seasonal importance to all population segments. Craighead et a 1 . (1982) graphically show the value of low-elevation habitats to the grizzly bear. Their habitat analyses were divided into 3 climactic zones. The "temperate zone" (the lowest
*»3
elevations) was found to have the highest habitat index of all. Craighead et al. (1 982) also found that the "subalpine zone" ranked higher than the "alpine zone", and concluded that "the plant energy resource of the subalpine zone is three to four times as great as the alpine zone, and thus is more critical to the welfare and survival of the grizzly bear." Thus, it may be assumed that maximum numbers of the grizzly bear can only be maintained if the species continues to have the opportunity to use both the temperate and subalpine climactic zones. Unfortunately, these 2 zones are highly sought by man as well.
2. Home Range Location
Specific locations of grizzly home ranges are determined primarily by topographic opportunity. Telemetry data (P. McLellan, pers. comm. University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Servheen 1981, Aune and Stivers 1982) suggest that two home-range selection patterns exist in local population segments, those being: 1) some individual animals live almost exclusively (except for denning) in low- elevation habitats, and 2) other individuals maintain home ranges in more mountainous ("remote") locations. The extent of this latter pattern is unclear because most trapping efforts to date have taken place at lower elevations.
There is evidence that grizzly bear reproductive success is closely tied to elevational gradients. Preliminary data of McLellan (pers. comm.) shows that adult females with established home ranges primarily in 1 o w - e 1 e v a t i o n floodplain habitats have larger litters than females living
41|
in upper-elevation mountainous areas. If this finding holds for other areas, then grizzly bear productivity in a given area may be determined primarily by the availability of lowland habitats.
Grizzly bears are solitary throughout much of the year, with the exception of family units and interactions during the breeding season. However, it is important to recognize that a grizzly bear "society" exists in a given area, and its members interact both temporally and spatially. The species has a highly developed behavioral hierarchy that tends to determine the distribution and habitat-use patterns of individual bears. For black bears, displacement and dispersal of certain age and sex classes are keyed to both habitat quality and behavioral interaction (Rogers 1977).
Male grizzly bears generally have larger annual home ranges than females. This pattern of home-range size appears to be consistent among areas (Pearson 1975, Mace and Jonkel 1 980, Servheen 1981, Knight et al. 1 9 8 M ) . The species is not considered territorial as temporal and spatial home-range overlap has been observed in all areas investigated.
Within the limits of topographic opportunity, there are also constraints imposed by seasonal availability. Thus, the home range of a grizzly bear may be a composite of several, often seasonally separated ranges. While grizzlies may be found at many elevations, and in all available habitats, certain sites are preferred over others (Jonkel
1982). The location of these seasonal ranges has been tied to the distribution and phenological stages of preferred food plants, or the distribution of prey and carrion (Pearson 1975, Russell et al. 1979, Servheen 1981, Craighead et al. 1982, June and Stivers 1982, Hamer and Herrero 1 9 8 3 , Knight et al. 1984).
3. Habitat Unit Selection
Specific habitat units selected by grizzly bears have been described both seasonally and annually for several areas of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Regional variation in habitat component use is a reflection of variable climate, landform structure, and human land-use patterns. These regional differences in habitat selection are closely reflected in the food habits data (Mace and Jonkel, Jn Press) .
Statistical analyses of habitat use and habitat avail- ability have been conducted at the habitat component or cover type level in the South Fork of the Flathead River (Zager 1980), in the Mission Mountains (Servheen 1981), and in Yellowstone National Park (Knight et al. 1984). Habitat use but not availability has been examined by McLellan and Jonkel (1980), the Border Grizzly Project (Jonkel 1983), Aune et al. (1984), and by Kasworm (pers. comm., Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Kalispell).
Several patterns in grizzly bear habitat-use arise from these analyses. It is possible to describe between 74 and 93 % of all seasonal habitat use in terms of only 5 component groupings. In other words, although grizzlies utilize many
46
habitat units throughout the year, only 5 appear to be disproportionately important in all areas studied. The data provided by the above authors were stratified by 2 seasons: spring-early summer and late summer-autumn (Table 8).
Table 8. Percent of radio-fixes in each of 5 habitat component groupings by season ( spring-summer/sum mer-f al 1 ) .
Timber |
Mesic Site1 |
PoTr2 |
Burn |
Talus |
Total |
|
Fast Front |
32/46 |
22/13 |
30/26 |
0/8 |
84/93 |
|
South Fork |
26/25 |
60/21 |
0/31 |
86/77 |
||
Mission |
50/28 |
32/50 |
0/2 |
0/6 |
82/86 |
|
Mountains |
||||||
North Fork^ |
33/64 |
41/13 |
0/11 |
74/88 |
||
Average |
35/41 |
39/24 |
30/26 |
0/15 |
0/7 |
82/86 |
1=includes swamps, seeps, creek bottoms, avalanche chutes 2=Populus tremuloides stands 3 = from Rockwell et al. (1 978).
That habitat components not listed (Table 8) are unimportant to the grizzly bear is not suggested. However, these data do show that there are specific components important to bears in all regions, and these are timber, mesic sites, and burn shrubfields. The aspen component, especially important in the Fast Front, is an ephemerally mesic component. Shrubfields created and maintained by natural fire are of great importance to grizzly bears throughout their range in Montana, because they produce high-energy fruits (Martin 1979). The mosaic of habitats produced by fire are felt to maintain optimum grizzly bear habitat (Shaffer 1971, Schallenberger 1984, Martinka 1976, Russell et al. 1978, Zager 1980). With current aggressive
fire suppression, grizzly bear habitat, especially in the wilderness areas, will continue to degrade.
Grizzly bears occasionally use areas altered by timber harvest but do not show a preference for them (Zager 1980). Most timber harvest in the NODE occurred in the 1960's and as such most cuts are only a few decades old. It is probable that as these cuts age, increased grizzly use will occur.
Habitat quality has been assessed subjectively in several areas. Unfortunately, areas having the largest habitat data-bases lack specific grizzly bear habitat-use information. Craighead et al. (1982) provided detailed habitat quality evaluations for "ecological land units" in the alpine and subalpine zone of the Scapegoat Wilderness. Their habitat quality rankings were based on random samples of habitat, chemical evaluation of food quality, and acreages of each ecological land unit. They further stratified habitat quality by 3 climactic zones.
Mace (1984) evaluated grizzly bear habitat components in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. In this analysis, habitat components were stratified by major "vegetation type". Each of 28 vegetation types was then evaluated for seasonal forage (habitat) quality using food coverage values and preference ranks. Habitat component ratings were also developed for the Rattlesnake Wilderness Area by Tirmenstein (1984). Habitat quality ratings using LANDSAT technology are being investigated in Glacier National Park (Martinka and Kendall, In Prep.). Craighead et al. ( 1 9 8 2 ) outlined and
48
discussed 7 essential environmental habitat characteristics, those being: space, isolation, sanitation, food, denning, vegetation types, and safety.
Food Item Selection:
The grizzly bear forages on a wide variety of plant and animal species. Specific food items vary geographically (Servheen and Wo jciechowski 1978, Mace and Jonkel In Press) and among individuals. Individual variation in diet can be attributed to preference and availability of items.
Two major grizzly bear nutrient regimes are present within the NCDE with the Continental Divide separating them. Each regime contains certain nutrients from which bears obtain most of their energy. East of the Divide and south into Yellowstone National Park, underground roots, tubers, berries, and bulbs are important as are the nuts of whitebark pine (Plnus albicaulls). West of the Divide, energy from fruit sugar is most important. While the grizzly bear may use a wide variety of food items, several are disproportionately preferred over others (Mace and Jonkel 1983, Knight et al. 1984)(Table 9). It is these major diet items that are most likely to explain habitat-use patterns.
5. Denning Ecology:
Grizzly bears are considered true hibernators and in general spend from 5 to 6 months in winter dens (Nelson et al. 1983). Den sites are usually located in mountainous terrain above 6,600 ft. (Jonkel 1983* Servheen and Klaver
49
Table 9. Major food items of the grizzly bear in the NCDF
Part consumed Season3 Location^
s , sum , f
Angelica sdd. |
stems, leaves |
s , sum |
all |
Astragalus sdd. |
roots |
s , sum , f |
1 |
Clavtonia sdd. |
bulb |
s , sum , f |
all |
Fauisetum sdd. |
foliage |
s , sum , f |
all |
Frvthronium sdd. |
corm |
s |
1,2 |
Fragaria sdd. |
foliage, fruit |
s , sum , f |
all |
Hedvsarum sdd. |
roots |
s, f |
1 |
Heracleum lanatum |
stems, leaves |
s , sum |
1,2, 3,4 |
Liausticum sdd. |
stems, leaves |
s , sum |
1 ,2,3,4 |
Lomatium sdd. |
roots |
sum , f |
1,2, 3,^,5, 6 |
Osmorhiza sdd. |
stems, leaves |
s , sum |
1 ,2,3,4 |
OxvtroDis SDD. |
roots |
s, f |
1 |
Pinus albicaulis |
nuts |
s, f |
3,5,6 |
Trifolium sdd. |
foliage |
s , sum , f |
1 ,2, 3, 4, 5 |
Taraxacum sdd. |
foliage |
s , sum , f |
1 ,2, 3, 4, 5 |
Amelanchier sdd. |
fruit |
sum , f |
1,2, 3, 4 |
Cornus stolonifera |
fruit |
sum , f |
1,2 |
Prunus sdd. |
fruit |
sum , f |
3 |
Fhamnus alnifolia |
fruit |
sum , f |
1 |
SheDherdia sdd. |
fruit |
sum , f |
1,2,3 |
Malus sdd. |
fruit |
sum , f |
4 |
Vaccinium globulare |
fruit |
sum , f |
all |
V. scoparium |
fruit |
sum , f |
5 |
Grasses |
foliage |
s , sum , f |
all |
Animal matter |
meat |
s, f |
all |
3 s=spring, sum=summer, frfall
1=North Fork Flathead Fiver (Mace and Jonkel In Press, McLellan 1981)
2=South Fork Flathead Fiver (Mace and Jonkel In press) 3=Fast Front (Aune and Stivers 1982)
4=Mission Mountains (Servheen 19 81)
5=Yellowstone National Park (Knight et al. 1984) 6=Scapegoat Wilderness (Craighead et al. 1982)
Name
1983, Aune et al. 1984). Grizzly bears generally den in mid to late October and leave the den in April or May of the following year. Grizzlies generally remain in the vicinity of the den for at least 1 week before seeking spring foods at lower elevations.
Fesearch has shown that reproductive status and sex play a role in the time of den emergence (Craighead 19 7?,
50
Vroom et al. 1980). However, considerable variation among individuals occurs in all areas.
Data on the denning ecology of grizzlies in 2 areas of Montana are presented in Table 10. Of particular interest from a management perspective are the approximate dates when barren females, and those with young, leave the denning area in the spring. Information from the FMEF (iune et al. 19811) and from the Mission Mountains (Servheen and Klaver 1983) show that females with young leave the denning area at less predictable times than other age or sex classes (Table 11).
51
Table 10. Information on denning behavior of grizzly bears in the NODE.
Sex |
Agea |
Reproductive statusb |
Date of move- ment to den |
Date of move- ment from dei |
|
MISSION MOUNTAINS |
(Servheen and |
Klaver |
1 9 83")': |
||
F |
14 |
S |
11-15 |
< 3-31 |
|
F |
15 |
P |
10-14 |
5-4 |
|
F |
16 |
W/Y |
1 1-6 |
«. — «. |
|
F |
7 |
W/Y |
10-10 |
5-4 |
|
F |
8 |
W/Y |
1 1-1 |
_ _ |
|
F |
CUB |
11-15 |
4-4 |
||
F |
1 |
11-8 |
|
||
F |
2 |
11-19 |
— — •> |
||
F |
2 |
11-8 |
_ |
||
F |
9 |
S |
11-17 |
— |
|
EASTERN |
ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT (Aune |
et al |
. 1984): |
||
F |
10 |
W/Y |
11-18 |
3-28 |
|
F |
19 |
W/Y |
1 1-20 |
5-13 |
|
M |
6 |
S |
< 10-6 |
4-7 |
|
F |
1 1 |
P |
11-13 |
4-28 |
|
F |
20 |
P |
1 1-22 |
5-15 |
|
F |
3 |
10-30 |
4-19 |
||
F |
7 |
S |
10-28 |
4-2 |
|
M |
3 |
11-8 |
4-27 |
||
F |
21 |
W/Y |
11-4 |
4-13 |
|
F |
12 |
W/Y |
11-4 |
3-26 |
|
F |
8 |
P |
10-25 |
4-18 |
|
F |
4 |
S |
1 1-2 |
4-21 |
|
M |
2 |
S |
11-5 |
4-18 |
|
F |
10 |
W/Y |
11-19 |
4-13 |
|
F |
13 |
S |
10-6 |
4-23 |
|
F |
5 |
W/Y |
10-12 |
4-1 1 |
|
F |
2 |
S |
10-12 |
4-30 |
|
F |
22 |
W/Y |
10-30 |
4-18 |
|
F |
4 |
W/Y |
10-30 |
5-4 |
|
F |
9 |
S |
1 1-3 |
3-27 |
|
M |
7 |
s |
1 1-28 |
4-9 |
|
M |
4 |
s |
1 1-22 |
4-21 |
|
M |
SA |
s |
4-8 |
||
F |
6 |
W/Y |
4-1 |
||
F |
24 |
W/Y |
4-30 |
||
F |
A |
S |
5-4 |
||
F |
A |
W/Y |
4-30 |
||
F |
SA |
< 4-8 |
|||
M |
A |
S |
4-1 1 |
||
M |
SA |
S |
< 4-8 |
||
M |
A |
s |
4-26 |
||
M |
SA |
s |
< 4-8 |
||
a : SA |
=Subadult |
, A = Adul t |
|||
b: S = |
solitary, |
P=pregnant |
upon den entry |
-with |
cubs upon den |
emergence, W/Y=with young.
52
Table 11. A summary of spring den departure information3.
Population segment |
Average Date |
Range in Date |
Standard Deviation |
||
Females with young: (n=17) |
20 April |
26 |
March-1 5 |
May |
15.7 |
Solitary females (n=7) |
18 April |
27 |
March-4 |
May |
13.3 |
Males (n=8) |
16 April |
7 |
April-27 |
April |
8.5 |
All females (n=24) aw 'r. 7~z rT: rrrrr |
19 April |
26 |
March- 1 5 |
May |
14.6 |
aData from Servheen and Klaver (1983), and Aune et al.
(1984)
53
V.
GRIZZLY BEAR POPULATIONS
A. Densities
Estimated ranges of grizzly bear densities (mi2/bear) in the NODE for 12 units (Fig. 6) were based on similarity in habitat-use patterns, mortality patterns, home-range size and overlap, levels of human activity and encroachment, input from professional biologists, and other factors (Appendix C). These estimates (Table 12) were developed utilizing known minimum densities from five study areas (Table 13, Fig. 6) within and adjacent to the ecosystem and applying them to larger areas. Reynolds and Fechtel (1980) reported that extrapolations of bear densities from areas
and habitats of intensive study give the best population
estimates. |
Others |
(Zunino and |
Herrero 1972; |
Martina 1974; |
Table 12. |
Grizzly |
bear density |
estimates for |
the NODE. |
UNIT |
AREA (mi.2) |
DENSITY ( mi .-^/bear ) Low High |
NUMBER Low High |
||
Glacier National Park |
1583 |
8 |
6 |
193 |
264 |
Red Meadow |
215 |
15 |
10 |
1 4 |
22 |
Whitef ish |
831 |
25 |
18 |
33 |
46 |
St. Mary |
211 |
20 |
10 |
1 1 |
21 |
Badger-Two Medicine |
323 |
20 |
16 |
16 |
20 |
Swan Front |
1043 |
30 |
20 |
35 |
52 |
South Fork |
1624 |
15 |
10 |
108 |
160 |
East Front |
1119 |
16 |
1 2 |
70 |
93 |
Mission Core |
335 |
19 |
15 |
18 |
22 |
Rattlesnake |
446 |
80 |
60 |
6 |
7 |
Scapegoat |
1903 |
25 |
18 |
76 |
106 |
TOTALS |
9633 |
17 |
1 2 |
580 |
813 |
TOTAL |
8050 |
21 |
15 |
387 |
549 |
(excluding Glacier National Park)
54
Table 13. Grizzly bear density estimates from study areas in and adjacent to the NCDF.
UNIT |
ARFA (ml . 2 ) |
DFNSITY (mi. /bear) |
NUMBER |
Glacier National Park (Martinka 1974) |
1583 |
8 |
193 |
Rocky Mtn. Fast Front ( Aune et al . 1984) |
689 |
16 |
43 |
Mission Mtns. (Servheen 1981) |
301 |
19 |
16 |
South Fork (Mace and Jonkel 1980) |
128 |
10 |
13 |
Flathear River, British Columbia (McClellan 1984) |
163 |
3. 4-6.0 |
27-42 |
Pearson 1975; Lortie 1978; Miller and Pal lard 1982; Tompa 1984; van Drimmelen 1984) estimate population numbers using data extrapolated from intensive study areas. This procedure is widely used for other species (Schemnitz 1980). In areas where direct extrapolation was judged to be inappropriate based on habitat, human impacts, and input of other professionals, we applied a lower density in order to be conservative in our estimates. Table 14 compares our minimum density estimate with those from other populations.
Kasworm ( 1 985) estimated a density of 1/17 mi2 for a small study area (Fig. 3) in the Montana portion of the CYF. However, sufficient information is not available to allow extrapolating this density to a larger area.
B. Reproduction.
Grizzly bear litter size has been determined for two
55
GRIZZLY BEAR DENSITIES
NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE
KAUSPELL
Q] Occupied Grizzly Habitat [xj] Intanaiva Study Area
POLSON
MISSOULA
FLATHEAD RIVER , B.C. .
di»hity= i bear/b-smi NO. OF BEARB=27-42 RED MEADOW ,
DENSITY— 1 BEAR/ IS — 10 Ml* NO. OF BEARB= 14-12 WMITEFIBN 2
D? MUTT - 1 BEAR/ 26— IS Ml* NO. OF BEARB=2S— 4S OLACIER NATIONAL PARK2 DE N SIT Y = 1 BEAR/B-B Ml NO. OF BEARS=1BS— 2S4 ST. MARY 2
(») DEN BIT Y= 1 BEAR/ 20- 10 Ml W NO. OF BEARB>11-21
©BADOER-TWO MEDICINE
DENSITY— 1 BEAR/ 20— 1 B Ml NO. OF BEARS=1S-20
©SOUTH FORK
DENSITY— 1 BEAR/ IB-10 Ml NO. OF BEARS— 10B— ISO
©EAST FRONT
DEN8ITY=1 BEAR/IB-12 Ml* NO. OF BEARS =T0-02
©SWAN FRONT
DENBITY= 1 BEAR/ 20—20 Ml* NO. OF BEARS =2B-f 2
©MISSION CORE .
DENSITY=1 SEAR/ IB— 1 S Ml3 NO. OF BEARS— IB— 22
NO. OF BEARB=S— 7 BCAFEOOAT
DE N SI TY = 1 BEAR/ 28— IB Ml* NO. OF BEARS=7S— 10B
preserve : ^ /
m
CHOTEAU
DUPUYER
Figure 6
Grizzly bear density estimates in the NCDE
Table 14. |
Summary of grizzly bear population America, Europe, and USSR. |
densities in North |
DENSITY (mi2/bear) |
LOCATION |
REFERENCE |
16.0 |
Pocky Mtn. East Front (MT) |
Aune et al. (19811) |
19.0 |
Mission Mountains (MT) |
Servheen (1981) |
3. 9-6.0 |
Flathead River (P.C.) |
McClellan (1984) |
8.2 |
Glacier National Park (MT) |
Martinka (1974) |
• 0 1 k • o |
Glacier National Park (P.C.) |
Mundy and Flook (1973) |
31.0-58.0 |
Yellowstone National Park |
Craighead et al. (1974) |
33.0-39.2 |
Jasper Natl. Park (Alberta) |
Russell et al. (1977) |
30.5-46.5 |
Banff Natl. Park (Alberta) |
Vroom (1974) |
40. 2-53. 7 |
Swan Hills (Alberta) |
Nagy and Russell (1978) |
8.8-10.5 |
Southwest Yukon |
Pearson (1975) |
18.5 |
Northern Yukon |
Pearson (1976) |
9.3-1^.7 |
Mt. McKinley Natl. Park |
Dean (1976) |
0.6 |
Kodiak Island, Alaska |
Troyer and Hensel (1964) |
16.6 |
Western Rrooks Range (AK) |
Reynolds and Hechtel (1980) |
57.0 |
Eastern Brooks Range (AK) |
Curatolo and Moore (1975) |
110.0 |
Central Brooks Range (AK) |
Crook (1972) |
39.0 |
Southern Norway |
Elgmork (1978) |
2.0 |
Abruzzo Natl. Park (Italy) |
Zunino and Herrero (1972) |
3.9 |
Northeast Siberia (USSR) |
Kistchinski (1972) |
6.n |
Kamchatka Peninsula (USSR) |
Ostroumov (1968) |
57
study areas within the NCDF (Martinka 1 9 7 4 , Aune et a 1 . 1984). Table 15 provides a comparison of this information with that from other populations in North America. Peproductive biology characteristics from the NCDE are more favorable than for those in less productive habitats with limited food sources (Pearson 1975, 1976; Reynolds 1976; Miller et a 1 . 1982). However, more information on reproduction would be desirable for the NCDF.
The potential for compensatory reproduction has been observed by Reynolds and Hechtel (1980). They reported that three of five females which lost their cubs were observed during the breeding season and judged to be in estrous. Craighead et al. (1976) reported that maximum reproductive rates for grizzlies in Yellowstone were a result of compensatory reproduction.
C. Age Structure.
Little age composition data is available for grizzlies in the NCDF. Data from the RMFF (Aune et al. 1984) can be compared with other populations in North America (Table 16).
Low productivity in the southwestern Yukon accounts for the low proportion of young observed (Pearson 1975). Pearson (1975) considered this a result of energy-poor habitat, but speculated it might also typify a stable population with low mortality and recruitment. In the northern Yukon, Pearson (1976) indicated the low proportion of young was due to high mortality in these age classes.
58
Table 15. Reproductive characteristics of North American grizzly bear populations.
Mean Location and Source size |
litter of cubs |
Mean age at first litter |
Litter frequency ( years) |
FockyMtn. Fast Front (MT) 1 (June et a 1 . 1 9 8 M ) |
2.5 |
5.5 |
2.1 |
Flathead Fiver, B.C.1 (McClellan 1 9 8 i4 ) |
2.5 |
5 . 5 a |
3.1 |
Kodiak Island, Alaska1 (Hensel et al. 1969) |
2.2 3 |
4-5 |
3 + |
Eastern Brooks Fange, Alaska1 (Feynolds 1976) |
1.77 |
9.9 |
3 + |
Western Brooks Fange, Alaska1 (Feynolds and Hechtel 1980) |
2.03 |
8.4 |
4 + |
Southwest Yukon1 (Pearson 1975) |
1.6 |
7.8 |
3 + |
Northern Yukon1 (Pearson 1976) |
1 .*<-1 . |
8 7.5 |
4 |
MacKenzie Mountains, N.W.T.1 (Miller et al. 1982) |
1 .83 |
8a |
3.8 |
Glacier Natl. Park (MT)2 (Martinka 197*0 |
1.7 |
||
Glacier Natl. Park (Canada)2 (Mundy and Flook 1973) |
2.0 |
5 + |
2.8 |
Yellowstone National Park2 (Craighead et al. 197*0 |
2.24 |
5.8 |
3.4 |
Yellowstone National Park2 (Knight and Fberhardt 1985) |
1.9 |
6.2 |
3.0 |
McNeil Fiver, Alaska2 (Glenn et al. 1976) |
2.5 |
6 |
3.6 |
1 Hunted population 2Unhunted population aEarliest age observed.
59
Table 16. Age structures of North American grizzly bear populations.
Location and Percent of Population
Reference Cubs Yearlings Total Subadults Adults Total
Rocky Mtn. East Front (MT) 19. 3
(Aune et al. 198*0
Flathead River, P.C. 15.1
(McClellan 198*0
Glacier Natl. Park (MT) 17.0
(Martinka 197**)
Yellowstone National Park 16.5
(Craighead et al. 197**)
Kodiak Island, Alaska 25.8
(Troyer and Hensel 196**)
Eastern Brooks Range, Alaska 7.9
(Reynolds 1976)
Western Brooks Range, Alaska 13.0 (Reynolds and Hechtel 1980)
McNeil River, Alaska 15.0
(Glenn et al. 1976)
Southwest Yukon 7.3
(Pearson 1975)
Northern Yukon 2
(Pearson 1976)
MacKenzie Mountains, N.W.T. 1*1.3
(Miller et al. 1982)
21.** |
*10.7 |
27.6 |
31.7 |
59.3 |
17.9 |
33.0 |
23.6 |
43.4 |
67.0 |
15.0 |
32.0 |
— |
— |
68.0 |
12.2 |
28.7 |
2**.0 |
47.3 |
71.3 |
22.1 |
**7.9 |
27.0 |
25.1 |
52.1 |
10.9 |
18.8 |
15.9 |
65.3 |
81.2 |
10.7 |
23.7 |
2**. 4 |
51.9 |
76.3 |
9.3 |
2*t . 3 |
13.5 |
62.1 |
75.6 |
17.1 |
2**.** |
31.7 |
43.7 |
75.4 |
9 |
11 |
20 |
69 |
89 |
10.** |
2*1.7 |
24.2 |
51.1 |
75.3 |
reported by Reynolds and Hechtel ( 1 9 8 0 ) was also due to high mortality. Data from Miller et al. ( 1 982) is from a population they consider to be over-harvested. McClellan's (198**) reported age structure is similar to Aune et al. (198**) and is from a large and expanding population. Troyer and Hensel' s (196*1) data are also from a population exhibiting high productivity.
60
D. Mortality
Mortality rates by age class are not available for grizzly bears in the NCDE. However, of the mortality that has occurred, Aune et al. (1984) reports that 62. 5? have been sub-adults and 37. 5? adults, with an average of less than 1 female dying per year since 1977. Non-hunting mortality accounted for more than 50? of the total (Aune et
i
al. 1984). The high sub-adult mortality may be due to sub- adult dispersal from an expanding population (Aune, pers. comm., Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. & Parks, Choteau). Martinka (1982) reported average annual losses of 3.5? to 5? for a region encompassing most of the NCDF, a rate indicated in the literature as an acceptable level (Cowan 1972; Reynolds 1976; Lortie 1978; British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch 1979; Sidorowicz and Gilbert 1981; Tompa 1 984 , van Drimmelen 1 984). Martinka ( 1 974) had no data on mortality rates within Glacier National Park, but stated that mortalities outside the park had little effect on the population within the Park. Craighead et al. (1974) reported an average annual known mortality of 10.6? in Yellowstone National Park with 41?, 41? and 18? of the annual mortality occurring in adults, sub-adults and unknown age bears, respectively. Mortality rates by age class from the literature (Craighead et al. 1974; Miller et al. 1982; Mclellan 1984; Bunnell and Tait 1985) are reported in Table 17. Kasworm (1985) reported an average of 1.8 grizzly mortalities per year from 1950-1978 in the CYF.
61
Table 17. Mortality rate (%) In each age class for several grizzly bear populations in North America.
Location and Source |
Cubs |
Yearlings |
Subadults |
Adults |
Yellowstone National Park (Craighead et al. 197*0 |
30.3 |
21.7 |
23.4 |
10.1 |
Flathead River, B.C. (McClellan 198*0 |
22 |
16 |
8 |
5 |
MacKenzie Mountains, N.W.T. (Miller et al. 1982) |
27.0 |
24.5 |
13.1 |
|
Estimated for grizzly/brown bears (Bunnell and Tait 1985) |
30-40 |
15-35 |
16. 8a, 23. 0b |
aSubadult and adult female mortality combined. ^Subadult and adult male mortality combined.
F. Population Regulation
Grizzly bear population regulating mechanisms are not well understood. However, habitat, as it affects productivity, is probably the ultimate factor controlling most bear populations. It has been suggested that produc- tivity of bears is density-independent and that population regulation is largely a result of nutritional condition (Bunnell and Tait 1981). Bunnell and Tait (1981) support this argument with evidence from Rogers (1976) and Stirling et al. (1976) showing that female black and grizzly bears not gaining sufficient weight prior to denning don't produce cubs. Others offering evidence for bear productivity being density-independent and nutritionally based are Beecham (1980) and Hugie (1983) for black bears, and Reynolds and Bechtel ( 1 9 80 ) and Sidorowicz and Gilbert ( 1 9 8 1 ) for
62
grizzlies. Jonkel and Cowan (1971) reported that black bear productivity approached zero in years when huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.) were scarce.
Social intolerance resulting in sub-adult dispersal is one of the proximate mechanisms controlling both black and grizzly bear populations (Stokes 1970, Kemp 1971, Martinka 1976, Feecham 1980, Young and Fuff (1982), and probably of bears in general (Bunnell and Tait 1981). Beecham (1983) suggested that "reservoir" areas where black bears are not heavily-hunted may be important in supplying immigrants to heavily hunted areas. Similarly, Pearson (1975) noted emigration of grizzly bears from the Kluane Game Sanctuary into an adjacent hunted population in the Yukon. However, Knight and Fberhardt (1985) reported subadult dispersal to be essentially random.
Martinka (1982) suggested that the Glacier National Park grizzly population may mediate regional mortality through dispersal of grizzlies to habitats outside the park. Cowan (1972) had previously suggested that Glacier National Park was subsidizing the harvest outside the park. If this were the case, sub-adults should comprise a larger proportion of the harvest adjacent to the park. Such a finding has been reported by Pullianen (1983) who noted that expansion of brown bears from Russia into Finland was accompanied by a large percentage of sub-adults in the harvest. However, mortality data from 1970 - 1984 in the NCDE show no significant difference in age structure of the mortality ecosystem-wide as compared to within 10 miles of
63
the park (Table 18). Mortality data analyzed In this way do not indicate extensive dispersal of sub-adults from the Park .
Table 18. Composition of total mortality3 within the entire NCDE and within 10 miles of Glacier National Park, 1970-1984.
Cubs and
Yearlings 2-year-olds Subadults Adults
NCDE 22 (8.4) 26 (10.0) 82 (31.4) 131 (50.2)
Within 10 miles of
Glacier Natl. Park, MT 14 (16.7) 8 ( 9.5) 21 (25.0) 41 (48.8)
^Mortalities for which the specific location was known (345 of 414 total). “Number in parentheses is percent of total mortality.
Mortality caused by adult male grizzlies has been documented and suggested as a possible population-regulating mechanism in grizzly bears (Egbert and Luque 1975; Glenn et al. 1976; Egbert and Stokes 1976; Pearson 1976; Craighead et al. 1976; Reynolds and Hechtel 1980; Stringham 1983). Young and Ruff (1982) observed a doubling of an unhunted black bear population (from 80 to 175) following removal of 23 adult males. They attributed the increase to improved sub-adult survival and ingress. Mortality caused by adult male grizzlies has not yet been observed in the NCDE.
F. Population Status.
Our current minimum population estimate for the NCDE, based on the density estimates discussed earlier, is 580. Excluding Glacier National Park, the number is 387 grizzly bears. The Glacier National Park segment of this population
64
has remained relatively stable at an average of 201 from 1967-1981 (Martinka 1982). He further stated that the popu- lation in a region encompassing most of the NCDF was viable and near the level of 500 proposed by Franklin (1980) as necessary for maintaining genetic variance.
Cooney (1941) estimated 112 grizzly bears in a portion of the Flathead and Lewis and Clark National Forests. This estimate was based on miles of trail traveled per bear or bear sign observed. Based on the best information available, Hickie (1952) reported an estimate of 758 grizzly bears in all of Montana. Cooney (1953) reported a 1953 population estimate of 800 in Montana. Marshall (1955) reported an estimate of 700 grizzly bears for the entire state in 1954. He considered the harvest of 39 (5.6?) not to be excessive given the population estimate. Montana listed 439 grizzlies in 1955 in its population exclusive of national parks (Cooney 1956). He also reported 100 for Glacier National Park. Hamlin and Frisina (1975) reported the grizzly population in Montana was at least stable and possibly increasing.
Several researchers have pointed out the difficulties of trying to estimate grizzly bear populations (Martinka 1974; Ouimby 1974; Pearson 1975; Craighead et al. 1976; Reynolds and Hechtel 1980; Meagher and Phillips 1983). Although this information is valuable and should be obtained where feasible, inventories of grizzly bear populations are not required for management (Reynolds and Hechtel 1980; Archibald 1983; Johnson 1980). Further, to expect that
65
carrying capacities can be determined for grizzly populations is unrealistic. Meagher and Phillips (1983) reported that the carrying capacity could not be determined for a population in Yellowstone that had been studied for 2U years .
Comparing historical information with our present estimates indicates the current grizzly bear population status in Montana is as high or higher than that reported 30-40 years ago. It appears that compensatory forces have allowed growth in Montana's grizzly bear populations. Factors which have probably contributed include implementation of more conservative control programs, restrictions on hunting, and acquisition of some key habitats. This growth has occurred in spite of habitat encroachment .
It should be noted that there are problem areas within the ecosystems. Aune (pers. comm.) indicates that the Badger-Two Medicine area is a mortality sink. Claar et al. (1983) stated that the population segment in the Mission Mountains is declining. These problem areas will need special management attention.
A survey of our Department's biologists and wardens and our state's licensed outfitters was conducted to determine their assessment of the current trend of the grizzly bear population in Montana as well as its distribution. These surveys were designed simply to assess these groups' opinions. It was not meant to represent the state of the art
66
in survey design, nor was it designed to be evaluated statistically. As discussed later in Trend Monitoring, this technique will be designed to provide for statistical evaluation if it is to be is used in the future.
These informal surveys indicated that the distribu- tion and status of grizzly bears in the NCDF is stable to increasing. The results for the CYE indicated the popula- tion and distribution are likely stable to decreasing. This supports the contention that a strong recovery effort is necessary for the CYE population.
Population modeling efforts using mortality data for the NCDE have been conducted by Klaver (pers. comm., Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pablo, MT) and Harris (1981(a). Both models were updated using the most current mortality data of Greer (1985). Both Klaver and Harris have aptly demonstrated the problems encountered when using sex and age data from mortality records. They have demonstrated the need for a measure of hunter effort.
Harris (1984a) examined age and sex structure from simulated grizzly populations subjected to various harvest levels. He devised a statistical procedure based on harvest data to test the null hypothesis of overharvest, but concluded that the test was insensitive (power estimated to be less than 50%). When applied to 1970-1981 grizzly bear data from the NCDE, grouped by three- year blocks, the test was unable to reject the null hypothesis of overharvest at the 90? confidence level. However, when applied to 1 982- 1984 harvest data, the index indicated a 10? or less chance
67
the population (for this time block) was declining (Harris pers. comm., University of Montana, Missoula).
Klaver has modeled the 1 970-1 98^1 mortality data for the NCDE using the traditional methods of Gilbert et al. (1 978) and a simplified approach to the Frazier et al. (1982) method. Klaver’s analyses show that harvest rates have been declining in recent years and that population indexes indicate a stable or increasing population.
Population trend information is available for three intensive study areas within or adjacent to the NCDE. The portions of the ecosystem in the PMEF (iune, pers. comm.) and the British Columbia portion of the North Fork of the Flathead Fiver (McLellan 1984) are both stable to increasing. Grizzly bear numbers in the Mission Mountains are reported to be declining (Claar et al. 1983).
A task force appointed by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee met in 1984 in an effort to determine population size and trends in the NCDF. Their executive summary stated, "The available population data did not permit the task force to estimate total numbers of bears, to detect any significant trend or even to confirm population stability in the grizzly bear population of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem". However, they stated in the same summary, "While we are unable to eliminate the possibility of slow, long-term trends, we found n_o indication that current management threatens the population in this region" (emphasis added).
68
Our review of the population and trend information also failed to show any indication of a general decline in the NODE population. In fact, there are indications that the population is stable or increasing.
H. Trend Monitoring
To date, no direct method for monitoring grizzly bear population trends has been developed. Several methods have been tested including scent station indices (Ball 1980; Harris 1984b; Knight et al. 1984), surveys of concentration areas (Kendall 1985; Klaver and Claar 1985), scat counts (Both 1980) and track and sign counts (Stockstad 1954, Marshall 1955, Pognrud 1956). The scent station index may be useful for black bears (Lindzey et al. 1977, Carlock et al. 1983). However, this technique has shown limited success for other species to which it is more easily applied (Conner et al. 1983; Linhart and Knowlton 1975; Boughton and Sweeney 1982). Harris (1984c) discussed trend monitoring techniques for the grizzly bear and concluded that none were adequate. The difficulty, in addition to developing an appropriate monitoring technique for grizzlies, is that a reasonably accurate population estimate must be concurrently developed to compare the trend against. To date no concurrent studies of this type have been initiated for grizzly bears.
One widely used technique involves no direct research on the bear. This is the survey or interview of professional biologists, foresters, and outfitters, as well as the general public regarding their judgement of grizzly/
69
brown bear population trends and status (Stockstad 1954; Marshall 1955; Pognrud 1956; Hamlin and Frisina 1975; Dean 1976; Elgmork 1976, 1978; Roth 1976; Layser 1978; Bjarvall 1980; Buchalczyk 1980; Hoak et a 1 . 1983). Upon subsequent review, these surveys have generally been determined to closely reflect known long-term trends. Clearly, this technique is not adequate by itself to accurately monitor populations. However, in combination with periodic studies of population biology and other survey techniques, it could prove useful.
I. Augmentation or Peintroduction
Population augmentation or reintroduction has been considered, but to date has not been conducted by any agency. Jonkel (1983) and Kasworm (1985) recommend augmentation by re i n t r od u c t i on or c r o s s- f o s t e r ing of grizzly cubs with black bear sows to speed the recovery of the CYE grizzly bear population.
To document the willingness of states and provinces with current or historic populations of grizzly bears to accept individuals for r e i n t r o d u c t i o n , the Departent surveyed (Appendix D) 21 states’ and provinces’ wildlife management agencies including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Alberta, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, Yukon. With the exceptions of Alberta and British Columbia, no state or province would or could
70
foresee the possibility of accepting grizzly bears for reintroduction. Alberta and Fritish Columbia will accept grizzlies provided that, first, they pay little or no costs, and second, they be provided with a history on each bear so that they may accept individual bears at their own discretion. Clearly, if the Department wanted to consider supplying surplus or problem animals for augmentation programs outside Montana, that option would not be open.
71
VI. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW
A. Mortality Quota
The State of Montana is the only one of the 48 conterminous states authorized to allow hunting of grizzly bears under the Endangered Species Act. This authority is granted by Chapter 1, Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 17, Paragraph 17.4, effective August 1, 1975 (Appendix B).
The Department, a member of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, is the agency responsible for compiling grizzly bear mortality reports. These data are summarized, analyzed, and prepared in annual reports by the Department. Mortalities from all causes including hunting, control dispatches, transplants, illegal killing of marauding or menacing bears, and bears killed illegally for profiteering or mistaken identity (for black bears) are reported.
The Code of Federal Regulations established the mortality quota of 25 grizzly bears for northwestern Montana (Fig. 7). At the time these regulations were being amended, the Montana Department of Fish and Game (Woodgerd 1974) felt a conservative mortality quota of 25 was appropriate based on an average annual mortality (1967 through 1974) of 28.
The Department elected to be more conservative in 1983 when it established a female subquota of 9 for the NCDE (6 west of the Continental Divide and 3 east). These quotas involve the total man-caused grizzly mortality including illegal kills, accidents, control actions, and hunter harvest. Thus, hunter harvest is adjusted to reflect the
72
IDAHO
e
©
Figure 7. Area in which the annual mortality quota of 25 applies.
other sources of mortality. In addition, these quotas are reviewed annually to determine if they need adjustment. An increase in these quotas has not been considered.
No other state or province which allows grizzly or black bear hunting operates under a quota. Other management plans utilize harvest rates (Table 19). Although Bunnell and Tait ( 1 9 80 ) suggest that quota systems are an insufficient regulatory device, Pearson (1975) suggested annual quotes were workable and could be changed in response to population status. He felt they were inappropriate for the Yukon, however. Indications are that the population of grizzly bears in the NODE has been stable to increasing since the early 1970s (see Population Status). Thus, if the current minimum population estimate of 580 were applied in 1 9 7 ^ , the 25 quota would represent a total mortality rate of only 4?, a rate lower than that recommended in the literature (Table 19).
B. Hunting Seasons
Since 1967 the grizzly hunting season in the MODE has generally coincided with deer and elk season dates (approximately mid to late October through late November, except in the wilderness areas where the season opened approximately September 15). Table 20 summarizes the 1984 season dates from other states and provinces. Hunting was discontinued in the CYE in 1974.
Season dates have a large influence on the sex ratio of bears harvested. Early fall and late spring seasons
74
Table 19. Fecommended and reported grizzly bear mortality rates.
HUNTFR |
HARVEST |
TOTAL |
MORTALITY |
||
Reference |
Total |
Male/Female |
Female |
Adult |
Total |
Reynolds (1975) |
3? (12)a |
||||
B.C. Fish and Wildl. Branch (1979) |
60:40(8:5)b |
5?c (19) |
|||
Tompa (1984) |
2?c (4) |
3-5?c (12-19) |
|||
van Drimmelen (1984) |
2?c (4) |
3?c (12) |
|||
Sidorowicz & Gilbert (1981) |
2-3? (8-12) |
4 . 5? c ( 8 ) |
10. 5? d (41) |
||
Lortie (1977, 1978) |
3? (12) |
61:39 ( 8 : 5 ) b |
|||
B. Smith (pers. comm) Yukon Wildl. Branch) |
4? (15) |
||||
Martinka (1974) |
17?d (66) |
||||
Craighead et al. (1974) |
10.6?c, 1 8 . 7?d (41,72) |
||||
Cowan (197?) |
5-7? (19-27) |
||||
Bunnell & Tait (1980) |
10. 7?d (41) |
||||
Average annual mortality in the NCDF, 1967-1984 |
12. 9(3? )e |
7.6:5.3(59:41) |
8.8d(4.5?) |
10. 1d(6?) |
23.0d(6?) |
a Numbers in parentheses represent the number of bears killed if the rates were applied to the current minimum population estimate of 387 in the NCDF exclusive of Glacier National Park. (Adult population proportion of 44? and 50:50 sex ratio assumed . )
b Patio in parentheses is based on the recommended ratio applied to the average annual hunting mortality of 13 bears since 1967 in the NCDF. c Pate includes only man caused mortality, d Pate includes all known causes of mortality.
e Pates in parentheses were calculated based on the current minimum population estimate of 387 exclusive of Glacier National Park. (Adult population proportion of 44? and 50:50 sex ratio assumed.) Including the Park population would reduce these rates significantly.
75
Table 20. |
North |
American grizzly |
bear hunting seasons |
for 1981*. |
|
State or |
Shortest |
Longest |
|||
Province |
Season Dates3 |
Season |
Season |
||
Montana |
Sept . |
15-Nov. 25 |
3 weeks/fall |
2.5 |
months/ fa 11 |
Wyom ing^ |
April |
1-June 30 |
2.5 months/fall |
3 months/spring |
|
Sept . |
1-Nov. 15 |
||||
Alaska |
April |
1 - June 30 |
2 weeks/spring |
All |
year |
Sept . |
1-Dec. 31 |
||||
July |
1-June 30 |
||||
Alberta |
April |
1-June If |
6 weeks/spring |
2.5 |
months/ fall |
Sept . |
12-Dec. 1 |
||||
British |
April |
1-June 15 |
i| weeks/spring |
2.5 |
months/ spring |
Columbia |
Sept . |
1 -Nov . 18 |
and |
fall |
|
Northwest |
Aug . |
15-0ct. 31 |
2.5 months/fall |
2.5 |
months/ fall |
Territories |
|||||
Yukon |
May 1 |
-June 15 |
6 weeks/spring |
3 months/fall |
|
Territory |
Aug. |
1 -Oct . 31 |
aData represent the range included if all areas and seasons (spring, fall, all year) are considered.
"Season dates are for 1 9 7 ^ • Grizzly bear season was closed after 197H.
result in a higher percentage of females in the harvest (Troyer 1961, Pearson 1975, Stirling et al. 1976, Hugie 1983). The composition, by week, of the hunter harvest in the N CD F is presented in Table 21. Analysis of the hunter harvest shows a sex ratio of 59? males to III? females, a ratio similar to those recommended or reported in the
76
c
Table 21. Sunnary of weekly hunter harvest of grizzly bears In northwestern Mcntana, 1967-19®.
WEEK
Sept. |
Sept. |
Sept. /Oct. |
Oct. |
Oct. |
Oct. |
Oct. /Nov. |
Nov. |
Nov. |
Nov. |
Nov. |
||
Category |
15-21 |
22-28 |
29-5 |
6-12 |
13-19 |
20-26 |
27-2 |
3-9 |
10-16 |
17-23 |
2*4-30 |
TOTAL |
Adults |
13 (12.9)a |
7 (6.9) |
6 (5.9) |
7 (6.9) |
9 (8.9) |
31 (30.7) |
13 (12.9) |
9 (8.9) |
5 (5£) |
2 (2£) |
101 (51.3)1 |
|
Subedults |
8 (12.5) |
2 (3.1) |
8 (12.5) |
4 (6.3) |
6 (9.4) |
19 (29.7) |
9 (14.1) |
4 (6.3) |
2 (3.1) |
1 (1.6) |
1 (1.6) |
64 (32.5) |
2 Year Olds |
2 ( 9.5) |
3 (14.3) |
7 (33.3) |
1 (4.8) |
1 (4.8) |
3 (14.3) |
1 (4.8) |
3 (14.3) |
21 (10.7) |
|||
Cubs-Year lings |
3 (27.3) |
3 (27.3) |
2 (18.2) |
2 (18.2) |
1 (9.1) |
11 (5.6) |
||||||
26 (13.2) |
12 (6.1) |
24 (12.2) |
14 (7.1) |
16 (8.1) |
55 (27.9) |
23 (11.7) |
14 (7.1) |
7 (3.6) |
6 (3.1) |
1 (0.5) |
197 (100) |
|
Males |
16 (11.8) |
8 (5.9) |
16 (11.8) |
8 (5.9) |
8 (5.9) |
34 (25.0) |
23 (16.9) |
12 (8.8) |
7 (5.1) |
4 (2.9) |
136 (59) |
|
Females |
13 (13.5) |
9 (9.4) |
10 (10.4) |
9 (9.4) |
13 (13.5) |
23 (24.0) |
6 (6.3) |
6 (6.3) |
3 (3.D |
3 (3.D |
1 (1.0) |
96 (41) |
Total |
29 (12.5) |
17 (7.3) |
26 (11.2) |
17 (7.3) |
21 (9.1) |
57 (24.6) |
29 (12.5) |
18 (7.8) |
10 (4.3) |
7 (3.0) |
1 (0.4) |
232 (100) |
Percent of the harvest fran the period of Septa±>er 15 - Novorber 30, which occurred that week. ^Percent of total.
literature (Troyer 1961, Pearson 1975, Lortie 1977, British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch 1979, Johnson 1980, Lindzey and Meslow 1980, Kolenosky 198?). Chi-squared analysis indicates that significantly (X2 = l|.5l|, PC0.P5) more males are shot after October 20 than before. Troyer (1961) stated that since fall hunting produced a heavier harvest of females and the earliest portion of the fall season is the most productive, seasonal restrictions would have the best results by limiting the early fall season. Spring hunting success was higher than that of the fall and produced a higher percentage of males (Troyer 1961). Stirling et al. (1976) based on modeling, suggested fall seasons may be detrimental to grizzly populations due to increased vulner- ability of females. However, they didn't indicate season dates. Presumably, they used an early start for the fall season. Pearson (1975) reported a decreasing proportion of females in the total kill as the fall season progressed in the Yukon. He also suggests that opening the fall season after female grizzlies have denned is a management option to reduce female mortality. Reynolds (pers. comm.) stated that fall-only seasons in Alaska were used where harvest sex and age data indicated some caution was necessary.
C. Female Protection
Since 1983, the hunting program in Montana has protected females through a female subquota of 9 and by prohibiting the taking of females accompanied by cubs (since 19*17). Restricting the fall season might further reduce
78
female mortality if the season opened on a later date, nearer the time when most females have denned. A spring- only season might also reduce current female mortality if the closing date were earlier than in other states or provinces (Table 20). Further protection might be provided by prohibiting 1) the shooting of females accompanied by any young, or 2) the shooting of any bear in a group. These alternatives will be evaluated later in this FIS (see Regulations ) .
Current grizzly hunting regulations in other states or provinces do not include female subquotas. All include protection of females with cubs and some extend protection to females with yearlings or any young (Table 22). Some female protection is also provided by season opening and closing dates (Table 20).
D. Closure Authority
The MFGC has the authority to close a hunting season at any time. Additionally, since 1975 grizzly bear hunting regulations provided for closure of the season at such time as the total mortality by human causes equalled 25. Beginning in 1 983 , the season would be closed on it 8 hours notice west of the Continental Divide when 6 females have been killed by human causes and east of the Continental Divide when 3 females have been killed by human causes. Since the quota was initiated in 1975 the season has been closed twice because total or female mortalities were approaching the quotas. Tn 1975 the season closed two weeks
79
Table 22. Summary of protection provided female grizzlies in states and provinces with cur- rent or historic grizzly bear hunting seasons3.
State or |
- . Protection for Females |
|||
Provi hce |
None |
with cubs |
with yearlings |
with young |
Montana |
X |
|||
Wyoming15 |
X |
|||
Alaska |
X |
X |
||
Washington0 |
X |
|||
Arizona*^ |
X |
|||
Idahoe |
X |
|||
N . W . T . |
X |
|||
Yukon |
X |
X |
X |
|
Alberta |
X |
X |
||
Pritish Columbia |
X |
X |
X |
bFased on correspondence from the indicated states and provinces. ^Prior to 1975 - grizzly hunting stopped in 1975.
^Prior to 1969 - grizzly hunting stopped in 1969.
After 1929 until last record of a grizzly in 1935. ePrior to 19^6 - grizzly hunting stopped in 1 9 6 .
before scheduled because total mortality was approaching the
quota. In 1 9 8 the season closed one month before scheduled
because female mortality was approaching the quota. Since
inception of the quota, it has been recognized as improbable
but possible that these quotas could be reached before the
hunting seasons opened. In 1983 the scheduled season in
hunting district 1H0 was not held because 5 mortalities due
to mistaken identity (grizzlies killed that were mistaken
for black bears) occurred prior to the opening. Alaska and
80
the Canadian provinces and territories also have closure authority but not based on a quota system.
F. Other Regulations
Figure 8 shows grizzly bear hunting district boundaries for 1984. These boundaries have changed as management needs have dictated. Since 1967, hunters killing a grizzly have beeti required to report the kill within 48 hours to an officer of the Department, and to personally present the hide and skull within 10 days to an officer of the Department for purposes of inspection, tagging, and recording of kill. Fvidence of sex intact on the carcass or skin was also required. Tt was also prohibited for any person to remove any portion of a grizzly bear from the State of Montana without first obtaining a trophy license. The annual limit per grizzly licensee has been one grizzly bear of either sex since 1947. Taking of cubs or females with cubs has been was prohibited since 1947. Cubs were defined as young of the year. Alaska, Alberta, Pritish Columbia, and the Yukon and Northwest Territories all have regulations similar to Montana with variations based on population status.
Montana hunters have been required to purchase specific grizzly bear licenses since 1967. In recent years these licenses had to be purchased by August 31. Since the hunting season has not opened prior to September 15, this regulation eliminates the possibility of a hunter killing a grizzly bear and then buying a license. License fees have
81
dupuyer
406
101
KALI
’Q,
CLOSED TO GRIZZLY BEAR HUNTING
Figure 8. Grizzly bear hunting district boundaries in the NCDE
increased periodically since 1967. These increases usually result in decreased license sales (Fig. Q).
F. Hunter Surveys
Hunter questionnaires have been distributed period- ically to grizzly bear licensees to obtain information on hunter occupation, dates hunted, areas hunted, observations of bears, and hunter comments on regulations, seasons, etc. (Greer 1972, 1974).
83
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1
;ure 9.
Resident
Non Resident
Increase in Fee
YEAR
Grizzly bear license sales in Montana, 1967-1984.
VII. GRIZZLY BFAR MORTALITY IN THK NCDF
A. Total Man Caused Mortality
Grizzly bear mortalities from 1967 to 1984 (Greer 1967- 1984) are presented In Table 23. Prior to the quota of 25 mortalities from all human causes (1975), the average annual mortality was 28 grizzly bears. Since 1975, an average of 19 grizzly bears have been killed annually.
Mortalities since 1967, stratified by hunting and nonhunting, are presented in Figure 10. The average proportion of hunting to nonhunting mortality during 1967-84 was 56 : 44)!. Reported nonhunting mortality has exceeded hunting mortality in 5 of 18 years.
Male grizzly bear mortality exceeded female mortality in 14 of 18 years (Fig. 11). The ratio of male to female mortality averages 58:42$ for the entire period (Table 23).
When sexes are combined, the ratio of adult to subadult mortality is 51:49$ (Table 21). Ages of female grizzly bears in the total mortality are given in Figure 12. In all years, the average female taken was an adult (5 years of age or older). The average ratio of adult to subadult females for all years is 74:26$. In general, males in the total mortality tend to be slightly younger than females. An average of 49$ of the males since 1970 have been adults. The distribution of male ages from 1 970 to 1 984 are given in Figure 13.
B. Punting Mortality
From 1975 to 1984 the average annual hunting mortality
85
has been 10.6 individuals (range = 5-17) of which an average of li.2 individuals (40?) are females (Table 23, Fig. 1 4 ) .
The ratio of adult to subadult animals in the hunter harvest, when sexes are combined, is 51:49? (Table 21, Fig. 15) .
Table 23. Summary of total mortality of grizzly bears in northwestern Montana, 1 967-1 984a.
Year 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Total Average
Hunt 22 9 28 9 13 14 14 17 13 11
Ncnhunt 18 8 10 9 9 16 10 20 9 12
Total |
40 |
17 |
38 |
18 |
22 |
30 |
24 |
37 |
22 |
23 |
Hunt |
||||||||||
Male |
16 |
5 |
19 |
5 |
3 |
7 |
5 |
12 |
6 |
6 |
Female |
6 |
4 |
9 |
4 |
10 |
7 |
9 |
5 |
7 |
5 |
Ncnhunt |
||||||||||
Male |
6 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
6 |
10 |
3 |
7 |
|
Female |
2 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
|
Unknown |
1 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|||||
Hunt |
||||||||||
Adult |
1 |
15 |
5 |
8 |
9 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
|
Subadult |
4 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
9 |
9 |
7 |
6 |
|
Unknown |
4 |
5 |
||||||||
Ncnhunt |
||||||||||
Adult |
5 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
9 |
4 |
5 |
|
Subadult |
3 |
6 |
6 |
3 |
10 |
4 |
11 |
5 |
7 |
|
Unknown |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
||||||
Hunt |
||||||||||
Adult M |
0 |
11 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
|
Adult F |
1 |
4 |
2 |
7 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
Unknown |
4 |
|||||||||
Ncnhunt |
||||||||||
Adult M |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
|
Adult F |
1 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
|
Unkncwn |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
||||||
Total Male |
16 |
11 |
22 |
6 |
4 |
15 |
11 |
22 |
9 |
13 |
Total Fanale |
6 |
6 |
15 |
8 |
13 |
12 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
10 |
5 |
7 |
11 |
11 |
11 |
17 |
8 |
12 |
232 |
12.9 |
7 |
16 |
8 |
12 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
8 |
182 |
10.1 |
12 |
23 |
19 |
23 |
17 |
24 |
15 |
20 |
414 |
23.0 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
136 |
7.6 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
9 |
1 |
5 |
96 |
5.3 |
4 |
1 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
84 |
4.7 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
63 |
3.5 |
1 |
1 |
||||||||
2 |
3 |
7 |
9 |
5 |
8 |
2 |
6 |
102 |
5.7 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
9 |
5 |
6 |
96 |
5.3 |
1 |
|||||||||
3 |
3 |
5 |
9 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
70 |
3.8 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
84 |
a.6 |
1 |
1 |
||||||||
1 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
55 |
3.1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
3 |
51 |
2.8 |
1 |
|||||||||
5 |
1 |
5 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
43 |
2.4 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
35 |
1.9 |
1 |
1 |
||||||||
6 |
7 |
14 |
13 |
13 |
13 |
11 |
13 |
219 |
12.2 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
10 |
4 |
10 |
4 |
7 |
158 |
8.8 |
aScme individuals were not classified by sex, but were included in totals.
86
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
. Total mortality of grizzly bears by type in northwestern Montana, 1967-1984.
Figure 11. Total mortality of grizzly bears by sex in northwestern Montana, 1967-1984.
fv
o'" r
Figure 12. Distribution of age of female grizzly bears in total mortality in northwestern Montana, 1970-1984.
YEAR
Figure 13. Distribution of age of male grizzly bears in total mortality in northwestern Montana, 1970-1984.
HARVEST
e
c
30 X
— Males |
| Annual Mortality |
| Quota of 25 |
|
— Females |
| Implemented |
— Total |
Figure 14. Hunter harvest of grizzly bears by sex in
northwestern Montana, 1967-1984.
HARVEST
CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 —
1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983
YEAR
Figure 15. Hunter harvest of grizzly bears by age class in northwestern Montana, 1967-1984,
Adults comprise a greater proportion of female ] egal harvest than do subadults (Fig. 16). During the period 1 968-1 9811, adult females have constituted 5^% of the total female harvest. From 1975 to present, this adult female take has increased to 58? and the average female has been 9 years old. For males, an average of 1<7? have been adults (Fig. 17), and their average age has been 6 years old.
1. Distribution of Hunting Mortality by Hunting District
Information on the grizzly bear harvest by hunting district since 1973 is presented in Table 2 U . Several districts were combined as they represent similar ecological areas (Figure 8).
Table 2b. Distribution of hunting mortality by hunting district (1973-1 98H).
Hunting District |
Number Harvested |
Percent of Total |
101 |
5 |
3.6 |
110 |
16 |
11.6 |
130 |
10 |
7.2 |
1H0-1M |
28 |
20 . H |
150-151 |
53 |
38.6 |
280-281 |
12 |
8.7 |
l»00 series |
13 |
9.H |
The Bob Marshall Wilderness Area and the upper Middle Fork of the Flathead Fiver (districts 150 and 151) have provided the greatest number of legal harvests since 1973 (39?). Approximately 20? of the legal kill has occurred in the lower South Fork of the Flathead Fiver and much of the Great Bear Wilderness (districts 1 l) 0 and 1 H 1 ) . Sixteen of 137 (12?) legal kills since 1973 occurred in the North Fork
93
AGE
26
24 -
22-
AVERAGE
0 *| l I -1 1 —
1968 1970 1972
“T —
1974
— I —
1976
“I r
1978
— I — 1
1980
— I —
1982
— r
1984
YEAR
Figure 16. Distribution of age of female grizzly bear in the hunter harvest in northwestern Montana, 1968-1984.
Q
AGE
C
c ©
Figure 17. Distribution of age of male grizzly bears in the hunter harvest in northwestern Montana, 1968-1984.
of the Flathead Fiver (District 110). Relatively few grizzly bears have been harvested in the Scapegoat Wilderness Area (Districts 280 and 281).
2. Temporal Distribution of Legal Harvest
In the wilderness hunting districts (150, 151, and 280), the grizzly bear hunting season opens approximately four weeks before other districts in the NODE.
Since 1973, ^3% of the total legal harvest of grizzlies in the NODE has occurred during this early season in these three districts. Only 5? of the total harvest since 1973 has occurred in these districts during the general hunting season, a result of early fall snows and difficult access.
C . Effects of Hunting
This section discusses population influences resulting from hunting. Effects on population parameters such as age structure, sex ratio, and reproductive characteristics are used in evaluating hunting (Bunnell and Tait 1980, Troyer 1961, Stirling et al. 1976, Lortie 1977, Miller et al. 1982, Swenson 1985).
Mean litter size of nonhunted populations in North America (Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks; McNeil Fiver, Alaska; Flathead Fiver, B.C.) is similar to but somewhat lower than hunted populations (Table 15). However, differences in habitat, including food quality, exist among these populations, complicating the interpretation of hunting influences. Within the NCDE the largest unhunted area is Glacier National Park with a mean litter size of 1.7. The hunted areas, including the Fast Front, North and
96
South Fork Flathead Fiver, Flathead Fiver, B.C., and the Mission Mountains, have litter sizes of 2.5, 2.12, 2.66 and 2.0, respectively (Aune et al. 1984, McClellan 1984 and data provided to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Task
Force |
on population |
and trends in the NCDF, |
1984). These |
|||
data |
suggest |
that |
hunting |
may increase |
survival |
and |
recruitment. |
Lindzey et al. |
(1983) considered that |
the |
resiliency of a black bear population in Fennsylvania was due to the heavy hunter harvest which stimulated productivity. Inukai (1972) reported that a brown bear population in Japan remained high despite the loss of 750 bears per year and that no effective method to diminish the number of bears had been found. Johnson (1980) provided harvest data from an Alaska population estimated in 1958 to be 1800 animals and in subsequent studies was found to be stable. He stated the management goal was to provide an annual harvest of 60-80 bears not because of concerns over population influence, but because of concerns for aesthetic hunting conditions. He suggested the population could sustain a greater harvest level.
The sex ratio of the hunter harvest, if skewed toward females, may have a negative influence on population productivity. The ratio for 1967-1984 in the NCDE (59? male, 41? female) indicates this has not been the case and that hunting pressure on females has not been heavy. Bunnell and Tait (1985) suggested that the sex ratio of the harvest approaches 1 as hunting pressure increases. That
97
hunters are selective toward males and males are more vulnerable (Miller and Ballard 1982; Bunnell and Tait 1985; Pearson 1975; Lindzey and Meslow 1980; Erickson 1962, 1963) is further evidence that an even ratio in the harvest is indicative of heavy hunting pressure.
Evidence suggests that reducing the number of adult males in a population increased survival and recruitment (see Population Regulation). Because males have constituted 59 * of the harvest since 1967, subadult mortality and dispersal caused by adult males may have been reduced. Jf this is true, subadult survival and recruitment may be increasing.
Declining mean age in harvest data has also been a suggested indicator of overharvest (Glenn 1975, Swenson 1985, Bunnell and Tait 1985, Kolenosky 1985). The mean age of the harvest in the NCDF has remained relatively stable since 1970, and compares favorably with the mean age from other populations which are known not to be over harvested (Table 25). This might indicate population stability within the NCDF. Nonetheless, additional evidence must be considered cumulatively. Age structure Information from the RMEF (Table 16) indicates that this segment of the NCDF population is healthy and productive. Mean litter size for hunted portions of the NCDF presented earlier (Table 15) and the sex ratio of the harvest (59* male, 19* female) are also indicative of a stable or increasing population in the NCDF.
It would be expected that if a grizzly bear population were declining, hunter success would also decrease (Pearson
98
Table 25. Mean age of grizzly bears harvested from the NCDF, Alaska and British Columbia, 1969-1984.
NCDF |
ALASKA3 |
BRITISH COLUMBIA0 |
||||
(G.M.U. b?0) |
(Kootenay Region) |
|||||
Number |
Mean |
Number |
Mean |
Number |
Mean |
|
Year |
of bears |
age |
of bears |
age |
of bears |
age |
1969 |
23 |
7.8 |
||||
1970 |
9 |
6.8 |
20 |
6.4 |
||
1971 |
13 |
7.2 |
22 |
8.2 |
||
1972 |
14 |
7.4 |
29 |
6.3 |
||
1973 |
14 |
7.2 |
26 |
5.9 |
||
1974 |
16 |
6.1 |
28 |
7.7 |
||
1975 |
13 |
6.5 |
24 |
7.6 |
23 |
9.1 |
1976 |
11 |
5.4 |
23 |
5.3 |
||
1977 |
5 |
6.0 |
21 |
7.6 |
44 |
7.9 |
1978 |
7 |
9.1 |
32 |
6.4 |
38 |
9.9 |
1979 |
11 |
8.6 |
37 |
6.3 |
36 |
9.1 |
1980 |
11 |
11.2 |
42 |
6.7 |
26 |
7.1 |
1981 |
11 |
5.1 |
56 |
7.3 |
51 |
8.6 |
1982 |
17 |
6.5 |
49 |
10.2 |
40 |
6.4 |
1983 |
7 |
4.4 |
57 |
7.4 |
38 |
7.2 |
1984 |
12 |
5.3 |
66 |
6.7 |
||
TOTALS |
171 |
6.9 |
555 |
7.1 |
296 |
8.1 |
aData are from H. V. Reynolds (personal communication, Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Fairbanks). bGame Management Unit.
cData are from F. Demarchi (personal communication, British Columbia Fish & Wildlife Branch, Cranbrook).
1975). Furthermore, hunter effort would be expected to increase. The data for grizzly bears in the NCDE (Table 26) indicates there has been no such decline in success but that it has remained relatively stable.
Since most grizzly bear hunting in Montana is done incidental to the hunting of other big-game species, it is possible to estimate the grizzly hunting effort from the big-game hunter effort. Hunter effort for elk in 4 hunting
99
Table 26. YEAR |
Grizzly bear hunter HUNTER HARVEST |
success for the NCDE, LICENSES SOLD |
1967-1984. HUNTER SUCCESS (?) |
1 9 6 7 a |
22 |
1,165 |
1 .9 |
1968 |
9 |
1,286 |
0.7 |
1969 |
28 |
1,638 |
1 .7 |
1970 |
9 |
1,980 |
0.5 |
1971° |
13 |
965 |
1.3 |
1972 |
14 |
944 |
1.5 |
1973 |
1 4 |
810 |
1 .7 |
1974 |
17 |
918 |
1 .9 |
1975 |
13 |
986 |
1 .3 |
1976° |
1 1 |
513 |
2.1 |
1 977 |
5 |
513 |
1 .0 |
1 978 |
7 |
616 |
1 . 1 |
1979 |
1 1 |
584 |
1.9 |
19 80 |
1 1 |
660 |
1.7 |
1 9 8 1 d |
1 1 |
799 |
1 .4 |
1 9 8 2 e |
17 |
699 |
2.4 |
1983 |
8 |
598 |
1.3 |
1984f |
12 |
523 |
2.8 |
TOTAL |
232 |
16,197 |
1 .4 |
aFesident license $1.00, nonresident $25.00
^Resident license increased to $5.00, nonresident increased to $35. on “Resident license increased to $25.00, nonresident increased to $12 ^0 0 “Resident license $25.00, nonresident increased to $150.00 “Resident license $25.00, nonresident increased to $175.00 ^Resident license increased to $50.00, nonresident increased to $300.00
districts within the NODE is directly correlated to the number of licensees afield and has remained stable since 1971 (Table 27). This suggests that overall grizzly hunting effort has also remained stable or has possibly declined with declining license sales.
Punter harvest may also reduce the need for nuisance control actions. Mysterud (1980) stated that selective hunting reduced domestic sheep losses in Norway. Troyer (1961) reported that the hunting season around the town of Kodiak, Alaska, was longer than elsewhere on Kodiak Island to aid in the control of brown bears. Greer (1976) stated
100
Table 2 7. Number of Flk Hunters, Flk Hunter Days Afield, and Grizzly Licenses Sold, 1971-1983 from Flk Hunting Districts 140, 1 Hi , 150, and 151.
Year Flk Hunters |
Total Days Afield3 |
Days/Hunter |
Grizzly Lie. Sales |
|
1971 |
5,509 |
31,287 |
5.68 |
965 |
1972 |
5,356 |
28,304 |
5.28 |
91*1* |
1973 |
2,418 |
13,850 |
5.73 |
810 |
1974 |
3,5^9 |
21,369 |
6.02 |
918 |
1975 |
6,268 |
36,182 |
5.77 |
986 |
1976 |
6,220 |
38,115 |
6.13 |
513 |
1977 |
6,091* |
38,1*90 |
6.32 |
513 |
1978 |
6,721* |
39,019 |
5.80 |
616 |
1979 |
5,712 |
30,671 |
5.37 |
581* |
1980 |
5,716 |
27,062 |
1* . 7 3 |
660 |
1981 |
4,529 |
26,789 |
5.91 |
799 |
1982 |
1*, 1*1*8 |
27,268 |
6.08 |
699 |
1983 |
1* . 1 82 |
26.207 |
6.27 |
|
‘‘Highly correlated to elk hunter numbers (r = .?435) ^Statewide figures
that the elimination of hunter harvest may allow for an increase in nuisance bear situations. Poelker and Parsons (1980) reported that hunting to control black bear damage in forests was very effective and was preserving bears in nondamage areas. Craighead (1976) stated that grizzly bear management though aimed at preservation should include means of control, that hunting could accomplish this control, and that hunting is a sensible approach to preserving yet regulating grizzly populations.
A certain amount of indirect evidence is available from studies on remnant populations (Mysterud 1 9 7 7 » Flgmork 1 978) indicating they exist because of genetic selection and learned behavior in avoiding confrontation and in withdrawing from human contact. Other indirect evidence comes through experiences of researchers who indicate that hunting keeps bears wary of man (Jonkel 1975, Servheen
101
1981). Stokes (1970) indicated that national parks are valuable for research because their wildlife is less wary than where animals are hunted. Bunnell and Tait (1980), in population modeling, assumed that some bears are by virtue of their behavior more likely to be shot than others and continue to exhibit this behavior until they are shot. They suggested that average vulnerability of a cohort decreases with age due to learning and/or loss of more vulnerable animals.
Additional evidence suggesting that protected grizzly bear populations are less wary than hunted ones is provided by Herrero (1985). He has shown that serious injury to humans and number of incidents are greater within national parks than elsewhere (Table 28). Some caution is necessary when interpreting these numbers because the actual rate (No. i n c i d e n t s / N o . people) of incidents and injury is not available .
History suggests that banning hunting has not stopped mortality. Wyoming stopped grizzly bear hunting in 197?, and hunting was also discontinued in the Montana portion of the Yellowstone Ecosystem in 1975. However, this has not reduced either the number of mortalities attributed to other causes or the potential for bear/human conflicts. Arizona, Idaho and Washington either stopped or limited the hunting of grizzly bears in 1929, 19^6, and 1969, respectively. These actions did not stop mortalities of grizzly bears nor their extirpation from Arizona and near extirpation from
102
c
c
Idaho and Wyoming. Colorado established a nonhunting reserve for the grizzly in 1954 which was in place through 1964. This action also failed to prevent the elimination of
Table 28. Number of grizzly bear/human incidents and human injuries in North America (Herrero 1985).
DECADE |
MONTANA (exclusive of National Parks) TOTAL PERSONS INJURED NUMBER |
OF INCIDENTS |
1950-59 |
3 |
3 |
1 960-69 |
4 |
3 |
1970-79 |
0 |
0 |
Totals |
~ |
~6~ |
1950-59 |
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK 1 |
1 |
1960-69 |
12 |
8 |
1970-79 |
10 |
7 |
Totals |
23 |
16 |
1950-1959 |
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK 1 |
1 |
1960-1969 |
24 |
24 |
1970-1979 |
13 |
1 1 |
Totals |
38 |
36 |
1960-69 |
ALBERTA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA (Exclusive of Parks) 6 |
6 |
1970-79 |
1 |
1 |
Totals |
~7~ |
7 |
1950-59 |
NATIONAL PARKS (Alberta and British Columbia) 3 |
1 |
1 960-69 |
9 |
5 |
1970-79 |
20 |
17 |
Totals |
~Ti~ |
23 |
103
the grizzly in Colorado. The province of Alberta stopped hunting grizzlies in their southern units adjacent to the NCDE in 1970. While bear numbers did increase, there was a concurrent increase in conflicts and illegal kills. After a human was fatally mauled in 1979, the season was reopened in 198?. Subsequently, the population has remained stable to increasing while the number of illegal kills has declined (Russell, pers. comm., Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Lethbridge) .
D. Nonhunting Man-caused Mortality in the NODE
Since 1975, an annual average of 8 grizzly bears (range = 6-12) have been lost from the population for reasons other than hunting (Table 23). Figure 18 presents the distribution of nonhunting mortalities in the NCDF from 1 970-84 .
Male grizzly bears are more prevalent in the nonhunting mortality than females (Table 23). During the period 1968- 1984, females have constituted an average of 36? of the man- caused nonhunting mortality. This percentage of females has increased to 39? in the recent decade.
When sexes are combined, subadults comprise 52? of the nonhunting mortality (Table 23). The distribution of male and female ages is given in Figures 19 and 20 respectively. The average female age (from 1975-1984) is 6.7 years old, and for males, 6.2 years.
Nonhunting mortality has been stratified into five major categories which allow accurate interpretation of
104
POLSON
CANADA
□NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE EC08Y8TEM
□ 1070-1074 NONHUNTINQ KILLS
♦ 1075-1979 NONHUNTINQ KILLS
■ 1080-1004 NONHUNTINQ KILLS
O EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN
DUPUYER
Figure 18. Location of nonhunting kills of grizzly bears in northwestern Montana, 1970-1984.
AGE
YEAR
Figure 19. Distribution of age of male grizzly bears in nonhunting mortality in northwestern Montana, 1968-1984 .
c
c
f
YEAR
Figure 20. Distribution of age of female grizzly bears in nonhuntign mortality in northwestern Montana, 1968-1984.
nonhunting mortality patterns in the NCDE.
1. Defense of life or property:
a. Marauding situations: a grizzly bear
dispatched by a citizen for killing livestock or otherwise damaging personal property.
b. Menacing situations: a grizzly bear
dispatched by a citizen for purposes of self-defense.
c. Nuisance situations: a grizzly bear
dispatched when a citizen feels annoyed or uncomfortable with the bear's presence or when the bear is foraging on unnatural food sources.
d. Control situations: a grizzly bear
dispatched by state o r government official s following a citizen complaint.
e. Pelocations: a grizzly bear removed by agency officials from the Ecosystem or to an unfamiliar portion of the Ecosystem following a citizen complaint.
2. Mistaken Identity Deaths: a grizzly bear
mistakenly, but illegally killed by a black bear hunter.
3. Vandal or Poaching Deaths: a grizzly bear
illegally killed for malicious or profit motives.
^ . Vehicle Collision Deaths: a grizzly bear
accidentally killed after being struck by a motorized vehicle .
5. Handling Deaths: a grizzly bear accidentally
killed by agency personnel during transplant or research operations .
108
Defense of 1, i Jle ox Property : Fifty percent of the recorded nonhunting mortalities in the NCDF since 1975 have occurred in the defense of life or property (Table 29).
Table 29. Categories of known, man-caused nonhunting mortality in the NCDF, 1975—198^.
Category Number |
of Bears |
Average Number Per Year |
Defense of life or property |
||
Marauder: |
15 |
|
Transplant: |
7 |
|
Control : |
6 |
|
Menace : |
7 |
|
Nuisance: |
4 |
|
Handling (occurred during |
||
transplant) : |
_a |
|
Subtotal : |
1*1 |
H.1 |
Mistaken Identity: Subtotal: |
15 |
1.5 |
Poaching or Vandal Killing |
||
Parts taken: |
12 |
|
Carcass removed: |
5 |
|
Nothing taken: |
_A |
|
Subtotal : |
21 |
2.1 |
Vehicle Collision |
||
Train: |
1* |
|
Automobile: |
_L |
|
Subtotal : |
5 |
.5 |
TOTAL: |
82 |
8.2 |
109
Only 2 handling deaths have occurred, both involving transplanting operations. There have been n o research mortalities .
Marauding situations constitute the greatest number of actions in this category. Sheep depredations are the leading cause of both citizen and agency actions (89?). Aune et al. (1984) reported that over 50? of 1,379 grizzly bear radio locations in the East Front were on lands grazed by livestock. Knight and Judd ( 1 9 8 3 ) found that all instrumented grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem that had the opportunity to kill sheep did so. Under these circumstances, agency control actions and citizen dispatches will continue to occur.
2. Mistaken Identity
During the period 1975-1984, 15 grizzly bears have been accidentally killed by black bear hunters.
Grizzly bear mortalities caused by mistaken identity are difficult to control. This source of mortality is not usually significant. However, in 1 9 8 3 , 5 grizzly bear mortalities fell into this category. Wyoming has recorded 9 grizzly mortalities in this category since 1972 (Poop, pers. comm., Wyoming Department Game and Fish, Cody), with four of those occurring in 1982 over baits. As a result, Wyoming banned black bear baiting in grizzly habitat in 1982. Idaho imposed a similar ban in 1983. Both of these states contain a portion of the Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear population reported to be in decline (Knight and Eberhardt,
1 10
1985). The state of Montana at present prohibits the use of bait anywhere for either species of bear.
3. Documented Poaching and Malicious Deaths
Animals killed for profit or from malicious intent are difficult to document. Not all illegal grizzly bear deaths from these causes are reported to the Department. Thus, documentation is not complete. Twenty-nine records of poaching or vandal killing are present in Department records (Table 29). In most instances, either parts or the whole carcass were removed from the scene.
4. Illegal Parts
Information obtained from the animal parts trade help evaluate the monetary value of grizzly bear parts and the incentive for poaching.
The news media has reported the value of grizzly bear parts in the following ranges: claws $150-$500, hides
$5,000-$15,000, and gall bladders $100- $3, 000. The Department conducted a "market analysis" in an attempt to document the true value of bear parts. The last public auction in Montana (1979) saw 11 grizzly hides (complete with feet and claws) sell for an average of $680 (range $360 — $1 , 1 75). A 1984 public fur auction in Manitoba showed that only the very best grizzly hides sold and those sold for $296-399. Information from Alaska, where hides are sold at public auction, indicated complete hides sold for $800- $1,200 in 1983. The price dropped to between $500-$600 in 1984 (J. Fechtel, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, pers. comm.). Lome Pussell (pers. comm.) indicated that between
1 1 1
1981-1983, 35 grizzly hides were sold on the fur market for an average price of $310.00.
Contacts with taxidermists in Butte (Atcheson Taxidermy) and Seattle (Klinburger Taxidermy) indicate the price for a grizzly bear rug is $600-$l600 (for an average of $800). A life-size mount could be worth a maximum of $5,000 for an excellent mount of an excellent bear.
The National Audubon Society has a standing reward of up to $15,000 for information leading to the conviction of anyone illegally killing a grizzly bear in the lower it 8 states. Few calls have been received concerning this reward program, and only 2 rewards have been paid. Neither was in Montana. Several undercover sting operations conducted in Montana have failed to provide firm evidence of an illegal grizzly kill.
This discussion is not intended to negate past or present enforcement efforts. Only a strong ongoing enforcement effort will keep this type of activity in check. Heavy fines and prison sentences should serve as a strong deterrent to this type of activity in Montana.
5. Unreported Illegal Mortality
There is a second source of mortality that is not reflected in Department records. These are grizzly bears accidentally or intentionally killed that are unreported. The extent of this unreported mortality was estimated using data from radio-instrumented grizzly bears.
1 1 2
Table 30. Data on the fate of radio-instrumented grizzly bears in il areas of the NCDF.
Area |
||||
Mission |
Fast |
N.F. |
S.F. |
|
Mtns. |
Front |
Flathead |
Flathead |
Total |
# Instrumented: 13 Verified un- |
28 |
18 |
12 |
71 |
|
reported deaths: 1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
|
Location of death: roaded |
roaded |
2 roaded |
1 roaded |
5 |
roaded |
1 unroaded |
1 |
unroaded |
|||
Information on |
age, sex, |
fate, and |
location |
of |
death |
was obtained for 71 radio-instrumented grizzly bears (Table 30). Data were not used from the Canadian Porder Grizzly Project due to different levels of human encroachment and hunting activity (McLellan, pers. comm.). McLellan has observed no unreported mortality of instrumented bears in his study area. However, several individuals that travel between the U.S. and Canada were included.
Six of 71 instrumented animals monitored during a 10- year period were confirmed illegal deaths that would not have been reported. Furthermore, 5 of these 6 instances occurred in roaded areas, although the animals' annual home ranges included unroaded or designated wilderness areas. These data suggest that bears are more vulnerable in roaded areas than elsewhere.
Upper and lower average annual unreported mortality rates were calculated from these data. Several assumptions were made:
a. Mortality rates from instrumented animals could be extrapolated to other grizzly bears in the NCDF.
b. A lower mortality limit could be estimated
113
b. A lower mortality limit could be estimated using only the confirmed (unreported) grizzly bear deaths and applying this rate to roaded portions of the NCDF. All areas within 1/2 - 1 mile of a road were considered.
c. An upper mortality limit could be estimated by applying the rate of confirmed (unreported) deaths to the minimum estimate of the number of bears in the NCDE (excluding Glacier National Park).
d. Because this mortality would occur throughout the year, the figures developed would include crippling loss. Evidence from other areas suggest crippling loss is minimal (Demarchi, pers comm.).
e. Transplanted bears could not be used in the analysis as their vulnerability may be higher than other bears .
The mortality rates for instrumented animals are given in Table 31. The average annual mortality rate for confirmed deaths was .04 grizzlies. Under the assumptions given, the estimated number of unknown deaths per year ranges from 1 bear, if only roaded areas are considered, to 15 if the entire ecosystem excluding Glacier National Park is considered. For purposes of total mortality, we choose to use the mean of this range, or 8 grizzly bears (Table 32) .
E. Mortality Summary
The Department has attempted to document all sources of man-caused grizzly bear mortality in the NCDE. The analyses
114
Table 31. Data from instrumented grizzly bears used to calculate the annual rate of unreported man-caused mortality
Confirmed
if Bears if Unreported
Year Instrumented Deaths
if Bears Alive
1975 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
1976 |
10 |
2 |
7 |
|
1977 |
15 |
1 |
13 |
|
1978 |
15 |
0 |
15 |
|
1979 |
26 |
3 |
18 |
|
1980 |
21 |
0 |
19 |
|
1981 |
9 |
0 |
8 |
|
1982 |
19 |
0 |
17 |
|
1983 |
19 |
0 |
19 |
|
1984 |
22 |
0 |
22 |
|
Total |
158.0 |
6.0 |
149 |
|
Average |
15.8 |
0.6 |
14.9 |
|
Annual rate'3 |
.04 |
|||
^Annual Pate |
= Average Average |
I if |
deaths bears instrumented |
Table 3 2. Estimated range of annual mortality in the NCDF. |
unreported, man-caused |
|
Lower |
limit (roaded) No. Bears X Mortality Rate = 24.4 X .04 |
if deaths .98 death |
UDDer |
limit (Total Ecosystem)3 3 87 D X .04 |
15.4 deaths |
Average |
= 8.2 deaths |
= excluding Glacier National Park = minimum population estimate
115
show that an average of 2 7 grizzly bears are either killed or transplanted each year (Table 33).
Table 33. Summary of average annual man-caused mortality in the NCDF, 1 975-1 984.
Hunt mortality: |
10.6 |
bears |
Non Hunt mortality: |
||
Defense of life or property |
4.1 |
|
Known poaching/vandal |
2.1 |
|
Unreported |
8.2 |
|
Mistaken identity |
1.5 |
|
Vehicle |
.5 |
|
Total |
27.0 |
bears/year |
1 1 6
VIII. DAMAGE CONTROL
Control of nuisance grizzly bears is a necessary part of management. Grizzly bears that damage property, and threaten human life, must be removed from the area of conflict .
The authority to deal with damage control complaints rests with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Animal Damage Control) and the Department. After legitimate complaints are verified by either agency, an operational plan for control of the animal is initiated. Regardless of which agency handles a control situation, all actions must be reported to the Department. If an animal is dispatched, its carcass must be sent to the Department Research Laboratory .
This operational plan (Appendix F) was developed through an interagency effort (USDI FWS 1982). The plan outlines the conditions under which an animal will be relocated, released on site, or destroyed.
Each situation is evaluated on the basis of conflict severity. All animals that inflict substantial human injury or loss of life will be dispatched. Pears committing lesser infractions are given a maximum of three infractions, depending on the age, sex, reproductive status, and conflict severity .
If a decision is made to relocate the animal to another area, the operational plan outlines the sequence of events and agency contacts. An interagency agreement is then made
117
as to which of several pre-selected release sites will be used .
The operational plan does not address measures to reduce the potential for conflicts. Tn many instances, only the symptoms are treated. If the number of control actions are to be reduced, it may be necessary either to remove the source of the problem or to initiate effective deterrent devices.
There are three management tools to deal with property damage situations: 1) preventive measures and aversive conditioning, 2) animal removal, and 3) damage compensation.
Preventive measures are generally the preferred approach. Such measures include b ea r- p ro o f i ng homes, corralling livestock at night, carrion removal, pasture selection, use of guard dogs, and electric fencing (Poggers et al. 1980). Hunt (1984) indicated several aversive training and deterrent techniques that may be tested in the field. Although testing in both the laboratory and the field identified promising agents, to date no effective long-term conditioning techniques have been developed. Several agents still require further evaluation with marked bears to determine their effectiveness.
Bears have shown remarkable abilities to learn from past experiences. It is possible that if the attractants (e.g. food) are strong enough, then deterrents may become less effective with frequent use. If conditioned to flee from humans, treated grizzly bears may lose portions of their home range where humans are present. Over time,
1 18
aversive conditioning may cause reduction in overall habitat effectiveness .
Long-term field studies are necessary to test aversive condition techniques. These studies cannot be incorporated into other ecological grizzly bear research because behavior will be altered, and other data sets will be compromised.
Animal removal may include agency dispatch, live transplants from the area, or legal hunting to reduce grizzly bear densities in recurrent problem areas. The success rate of relocated grizzly bears has not been adequately documented for the N CD F , although preliminary analyses were completed by Thier and Sizemore (1981). Ha rold son and Mace (1984) provided a literature review and outlined those population segments least likely to cause further problems. If relocations are to continue, measures should be taken to radio-instrument and monitor relocation attempts .
Damage compensation may be provided in several forms. Livestock indemnity programs compensate producers for all or portions of predator losses. Beehive damage compensation has also been instituted in several states and Canadian provinces. At this time, Montana has no compensation program for grizzly bear damage. A compensation bill introduced to the Legislature in 1983 failed to pass. At present, private organizations are raising funds for this cause .
119
IX. HUMAN INTERACTIONS
A. Habitat Encroachment
The immediate and long-term effects of human activities and habitation within grizzly bear habitat have been well documented. In Europe, for example, deforestation, roading, illegal harvest, and secondary housing have displaced brown bears from all but the most remote habitats in the Pyrenees of France and Spain (Poben 1977), in Norway (Flgmork 1978), and in the Estonian Soviet Pepublic (Kaal 1976). Improved access and development activities serve to reduce the acreage of secure habitat. Thus, these factors increase vulnerability and probability of conflict (Bunnell and Tait 1980, Nagy and Pussell 1978, Claar and Klaver In prep., Jonkel and Demarchi 1981*).
As Pearson (1975) points out, the grizzly is capable of living in proximity to human development and can only be eliminated by direct human predation. Pearson further suggests that where economic and social demands justify human occupation, grizzly bears can still be maintained at lower densities. However, the control of nuisance animals becomes a management necessity in these situations.
Land development along the periphery of Glacier National Park has accelerated rapidly in recent decades and over time poses the possibility of turning the Park into an ecological island (Martinka 1982). Similar patterns of habitat isolation can be seen in segments of the grizzly population living in the Cabinet and Mission mountains of Montana. Furthermore, because the NCDF is a peninsular population,
120
habitat encroachment in southern British Columbia and Alberta could ultimately influence interchange within the ecosystem .
High levels of direct human/bear interaction have led to a modification of bear behavior in the national parks (Herrero 1985). Grizzly bears in some areas of Glacier National Park have become habituated to hikers, and the number of direct confrontations has increased in recent years (McArthur Jope, 1 983). While historical confrontations normally involved females with young, recent observations show single adult and subadult grizzlies are charging and approaching humans with greater frequency. This behavior modification of park bears suggests that frequent interaction between bears and people can result in nuisance bears even in the absence of food reinforcement (McCullough 1982). Conversely, Blanchard (1978) found that most grizzly bears in the Filgard Mountains of Montana ( M miles from Yellowstone National Park) fled from hikers. Comparisons of bear attacks within and outside of United States and Canadian parks are given in Table 28.
B. Fire Suppression
Fire is a natural ecological element in the northern Rocky Mountains (Howe 1976). Fire creates openings in the forest canopy and maintains a mosaic of habitats important to many wildlife species. Fire-induced shrubfields are primary summer and fall foraging habitats for the grizzly bear (Martin 1979). However, in the early 1900s it was
121
recognized that fire reduced the commercial timber base and posed a threat to human safety and developments. Thus fire suppression programs were aggressively instituted during the 1 930s (Arno 1 9 8 0 ) . Although let-burn policies have been developed in recent years and fire management plans have been drafted, most fires are still being suppressed. As succession moves shrubfields towards a climax stage, prime grizzly bear habitat decreases. As human developments increase in grizzly habitat so will the need to protect these habitats from fire ( S h a 1 1 en be r g e r and Jonkel 1 977). Because grizzly bear reproductive success is tied to nutri- tion (Farestad and Bunnell 1979), loss of serai shrubfields may reduce the number of grizzly bears in the ecosystem (Zager et al. 1 983 ).
C. Vegetation Manipulations
Certain logging practices may simulate natural fire and may partially offset the effect of fire suppression (Zager et al. 1983). However, documented grizzly bear use of logged sites has been minimal (Zager 1980, McLellan and Mace 1 985). Archibald ( 1 9 8 3 ) suggests that hunted grizzly bear populations are less likely to use logged and other open sites than nonhunted populations. There has been little research conducted on grizzly bear habitat improvement. Such investigations are encouraged and should include habitat features such as space and isolation in addition to food production.
122
D. Disturbance from Motorized Activities
Lyon et al. (1985) clearly demonstrated that elk lose a portion of effective habitat near open roads, and suggest mitigative strategies to reduce such loss. Similarly, Zager (1980) found loss of grizzly bear habitat adjacent to open roads. McLellan and Mace (1985) found that grizzly bears were only minimally displaced by vehicular activities in British Columbia, Canada, and that displacement was restricted to day-light hours. The relationship between vehicular traffic and grizzlies in the Fast Front is as yet unclear (Aune et al. 1984). Mace and Jonkel (In Press) have shown that the activities associated with timber harvest displace grizzly bears from a portion of their home range.
The effects of oil/gas exploration and development activities on grizzly bears has been investigated by Aune and Stivers (1983) and Aune et al. (1984). Bears appear to be displaced from areas adjacent to wells. A 1/2-mile radius may be excluded from a bear's use during drilling and development. Individual bears may be displaced further where topographic or vegetative screening is scarce. Grizzlies monitored by Aune et al. (1984) distributed themselves in time and space to avoid seismic activity. Although older bears appeared more tolerant, most bears were either displaced from key foraging areas or altered their activity patterns. Conversely, McLellan and Mace (1985) observed minimal reaction to seismic activity in southern British Columbia, Canada.
123
X. RESEARCH PROGRAM
Intensive grizzly research was initiated by the Department in 1975. Reasons for the research included the grizzly's pending classification as "threatened" (ESA 1973), and anticipated grizzly habitat and population impacts from land development activities. Prior to 1975, morphological studies of mortalities were conducted by the Department. The program was primarily oriented to provide information for the annual season-setting process beginning in January of each year.
In 197H the Department and the University of Montana signed an agreement initiating the Border Grizzly Project. During the subsequent 10 years this project has researched grizzly bear habitat use and distribution, bear repellents and deterrents and black/grizzly bear interrelationships. Many aspects of this project were graduate programs. Results of this project include dissertations (Zager 1980, Servheen 1981), theses (Jorgensen 1979, Lloyd 1979, Martin
1979, Cushing 1980, Miller 1980, Sizemore 1980, and Sherwood 1981), and published papers ( Sc h a 1 1 en be rg e r 1 977, Cushing
1980, Jorgensen 1980, Martin 1980, Servheen 1980, and Zager 1980). Many other aspects of the project have been reported in BGP Annual Reports, BGP Special Reports, and other published reports.
At present the Department is conducting grizzly bear research along the RMEF and in the Cabinet Mountains. Both these studies are conducting impact evaluations on oil, gas and mineral development. Both studies have collected grizzly
1211
population Information and habitat use and distribution data. The PMEF investigation has compiled the most extensive information concerning population status and trend yet gathered for an area in the NCDF.
On a statewide basis, grizzly management and research has been ranked 13 of the 19 species or groups of species in Montana by the Department (Appendix F). Emphasis in the past for management and research has thus been directed toward other big game species such as deer, elk and antelope. Even with this emphasis, in FY 1985 the Department will expend about $198,000 (includes only expenditures from state hunting license sales income) on grizzly bear management and research. This expenditure compares with grizzly license receipts totaling approximately $32,000 in 1 9 83 and $39,700 in 1984 (Table 34). The Department currently is expanding over five times the amount of license dollars currently received from hunters on the grizzly bear management and research program.
In addition to state license revenue, Department grizzly bear research has been supported by private organizations, public land management agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Due to a federal solicitor's opinion, Montana has been ineligible to receive federal Section 6 funding under the Endangered Species Act. The opinion indicates that Montana's current law allowing a person to kill a grizzly bear in defense of human life or protection of property is in conflict with the Endangered Species Act. The Act prevents killing a grizzly bear to
125
Table 3*t. Montana grizzly bear license receipts, IQ83 and 1984.
Year Resident Nonresident Grizzly Total
Grizzly Grizzly Trophy
19831 12,100 (484) 19,775 (113) 200 (8) $32,075
19842 $23,500 (470)3 $15,900 (53) $325(13) $39,725
Resident Grizzly = $25; Non- r e s id en t ~Gri z z 1 y “ $^75; Grizzly Trophy = $25
Resident Grizzly = $50; Non-resident Grizzly = $300; Grizzly Trophy = $25
^Dollars Received (Number of Licenses Sold)
protect property except by a state or federal government agent. This conflicts with an individual's right to protect life and property guaranteed by Montana's Constitution.
A secure and substantial funding source is required to initiate an active and progressive program for grizzly research. The Section 6 funding source under the Endangered Species Act was established to serve this purpose. The Department has, therefore, annually requested a reversal of the solicitor's opinion or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's interpretation of that opinion. At present, these requests have proved fruitless and a secure funding source is not available. The Department has actively solicited funding from other sources including private conservation groups, the oil and gas industry, mining companies and other federal land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. These sources are not secure and, therefore, funding is limited and highly variable .
126
For the Department to comply with the Grizzly Bear Pecovery Plan (USDI 1982) as regards determination of population viability and recovery, it is necessary to document attainment of population goals and/or monitor reproductive parameters and mortality patterns for a minimum of six years. Such monitoring efforts require a secure source of research funds. Clarification in the recovery plan is also needed to establish the number of areas within the NCDE from which these population data are needed to document recovery.
Department priorities for future grizzly research have been identified as follows:
1. FMEF Monitoring Study (continuation through FY87). A study to develop trend monitoring techniques and guidelines for oil and gas development activities.
2. Cabinet Mountains Grizzly Study (continuation through FY88). A study to validate Forest Service cumulative effects analysis and to develop guidelines for mining activities in the Cabinet Mountains of Montana.
3 . Northwest Grizzly Study (population trend and status study to be initiated in FY86).
The Northwest Grizzly Study will emphasize population trend and status information. Habitat use and distribution will receive secondary emphasis. Methods to monitor population trends in west side habitats will be a major objective. Correlation of hunting and nonhunting mortalities to population levels will also be attempted.
1 27
The study will require a long-term commitment (possibly ten years) of funding and personnel.
One frequently discussed aspect of research is the possible negative influence from frequent handling of wildlife to obtain biological information. Little information is available on this subject. Current Department research studies have detected no major influence (j.e., altered home ranges, etc.), but these studies were not designed to determine such impacts. The handling of wildlife for research purposes should be limited to only that necessary. With this assumption in mind, the Department opposed requests to gather research information on grizzly bears in a _1 JL occupied areas. Instead, reliance on extrapolation from heavily studied areas to areas of similar habitat has been utilized. This technique is widely applied in wildlife management and eliminates the need to study and handle all population segments. There are also philosophical questions raised concerning the value of tagging and instrumenting wilderness animals.
128
XT. FNFORCFHFNT
Department enforcement efforts concerning grizzly bears are focused in three areas including patrols of both wilderness and non-wilderness areas, damage control, and poaching investigations.
Patrols of wilderness and nonwilderness areas are focused during the general hunting season but also occur at other times. Hunter camps are checked for game harvested and compliance with outfitter laws and regulations.
Response to nuisance bear complaints involves all Department personnel in some capacity, although enforcement division personnel are frequently the first on the scene.
Department enforcement personnel investigate and prosecute all violations involving illegal mortality. Cases are processed through the county attorney’s office or turned over to the U.S. Fish, Wildlife Service when they appear to involve interstate movement of grizzly bear parts. The Department also coordinates with Federal officials in undercover operations.
129
XII. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
A comprehensive public information campaign regarding the grizzly bear was initiated in Spring, 1984. The purpose of this effort was to assist hunters in distinguishing between black and grizzly bears. The goal of this effort was to reduce or eliminate mistaken-identity killings. The following is an account of the Department’s public information and education effort. Examples of publications, releases, public service announcements, scripts, etc., are included in this EIS as attachments.
A. Statewide Activities
1. Special Publications
Bear identification posters (Attachment 1) and a brochure (Attachment 2) were sent to all license agents and all sportsmen’s clubs in Montana. Purchasers of bear licenses also received the brochure.
A "Bear Us in Mind” brochure was produced in cooperation with the federal Forest Park Services, and the Idaho and Wyoming Departments of Fish and Game (Attachment 3) .
Special bear-hunting regulations were produced by the Department. Black/grizzly identification characteristics were included (Attachment 4). Identification information on the two species was included within the Department's in- house newsletter.
The Department's magazine, Montana Outdoors is distributed to approximately 35,000 subscribers. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 people see each issue
130
of the magazine. Specifics to g r i z z 1 y / b 1 a c k bear identification characteristics were included in the March- April, September-October, and November-December 1984 issues (Aderhold 1984, 0 ' G a r a 1 9 84, Anonymous 1984).
A bear identification information bulletin (Attachment 1) was also distributed to all of Montana's approximately 600 outfitters.
2. Media Effort
A news packet distributed to 272 media outlets/organi- zations in early spring of 1984 included information on black and grizzly characteristics and the need for hunters to pay special attention to the mistaken identity problem. The Department received excellent response to the packet. The state's two largest newspapers, The Great Falls Tribune and The Billings Gazette , carried front page pictures of black and grizzly bears, mentioned the mistaken identity problem, and provided further detail on their outdoor pages.
Public service announcements describing black and grizzly bear identification characteristics (Attachment 5) were sent to 43 radio stations in the state in both Spring and Fall. At the same time, two television public service announcements were released to 11 television stations in Montana .
Video footage, including pictures of black and grizzly bears and identification characteristics, was supplied to the Montana Television Network (the state's only statewide
131
network) for use on the evening news just prior to the spring bear season.
3. Signs and Posters
The National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Wyoming and Idaho Departments of Fish and Game cooperated with the Department in producing and placing identification posters at trailheads in grizzly country prior to the Spring and Fall black bear seasons.
A poster was also produced in an attempt to heighten the public's awareness of the grizzly (Attachment 6).
Roadside signs were placed at four locations in areas with previous problems of mistaken identity (Attachment 7 is a copy of the sign requisition detailing the type of sign erected ) .
The Audubon Society initiated a reward program in 1982 (Attachment 8). The Department was also involved in publi- city and information gathering.
4. Additional Statewide Efforts
A 30-minute, 16-mm film documentary titled "Room to Live", previously produced by the Department, discusses the grizzly, its needs, and characteristics. It was booked by 100 different groups in 1 9 8 *1 , and viewed by an estimated 50,000 people.
An exhibit displayed at the 1984 State Fair in Great Falls included life-size mounts of black and grizzly bears, and identification posters and brochures. This exhibit reached over 35,000 visitors.
132
Hunter Education classes were expanded to include a big-game identification slide series, including pictures of black and grizzly bears. In addition, the Hunter Education text included identifying characteristics of the black and grizzly bears, and the need for special attention when hunting bears. Approximately 6,000 students received instruction in 1 9 8 ^ .
Two slide series were produced by the Department. One targeted northwestern Montana, where the mistaken identity problem had been most chronic. The second was produced in conjunction with the Forest Service, Park Service, and Wyoming and Idaho Departments of Fish and Game, for use regionwide .
Each spring the MFGC sets tentative season and bag limits for that fall’s big game seasons. Sportsmen from throughout the state participate. The 1984 session included a presentation outlining plans for our public information effort pertinent to the mistaken identity problem.
P. Regional Efforts
In addition to the efforts undertaken to distribute information statewide, the seven Department regions throughout the state were involved in a variety of other activities targeting the need for increased awareness of the mistaken identity problem and publicizing the different characteristics of the two species.
The following is an accounting of the specific activities undertaken within our regions during 1984.
133
REGION ONE
9
Programs given:
Public meeting - grizzly bear
LDS Church Youth Group - grizzlies
Flathead Chapter Montana Bowhunters
Association - grizzly bear management Northwest Energy & Employment Development Inc. - grizzlies
Wilderness Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Ranch - grizzly identification Archer yFunter SafetyClass- grizzly identification
League of Women Voters - grizzly forum and answering questions
Conrad Lutheran Father/Son Banquet - grizzlies Wildlife Society - black bear seasons Northwest Energy & Employment Development Inc. - grizzly recovery
Media Contacts:
1 radio spot on grizzly update
2 radio spots on black bear season
1 radio spot on Libby grizzly meeting 1 radio spot on grizzly bear recovery
3 television public service announcements on griz
zly identification
1 news release on adding grizzlies to the Cabinet population
REGION TWO
Programs given:
Western Montana Fish & Game Association - program on bear identification
Archery Club - program on bear identification Anaconda Hunter Education Instructors - program on bear identification
Ravalli County Hunter Education Instructors - bear i.d.
Media Contacts:
1 radio spot on bear identification
1 radio spot on bear identification
2 radio spots on bear identification
2 r a d i o sp o t s o n bear i d en t i f i c a t i on a nd bea r season
1 television program - statewide (MTN) on bear i.d.
1 television spot on bear identification
9
1 34
1 pressreleasetoallmediaonbear identification
1 article on bear identification
1 article on bear i.d. for Hunting and Fishing News
REGION THREE
Programs given:
M-H Camp - program on bears Media Contacts:
1 radio spot to 8 stations on black bear season 1 radio spot to 8 stations on black bear hunting season to open
1 press release on black bear hunting Ipress release on black bear hunting season to open
REGION FOUR
Programs given:
Lewistown Lewis & Clark School - program on grizzly bear
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
personnel- beartrappingand tranquilizing session
Great Falls Lewis & Clark School - program on grizzly and black bears
Teton County Sportsmens Club - program on grizzly & black bears
Upper Missouri Freak Audubon Club - program on grizzly & black bears
Conrad Sportsmans Club - program on grizzly & black bears
Sun River Game Range Tour - program on grizzly & black bears
SimmsHigh School Wildlife Biology Class - program on grizzly & black bears
Chouteau Kiwanis Club - program on grizzly & black bears
Media Contacts:
1 radio spot on grizzly bears
1 radio spot on black and grizzly bear characteri- stics
1 television spot on grizzly bears and Audubon reward
135
REGION FIVE
9
Media Contacts:
1 news release on black bear season starts in mid- April
REGION EIGHT (LOCAL)
Programs given:
Mountain Bell - program on bears
Helena Outdoors Club - program on bears and man Mountain Bell - program on bears Kalispell Flathead Wildlife - program on bears Cascade County Medical Society - program on griz- zlies
Valier Sportsmen Club - program on bears
Media Contacts:
1 radio spot on bears 1 radio spot on bears 1 television program on bears
Our regional efforts totaled:
24 programs given at meetings, banquets or workshops 17 radio programs
6 news releases and informational materials distributed to local newspapers
7 television interviews/programs
In addition, numerous radio, television and newspaper interviews were given which resulted in additional media coverage .
C. Future Plans
9
Because the information effort was effective in 1984, the Department plans to continue a similar effort in future years .
9
136
XIII. RFCRFATION MANAGFMFNT Many recreation activities occur within occupied grizzly bear habitat. Some activities such as hiking, berry-picking, or cross-country skiing receive little direct management control. Others are more closely managed. These include public campgrounds, groomed snowmobile trails, and outfitted fishing, hunting, and backcountry trips.
Approximately 44 primitive campgrounds developed by the Forest Service, and four Department recreation sites exist within occupied grizzly habitat. These sites usually provide picnic tables, parking spurs, and vault latrines. Fach site is "bear-proofed" according to its location within grizzly habitat and its history of bear use. Most sites located several miles off main highways are posted as pack-in-pack-out for garbage. Garbage cans are not present and miscellaneous litter is picked up. If appropriate, a poster is displayed explaining techniques to avoid attracting bears into the sites.
More highly developed campgrounds provide garbage cans. If a site has a history of bear use, the cans are fitted with bear-proof lids and the garbage is collected frequently. Regulations prohibit dumping waste on the ground, leaving food out of hard containers, allowing pets to be unleashed and leaving campsites unattended. Recreationists are also informed of the presence of bears at many trailheads.
Four snowmobile trail-grooming projects occur within occupied grizzly bear habitat. Cooperative agreements are
137
signed between the Department and the land management agency (usually the U.S. Forest Service) to groom the trails from mid-December through March. The grooming season and trail routes are approved by Department biologists to avoid conflicts with grizzly bear dens, hibernation periods, and spring emergence. Section 23-2-633 MCA prohibits using a snowmobile to drive, rally or harass any game animal including grizzly bears. Snowmobile laws are enforced by Department wardens.
Approximately 12 hunting and/or fishing outfitting businesses are operating in the CYF, and 40 in the NCDF. These businesses are required to have a license, and are responsible for fish and game law violations which their clients may commit. Outfitters must pass a standard examination which tests their knowledge and ability to perform the services efficiently and safely. The exams also test the applicant's knowledge of related subjects including information about grizzly bears. Outfitter compliance is monitored by the land management agencies and Department wardens .
138
XIV. LAND MANAGEMENT
A . Department Lands
Department lands where grizzly bear management programs are in place include the Sun Fiver, Far Mountain and Blackleaf Wildlife Management Areas, and the DeFosier Unit of the Kootenai Wildlife Management Area.
On the DeFosier Unit, roads are closed in the spring to exclude motorized traffic when elk, deer and grizzly bears are using the area.
The Sun Fiver, Ear Mountain and Blackleaf Wildlife Management Areas are all located along the FMEF. Grizzly bears use all three areas to some extent.
Management of the grizzly bear on these three wildlife management areas follows the Interagency Pocky Mountain Front Management Guidelines (Appendix G). These guidelines regulate human activities to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to grizzly bears.
The grizzly bear guidelines have been developed in conjunction with an ongoing bear research project along the Focky Mountain Front.
B. Established Department Policies
Study results documented to date along the FMEF are the basis for the development of management guidelines for the grizzly bear and its habitat. During the period from 1977- 1979, research was carried out by the Border Grizzly Project under contract with the Bureau of Land Management. Since 1980 the Department has assumed the intensive grizzly bear monitoring work with funding continuing from the Interagency
139
Monitoring Group, private industry (American Petrofina, Williams Exploration, Sun Exploration), and the Nature Conservancy. These guidelines (Appendix H) are considered tentative and subject to revision. When followed, they will mitigate, but not eliminate influences of human activities on grizzly bears and their habitat.
C. Coordination With Other Landowners
Because the vast majority of occupied grizzly habitat occurs on public lands, it is crucial that any activity planned for these areas be designed, permitted, and implemented in a manner that will have minimal impact on the bear and its habitat. Therefore, the Department makes a major effort to influence activities proposed for occupied bear habitat.
These efforts vary from attempting to influence national policy and land allocation issues to making recommendations on specific, localized activities. The 1985-2030 Resources Planning Act Program provides the nationwide foundation for the forest planning process that is now being consummated. The Department thoroughly reviewed this program and submitted comments through the Governor's office. A number of these comments described roadless or "minimum level management" as being the most appropriate course of action for our threatened and endangered species.
The RARE II process and subsequent Montana Wilderness Bill are other examples of land allocation issues in which the Department invested major efforts. Wilderness, both
IHO
classified and de facto, is a critical component of existing occupied grizzly habitat. Attempts to protect unclassified areas from encroachments proposed by federal agencies and industry is a never-ending effort.
Closely tied to the wilderness allocation process are the forest plans which are now being developed for all National Forests in the state of Montana. Commentary on these plans included efforts to keep existing occupied wildlands wild, and to develop and implement standards and guidelines for the protection of bears in habitat that is presently accessed by roads.
The Department responds to local land management actions which may have an impact on grizzly bears. These include grazing, timber sales and associated roads, oil and gas exploration, hard-rock mining and exploration, small- scale hydro-electric developments, ski resorts, land exchanges and off-road vehicles (snowmobiles, ATVs and motorbikes). There are opportunities to influence the extent and timing of these activities on federal lands, although the federal agencies are somewhat reluctant to do so. On private and industry lands, these opportunities are available only when cooperative landowners are involved.
In some instances, Department personnel are invited to participate on "Interdisciplinary Teams" which are formed by federal agencies to consider and analyze certain land-use proposals. When not provided with these opportunities, Department personnel respond to environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, land reports,
141
allotment management plans, travel plans and other documents prepared by federal and state agencies.
In summary, management of the grizzly bear is vested in the state of Montana under guidelines established by the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. This arrangement is complicated because very little occupied bear habitat is under the management of either agency. Therefore, a very important aspect of the Department’s bear management program is the effort to influence land-use activities permitted and promoted by other land managers. D. Northwest Power Act-Grizzly Bear Mitigation
In 1980 Congress passed the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act. Its main purpose was two- fold: (1) to restore the region's fish and wildlife resources through appropriate mitigation, protection and enhancement actions, and (2) to develop the region's electric power and conservation plan. The act also specified that the Bonneville Power Authority must utilize all their funding and legal resources to implement the purposes of the act.
The Department, in conjunction with other entities and agencies, assessed wildlife losses and developed mitigation and enhancement plans for five hydroelectric projects in northwestern Montana. These projects were in Libby, Hungry Horse, Noxon Rapids, Cabinet Gorge, and Thompson Falls. Impacts to the grizzly bear were identified for all five facilities with the greatest documented for the Hungry Horse
1 U2
project (Casey and Yde 1 984, Mundinger and Yde 1 984 , Wood and Olsen 1 984).
For each of the five dams, specific projects for wildlife mitigation (including those to benefit grizzly bear) have been recommended. However, before these projects can be implemented, they must be approved and funded by the appropriate federal or private entity or both.
143
XV. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
Montana is currently a member of the Interagency Cri2zly Bear Committee (IGBC) (Appendix I). The committee meets at least twice a year to coordinate all the grizzly bear management and research activities of agencies involved with the grizzly bear. Three management subcommittees (Yellowstone, Northern Continental Divide and Northwest) and one research subcommittee were formed to implement the actions outlined by the IGBC. These subcommittees also meet at least twice each year. Department personnel spend 20-30 man-days per year attending these various committee and subcommittee meetings. Additional time is spent responding to proposals for action presented to the committees.
In addition to the IGBC, the Department meets at least once annually with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to coordinate activities and resolve management problems.
The Department also coordinates with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through their local Endangered Species office and grizzly bear recovery coordinator. This coordination primarily involves Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) consulting on development activities for public land, and responding to nuisance grizzly complaints.
Section 7 consulting procedures begin with a federal determination that a particular activity may jeopardize the grizzly bear. The federal agency then requests an opinion
1 41]
from the USFWS.
The Endangered Species Office formally requests information from the Department pertaining to the particular development activity and bear population. The Department provides the pertinent information and the Endangered Species office develops the recommendation. Because no legal authority is granted the Department 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 use in the NCDF and CYE (Appendix E). Current procedures require a conference call between involved agency contacts prior to any action. The Department has authority to determine the disposition of the bear if agreement cannot be reached between the agencies. Department personnel and/or USFWS Animal Damage Control agents implement all 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 USFS).
As discussed earlier in the Land Management section, 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.
XVI. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Management alternatives for the NCDE and CYE are discussed in this section. Two major alternatives are possible. One uses hunting as a management tool, the other excludes the use of hunting. Within each of these alternatives, five management options are presented. These options vary depending on population density. Management direction under each option is the same whether using the hunting or nonhunting alternative. Management techniques, though, do vary between these alternatives. In this manner present and future Department management direction can be identified and evaluated.
Many of the factors which directly affect grizzly population status and trends are not under Department control. Some examples include habitat acquisition, levels of recreational visitor use in occupied habitat, road access, resource exploration/development activities, timber harvest activities, recreational development activities, domestic livestock grazing, natural fire policies, and the harvest of grizzly bears by Native Americans for religious purposes. In the discussion of options to follow, it should be recognized in interpreting the following charts that as the population status moves from the optimum, restrictions as appropriate will be required to bring the status back to the optimum.
The Department's management goals are, first, to maintain grizzly distribution in all currently occupied habitat within the NCDE as defined in Fig. 2 and second,
146
seek to maintain the habitat in a condition suitable to
sustain the grizzly population (excluding Glacier National Park) at an average density of 1 bear/30 mi2 to 1 bear/15 m i ^ (The bears in Glacier National Park have been excluded from the Department's management program. The Department has no management jurisdiction within the Park and without more sufficient information on dispersal considers it inappropriate to consider dispersal from the Park in justifying a management program.)
NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE ECOSYSTEM (NCDE)
(BASED ON MINIMUM DENSITY EXCLUDING GLACIER NATIONAL PARK)
POPULATION STATUS |
NUMBER OF BEARS o
h
BEARS/MI2 o
i I
A i B i C
i i
200 280
1 1
1/40 1/30
I
I
0
I
l E
i
I
I
i
540
1/15
700
— f—
1/12
800
H-
1/10
MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
OPTIMUM
MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
The goals in the CYF are to maintain grizzly distribution in
all currently occupied habitat |
a s |
defined in |
Fig. 3, and |
||
seek to maintain |
the habitat |
i n |
a |
condition |
suitable to |
sustain grizzly |
populations |
a t |
a n |
average density of 1 |
|
bear/MO mi^ to 1/30 mi?. |
|||||
CABINET YAAK |
ECOSYSTEM |
(CYE) |
|||
POPULATION STATUS |
1 A 1 i |
B |
1 1 1 |
1 C 1 1 |
1 1 D 1 E 1 1 1 |
NUMBER OF BEARS o L |
60 i |
90 i |
125 |
180 200 |
|
BEARS/MI2 0 |
1/60 |
1/40 — c |
1/30 ) P Tl MU M — » — |
1/20 1/18 |
MANAGEMENT DIRECTION MANAGEMENT DIRECTION
1H7
A. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE JL I NO GRIZZLY BEAR HUNTING
This section presents the options available under the nonhuntin^ alternative with respect to each population status.
1 . Population Status A :
a. The Department would seek to eliminate all man- caused mortality. This might serve to increase the number of grizzly bears in the ecosystems.
b. An aggressive aversive conditioning/deterrent program would be necessary to eliminate control action mortality. A reevaluation of the most current "control action guidelines" would be necessary to reduce control dispatches. Transplant of nuisance bears out of the ecosystems would be eliminated.
c. Black bear hunting in occupied grizzly bear habitat would be eliminated if appropriate.
d. To eliminate the loss of grizzly bears in defense of personal property it would be necessary to implement severe penalties for mortalities due to this cause. In addition, a compensation program would be required to reimburse those suffering damages due to grizzlies .
e. An aggressive public relations program would be initiated to inform people of ways to eliminate man-caused mortality .
1H8
f. An active augmentation/reintroduction program would be recommended. All bears lost to man-caused mortality would be replaced as soon as possible.
g. The Department would seek through coordination with state, federal, private, and corporate organizations to minimize and/or eliminate human activities negative to the bear in remaining occupied habitat.
h. The Department would substantially increase enforcement activities and seek increased penalties to eliminate illegal mortalities.
?. Population Status B :
a. The Department would seek to substantially reduce all man-caused mortality. This should allow an increase in grizzly bear numbers in the ecosystems.
b. An aversive conditioning/deterrent program would be necessary to reduce control action mortality. In addition, current "control action guidelines" would be reevaluated to reduce control dispatches. Transplant of nuisance bears out of the ecosystems would be minimized.
c. Some restrictions on black bear hunting in occupied grizzly bear habitat would be required to reduce mistaken identity kills.
d. To reduce the loss of grizzly bears in defense of personal property, a compensation program may be initiated.
e. A Public relations program would be initiated to suggest measures to minimize man-caused mortalities.
149
f. The Department would seek to minimize habitat
impacts through coordination with state, federal, private and corporate organizations.
g. The Department would increase enforcement activities directed at bears to assist in reducing illegal mortalities.
3. Population Status C :
a. The Department would seek to minimize man- caused mortality. This would allow the population to stabilize or increase.
b. An aversive c ond i t i on i ng / d e t e r r en t program would be applied in selected cases. Transplant of nuisance bears from the ecosystems would be acceptable.
c. Few, if any, restrictions would be placed on black bear hunters.
d. Damage compensation by private conservation groups would be encouraged.
e. A public relations program of moderate intensity would be initiated suggesting measures to minimize man-caused mortality.
f. The Department would seek through coordination with other agencies to modify human activities in bear habitat in such a manner as to minimize impacts on bears.
g. Enforcement activities would continue at a moderate level.
h. The Department would evaluate implementing the hunting alternative.
150
Population Status D :
a. The Department would not seek to minimize all man-caused mortality. This may serve to reduce the number of bears in the ecosystems.
b. No aversive conditioning/deterrent program would be necessary. A reevaluation of "control action guidelines" would be necessary to increase control dispatches .
c. Transplant of nuisance bears from the ecosystems would be encouraged.
d. A public relations program would be initiated to inform people on how to live with higher bear populations .
e. A compensation program by private groups would be encouraged for limited areas, as costs become increasingly higher.
f. The Department would develop methods to deal with higher grizzly numbers through coordination with other agencies. Pestrictions on human intrusions would be less severe .
g. Fnforcement activities would be at a low level.
h. The Department would evaluate implementing the hunting alternative.
5. Population Status £:
a. The Department would encourage man-caused mortalities (other than sport hunting). This may serve to substantially reduce grizzly bear numbers in the ecosystems.
151
b. Aggressive agency control action dispatches would be necessary throughout each ecosystem.
c. An aggressive public relations program would be necessary to suggest measures to reduce loss of life and personal property.
d. The cost of a compensation program would probably be too high to justify its continuation.
e. Pestrictions on human activities in occupied areas would be minimized.
f. The Department would develop methods to deal with higher numbers through coordination with other agencies. Pestrictions on human intrusions would be less severe .
g. Fnforcement efforts would be at a very low
level .
h. The Department would evaluate implementing the hunting alternative.
B. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE 2: GRIZZLY REAP HUNTING
This section presents the management options avail- able under the hunting alternative with respect to each population status.
1. Population Status A.:
a. Grizzly bear hunting season closed.
1) It is likely that prohibition of hunting would reduce total annual mortality. Average annual mortality reported from 1970-1981* in the Greater Yellowstone
152
Ecosystem (Knight, unpublished data) decreased from 29.8/year prior to 1975 to 10.1/year since 1975 when hunting was prohibited in Wyoming and Montana.
2) If hunting mortality is additive, its elimination may allow an increase in the populations.
3) In addition, eliminating the hunting season would erase the potential for mortality due to crippling by hunters.
b. The Department will evaluate implementing the nonhunting alternative.
c. Flack bear hunting in occupied grizzly habitat would be restricted.
d. Flack bear hunters would be required to complete a hunter education course specifically designed for bear hunting and the identification and habits of the two bear species.
e. The Department would seek to eliminate all man-caused mortality. This may serve to increase the number of grizzly bears in the ecosystems.
f. An aggressive aversive conditioning/deterrent program would be necessary to eliminate control action mortality. A reevaluation of the most current "control action guidelines" would be necessary to reduce control dispatches. Transplant of nuisance bears out of the ecosystems would be eliminated.
g. To eliminate the loss of grizzlies in defense of personal property it would be necessary to implement
153
severe penalties for mortalities due to this cause. In addition, a compensation program may be required to reimburse those suffering damages due to grizzlies.
h. An aggressive public relations program would be initiated to inform people of ways to eliminate man- caused mortality.
i. An active augmentation/reintroduction program would be recommended. All bears lost to man-caused mortality would be replaced as soon as possible.
The Department would seek through coordination with state, federal, private, and corporate organizations to minimize and/or eliminate human activities negative to the bear in remaining occupied habitat.
k. The Department would substantially increase enforcement activities and seek increased penalties to eliminate illegal mortalities.
2. Population Status B:
a. Limited grizzly bear hunting season.
b. The Department would seek to substantially reduce all illegal man-caused mortality.
c. The Department would evaluate implementing the nonhunting alternative.
Option 1 : Spring .s eajs o ri (limited entry, limited
harvest ) :
a. A limited entry hunt would reduce hunting mortality if the number of permits issued served to restrict the number of hunters in the field.
15H
b. A spring season would concentrate hunters and hunter harvest in small areas because weather conditions and Show accumulations during the spring restrict accessibility.
c. Hunting success would be high because of vulnerability of bears. Troyer (1961) and Cooney (1953) reported a higher success rate for spring brown bear seasons than for fall seasons. Also, without the option available during the fall of taking a bear incidental to deer or elk hunting, only those hunters actually hunting a grizzly bear would be licensed. With hunting efforts concentrated on bears, success would likely be high.
d. Female mortality would be low. Troyer (1961), Pearson (1975), and Stirling et al. (1976) reported spring seasons produced a low percentage of females in the harvest. Protection of females with cubs or other young by regulations would also serve to keep female mortality low .
e. Population segments inhabiting wilderness areas may increase. A large portion of the total hunter harvest in the NCDF since 1967 has come from wilderness areas (Fig. 21) during the early fall season. Access to wilderness areas is very restricted in the spring due to weather conditions and snow accumulations.
f. Hunter opportunity would be reduced with a "limited-entry" permit because the opportunity to hunt would be reduced to successful applicants.
Option 2: Hunt, in alternate years (limited
harvest ) :
155
Figure 21. Location of hunter kills of grizzly bears in norwestern Montana, 1970-1984.
NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIOE ECOSYSTEM
1070-1074 HUNTER HARVEST
1075-1070 HUNTER HARVEST
1080-10S4 HUNTER HARVEST
POLSON
DUPUYER
KALISPELL
prohibiting hunting in alternate years would reduce total annua]
mortality at least temporarily. Average annual mortality reported from 1970 - 1984 on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Knight, unpublished data) decreased from 29.8/year prior to 1975 to 10.1/ year since 1975 when hunting was prohibited in Wyoming and Montana. Reynolds (pers. comm.) reports that Alaska uses the regulation of hunting in alternate years in areas of high hunting pressure to reduce harvest without going to permit hunts.
b. If hunting mortality is additive, its elimination in alternate years may allow an increase in the populations.
c. Eliminating the hunting season would erase the potential for mortality due to crippling by hunters.
d. An aversive con d i t ion ing / de t er r en t program would be necessary to reduce control action mortality. In addition, current "control action guidelines" would be re-evaluated to reduce control dispatches. Transplant of nuisance bears out of the ecosystems would be
min imi ze d .
e. Some restrictions on black-bear hunting in occupied grizzly bear habitat would be required to reduce mistaken identity kills.
f. A compensation program may be required to reduce the loss of personal property caused by grizzly bears.
g. A public relations program would be initiated to suggest measures to minimize man-caused mortalities.
157
h.
The Department would seek to minimize habitat impacts through coordination with state, federal, private and corporate organizations.
i. The Department would increase enforcement activities directed at bears to assist in reducing illegal mortalities.
3 • Population Status C :
a. Grizzly bear hunting season open.
Option 1: Spring Season (unlimited entry, limited
.
harvest ) :
a) Hunting success may be high because of vulnerability of bears in the spring. Troyer (1961) and Cooney (1953) reported a higher success rate for spring brown bear seasons than for fall seasons. Also, without a fall season concurrent with the ungulate season only those hunters actually hunting a grizzly bear would be licensed. With the hunting effort concentrated on bears, success would likely be high relative to a fall season. Greer (1972, 197^) reported that 9 0? in 1971 and 93? in 1 973 of successful grizzly hunters were primarily hunting elk. Pearson (1975) reported that most grizzlies in the Yukon are taken incidental to hunting other big game.
b) Female mortality would be low.
.
Troyer (1961), Pearson (1975), and Stirling et al. (1976) reported spring seasons produced a lower percentage of females in the harvest than fall seasons. Protection of females with cubs or other young by regulations would serve to keep female mortality low. Females which wean their young
158
in the spring are protected during spring seasons, but are vulnerable the following fall.
c) Population segments inhabiting wilderness areas may increase. A large portion of the total hunter harvest in the NCDF since 1967 has come from wilderness areas (Figure 20) during the early fall season. Access to wilderness areas is very restricted in the spring due to weather conditions and snow accumulations.
d) Fliminates the opportunity to legally harvest problem bears in the backcountry during general hunting seasons. From the hunting season in 1971, 2 grizzlies were shot in hunter camps and 1 was shot on the trail (Greer 1972). In 1973, one grizzly bear was killed in a hunter camp and 3 on the trail (Greer 1 9 7 ^ ) - Knight and Fberhardt ( 1 9 8 U ) also discuss grizzly b e a r / o u t f i 1 1 e r problems.
e) A spring season would concentrate hunters and hunter harvest because weather conditions and snow accumulations during the spring restrict accessibility.
Option 2 : F aj^l Season (unlimited entry, limited
harvest ) :
a) fall hunting season provides an opportunity to legally harvest grizzly bears depredating hunter camps and/or harvested game, and bears involved in other bear/human incidents. From the hunting season in 1971, 2 grizzlies were shot in hunter camps and 1 was shot on the trail (Greer 1972). In 1973, one grizzly bear was
159
killed in a hunter camp and 3 on the trail (Greer 197IJ). Knight and Fberhardt ( 1 9 8 M ) also discuss grizzly bear/outfitter problems.
b) Female mortality may be high unless restricted through regulations. Troyer (1961), Pearson (1975), and Stirling et a 1 . (1976) reported fall seasons produced a higher percentage of females in the harvest than spring seasons. Females which wean their young in spring but which may have been protected during a spring season would be vulnerable during the fall when unaccompanied by young.
c) Hunting success may be lower than a comparable spring season. Troyer (1961) and Cooney (1953) reported a lower success rate for fall brown bear seasons than for spring seasons. In the NCDF most grizzly hunting has been done incidental to elk hunting (Greer 1972, 1 9 8 ) and has resulted in low success.
a. The Department will seek to minimize man-caused mortality. This may allow the population to stabilize or increase .
b. An aversive conditioning/deterrent program may be applied in selected cases. Transplant of nuisance bears from the ecosystems would be acceptable.
c. Few, if any, restrictions would be placed on black bear hunters.
d. Damage compensation by private conservation groups would be encouraged.
160
e. A public relations program of moderate inten- sity will be initiated suggesting measures to minimize man- caused mortality.
f. The Department would seek through coordination with other agencies to modify human activities in bear habitat in such a manner as to minimize impacts on bears .
g. Enforcement activities would continue at a moderate level.
*1 . Population Status D:
a. Liberal grizzly bear hunting season.
1 • Split .§ ejLS .on (spring and fall, limited
harvest ) :
a) When compared to any single season option or to the historic hunting program in Montana, this option would provide a greater opportunity for hunters in Montana to harvest a grizzly bear.
b) With greater hunting opportunity this option would allow a high mortality. High success in the spring and high female vulnerability in the fall (relative to spring) would be operative (Troyer 1961, Cooney 1953, Stirling et al. 1976, Pearson 1975).
b. The Department would not seek to minimize all man-caused mortality. This may serve to reduce the number of bears in the ecosystems.
c. No aversive c ond i t i o n ing / d e t e r r en t program would be necessary. A reevaluation of "control action
161
guidelines" would be necessary to increase control d i spatches .
d. Transplant of nuisance bears from the eco- systems would be encouraged.
e. A public relations program would be initiated to inform people on how to live with higher bear populations.
f. The value of a compensation program may be questioned as costs become increasingly higher.
g. The Department would develop methods to deal with higher numbers through coordination with other agencies. Pestrictions on human intrusions would be less severe .
h. Enforcement activities would be at a low
level .
5. Population Status .E:
a. Unrestricted grizzly bear hunting season.
1. Jl u_l 1 _y.e.a_r _s_eji s_o_n (unlimited entry, unlimited harvest):
a) This alternative would provide maximum hunter opportunity.
b) High hunting success would occur because of hunter opportunity and the vulnerability of bears in all seasons. Troyer (1961), Cooney (1953), Pearson (1975), and Stirling et al. (1976) discuss the differential in hunter success between seasons and the vulnerabilities by sex for various hunting seasons.
162
o
c) The high hunter success and increased vulnerability of all bears, especially females, would result in high mortality by hunters and would lead to the desired decline in the populations.
b. The Department would encourage man-caused mortalities .
c. Aggressive agency control action dispatches would be necessary throughout the ecosystem.
d. An aggressive public relations program would be necessary to suggest measures to reduce loss of life and personal property.
e» The cost of a compensation program would probably be too high to justify its continuation.
f. Pestrictions on human activities in occupied areas would be minimized.
g. The Department would develop methods to deal with higher bear numbers through coordination with other agencies. Pestrictions on human intrusions would be less severe .
h. Enforcement efforts would be at a very low
level .
Cj. REGULATIONS
It should be recognized that as the status of the populations move away from the optimum the following regulations will need to be evaluated and modified.
1. Bag limit of one grizzly bear in a lifetime.
163
a. The regulation would have the effect of distri- buting hunter opportunity more evenly among Montana's hunting public.
b. Hunters might be more selective if they were limited to one in a lifetime (Pearson 1975). This selecti- vity would probably have the following consequences:
1) Total mortality may be reduced if hunters don’t shoot the first bear they see. Greer (197?) reported that 1 of 19 successful hunters in 1971 killed the first bear they saw. In 1973, 13 of 13 successful bear hunters shot a bear from the first group of bears they saw (i.e. 10 shot single bears and 3 saw 2 bears at the time of shooting) (Greer 1 9 7 ^ ) -
2) High hunter selectivity for large bears (males) would keep the female proportion of the harvest low (Bunnell and Tait 1985; Miller and Ballard 1982; Lindzey and Meslow 1980; Pearson 1975; Frickson 1962, 1963).
2. Prohibit the taking of young and females accompanied by young. Young are defined as two year-olds or younger.
a. This would result in low female mortality as a high proportion of females would be protected each year.
3. Base the trophy fee on sex of harvested bears.
a. A differential trophy fee may provide greater protection to females. The Yukon Territory requires succes- sful hunters to purchase a $750 trophy fee for females and $500 for males, and the managers there are pleased with the program (P. Smith, pers. comm., Yukon Territory Wildlife Branch, Whitehorse). To further protect females, managers
1 6 14
in the Yukon are experimenting with a point system for outfitters in which they are allotted a number of points which serves as their bag limit. A female counts three points toward their total and a male scores one point (Smith, pers. comm.).
b. It is possible that some female mortalities may go unreported. However, this potential has not been discussed in the literature.
Require all bear (either species) hunters to participate in a bear education program before hunting.
a. Improves awareness of hunters as to species identification, bear habits, and shot location.
b. May reduce mortality due to mistaken identity and crippling loss.
5. L i m i t daylight hours during which hunters may shoot bears.
a. This may reduce mortality due to mistaken identity and cripple loss because visibility would be better.
6. Limit black bear hunting along roads or request road closures.
a. This regulation might help reduce mistaken identity mortality. Most mortality of this source has occurred near roads.
7. Permit the use of baiting and dogs to hunt grizzly bears .
a. This may cause high hunter harvest. Poop
165
(pers. comm.) stated that four grizzly bears were shot over black bear baits in 1982 leading to a ban on black bear baiting in grizzly habitat. Kohn (1982) and LeCount (1982) reported that a large proportion of black bears harvested in Wisconsin and Arizona, respectively, were taken with the use of baits. Kohn (1982) stated black bears in Wisconsin were harvested primarily by the use of hounds or bait.
b. The use of dogs may result in a high proportion of females in the hunter harvest. LeCount (1982) reported the use of hounds to be a very successful hunting technique for black bears and that females were more vulnerable to this technique than males. Kohn (1982) and Poelker and Hartwell (1973) also reported dog hunting to be selective toward females.
c. Baiting may result in a high proportion of males in the harvest. LeCount ( 1 982) reported that the use of baiting in Arizona was very selective toward male black bears .
8. Close black bear hunting in grizzly bear habitat.
a. This may reduce mortality of grizzly bears from
mistaken identity for black bears. In 1983 five grizzly bear mortalities in the NCDF were caused by mistaken identity. Wyoming has recorded nine mortalities in this category since 1972 (Poop, pers. comm).
9. Prohibit the taking of other than male bears.
a. Total and female mortality would be reduced. This regulation may be enforceable, but it is unrealistic.
166
Even the most experienced observers find it difficult, if not impossible, to identify sex of a free-ranging bear.
10. The grizzly bear hunting season will close on H 8 hours notice when the total mortality quota is reached, or it will be closed in areas where female subquotas have been met .
a. This provides control over the allowable
mortality.
11. Hunters must retain the hide and head from each grizzly bear taken. Evidence of sex must remain intact on the skin or carcass.
12. Prohibit all persons from removing any portion of a grizzly bear from the state of Montana without first purchasing a trophy license.
13. Hunters taking a grizzly bear must report the kill within 8 hours to an officer of the Department and must personally present the hide and skull within 10 days to an officer of the Department for purposes of inspection, tagging and recording of kill.
a. This regulation as well as (12) and (13) provide the Department with information from hunter kills which is required for management purposes.
1 . Reduce the total or female mortality quota the year following any year they are exceeded.
a. This provides a greater opportunity to regulate total mortality with added caution.
167
D. GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT UNITS
1. Base management units on existing deer/elk hunting districts (Fig. 8).
a. This presents the problem of requiring manage- ment information for small areas that is not feasible to obtain.
b. The risk of overharvest in small units exists because of the inability to collect population information for these units.
c. If population data were available for these small areas, management could be much more tightly controlled .
2. Divide the NCDE into two management units separated by the Continental Divide (Fig. 21).
a. This is an arbitrary division of the ecosystem which does not consider available information.
b. The harvest may be concentrated in a few easily accessible areas, thereby overharvesting some areas and underharvesting others.
3. Base management units on large areas of similarity in habitat quality, habitat use, mortality patterns, home- range size and overlap and other ecological factors (Fig. 22) .
a. This provides more management flexibility because precise information for small areas is not required.
b. Population information currently available (Martinka 197*1, Mace and Jonkel 1980, Servheen 1981, McClellan 198*1, Aune et al. 198*1) may be applied to such
168
Figure 22
Two grizzly bear management units in the NCDE divided by the Continental Divide.
J
Figure 23. Grizzly bear management units divided into ecologically similar units .
areas (Zunino and Herrero 197?, Pearson 1975, Lortie 1978, Reynolds and Fechtel 1980, Miller and Ballard 1982, Tompa 198H, van Driromelen 1981)).
171
XVII
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The management program preferred by the Department is the hunting alternative (Alternative 2). This is the preferred alternative for both the NCDF and the CYE. However, the difference in population status in the two ecosystems demands a different management option for each. The preceding portions of this EIS indicate that the present status of the NODE is stable to increasing at a minimum estimate of 387. This indicates that a regulated hunting season under Population Status C should be recommended. Further, the Department recommends that this bunting season be conducted under a total mortality quota and a female mortality subquota. A hunting season is recommended for the following reasons:
1. An average of 11 grizzly bears are legally harvested annually in the NCDE. There is no evidence in the population structure or population trend data to suggest this level of legal harvest is detrimental to the population .
2. Hunting provides the potential to legally harvest problem bears and to reduce bear/human conflicts through such harvest.
3. Hunting provides the potential to reduce the need for agency control of problem bears. Troyer (1961), Greer (1976), Mysterud (1980), Poelker and Parsons (1980), and Waddell and Brown (1984) all indicated that hunting can reduce the need for control actions.
1 7?
. Hunting may provide an opportunity to cause bears to be wary of humans. Fvidence is provided by Mysterud (1977) and Flgmork (1978) who reported wariness in brown bear populations long exposed to human exploitation. Herrero (1985) provides evidence that bear/human incidents are more frequent in unhunted than hunted bear populations.
5. Harvesting grizzly populations may increase survival and recruitment and provide for population increase (Lindzey et al. 1983, Inukai 1972, Young and Puff 1982, Troyer and Hensel 1962, Glenn et al. 1976, Pearson 1976, Reynolds and Hechtel 1980, Stringham 1983).
6. Grizzly hunting seasons provide income for grizzly management through license sales.
The status in the CYF indicates that the recommended management action there should be listed under Population Status A (i.e. grizzly hunting season c:.l.o.sje.d ) . The Department recommends that future management actions in each ecosystem be based on the status of each of the populations as determined by reviewing the following criteria.
A. Criteria for Determining Population Status.
Several important factors have been identified in this FIS that will be evaluated by the Department when determining population status. These criteria and a brief description of each are given below.
1. Federal Restrictions: Federal laws and regulations may have major influence on Department regulations. Specifically, the Fndangered Species Act, the Code of
173
Federal Regulations, and the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan will be consulted.
2. Results of population trend surveys: A systematic method to survey public and professional sectors will be developed. Results of the most recent survey will be consulted .
3. Professional opinions will be gathered at an annual meeting .
4. Public opinions/perceptions from annual tentative season meetings will be solicited and evaluated.
5. Results of population and habitat research will be consulted. Specific changes in age structure, illegal mortality from marked bears, population densities, and habitat use will be considered.
6. Major changes in human use of occupied habitat will be evaluated. Because Montana’s grizzly bears are linked to those in Canada, Canadian land-use changes will be tracked as well.
7. Changes in the population status in Canada and U.S. and Canadian parks will be gathered through discussions with the appropriate management agency.
8. Changes in Federal road closure policies will be evaluated because they influence the number of grizzly bears susceptible to mortality.
9. The realized or perceived changes in the price of grizzly bear parts will be evaluated. Such changes may affect the level of profiteering.
1 7h
10. An attempt will be made to document obvious grizzly bear range expansions or contractions through data gathering. This data will help evaluate changes in the population status.
11. Based on all available evidence, changes in occupied habitat and/or management unit boundaries will be evaluated .
12. The number of control actions will be determined annually. If a trend is apparent in 4 or 5 years of analysis, then the program will be reevaluated. The number of transplants from or into the ecosystems will be documented .
13. Grizzly bear management policies in Glacier National Park, the Flathead Indian Peservation, and the Blackfeet Indian Peservation will be evaluated in relation to Department policies.
111. As further information is accumulated on transplant success, the opportunities and limitations of the technique will be evaluated. Scrutiny of population augmentation as an effective management tool will also be conducted.
15. Fvaluation of hunter harvest statistics will be conducted. The following mortality statistics are of particular importance:
a. Male/female sex ratio.
b. Mean age of harvest: mean ages should be calculated separately for males and females.
c. Determine total mortality: trends in total number of bears should be evaluated in conjunction with
175
other population statistics. Determine if changes in mortality quotas are needed.
16. Monitor litter sizes: litter sizes throughout the ecosystems will be recorded and evaluated annually.
17. Evaluate hunter effort: the annual hunter
questionnaire as recommended in this EIS will be evaluated. Changes in hunter effort, number of shots fired, location of hunt, etc. will substantially aid interpretation of population statistics.
B. Regulations
Because the recommended management of the CYE population comes under Population Status A, with a closed hunting season, no hunting regulations will be recommended for the CYE at this time. However, because the NCDF population is recognized as being under Status C with the grizzly bear hunting season open, some hunting regulations should be recommended. The regulations recommended include:
1. Bag limit of 1 grizzly in a lifetime.
2. Prohibit the taking of young and females accompanied by young. (Young are defined as two year-olds or younger.)
3. The grizzly bear hunting season will close on H8- hours notice when the total mortality quota is reached, or it will be closed in areas where female subquotas have been met .
176
4. Hunters must retain the hide and head from each grizzly bear taken. Evidence of sex must remain intact on the skin or carcass.
5. Prohibit all persons from removing any portion of a grizzly from the state of Montana without first purchasing a trophy license.
6. Hunters taking a grizzly bear must report the kill within 48 hours to an officer of the Department. Furthermore, the hunter must personally present the hide and skull within 10 days to an officer of the Department for purposes of inspection, tagging, and recording of kill.
7. Peduce the total or female mortality quota the year following any year it is exceeded.
The justifications for these regulations were discussed previously (see Peculations under MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES). C. Grizzly Bear Management Units (BMUs)
The Department prefers to treat the entire CYE as one management unit. Little population or habitat information is available to recommend any other alternative. Research currently in progress (Kasworm 1985) may provide information to suggest a future change In this recommendation.
Within the N CDF the Department recommends establishing the 5 BMUs presented as the third BMU alternative (see MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES). These will provide the areas within which the Preferred Alternative for the NCDE may be applied.
177
D. Recommended Mortality for the NCDF
The annual known total mortality in the NCDF since 1975 has averaged 20 bears, or a rate of 5? based on the current minimum population estimate of 387 exclusive of Glacier National Park. Tt has been determined, based on this population estimate, that unreported man-caused mortality averages 8 bears/year for a total mortality of 28 bears or 7% of our minimum population estimate. Considering the Park population in our estimate would reduce this rate considerably (to 550. As discussed previously, the popula- tion in the NCDF has been stable to increasing in most areas, while sustaining the above mortality rates.
Recommended hunter li a r v.e.s.t for grizzly bears ranges from 3-7% (Reynolds 1 975 ; Sidorowicz and Gilbert 1 9 8 1 ; Lortie 1977, 1978, Smith, pers. comm.; Cowan, 1972) and has averaged 3 % since 1 975 in the NCDF. The recommended or reported jt _o t. a_l known jn a_Hr £JL.u_s j!.d mortality from the
literature ranges from 3-10.6? (F.C. Fish and Wildlife
Branch 1979, Tompa 198*1, van Drimmelen 198*1, Craighead et al. 197**) and has averaged 5? since 1975 in the NCDF. Total known roan caused and natural mortality is recommended or reported to be 10.5-18.7? (Sidorowicz and Gilbert 1981, Martinka 197**, Craighead et al 197**, Bunnell and Tait 1 9 80), and compares well to the average total known man-caused and estimated unreported man-caused mortality of 7? since 1975 in the NCDF.
The current population status in the NCDF, the apparent trend of this population in relation to past mortality
178
rates, and the recommended and reported mortality in the literature indicate that a proposed total man — caused mortality rate (known and unreported) of 7.5? (29 bears) will not be excessive for the N CD F population and should allow for a continuing increase in numbers.
It is also recommended that the proportion of females in the total known man-caused mortality not exceed ^0?. This ratio is based on recommended ratios of 60:40 and 61:39 reported by the B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch (1979) and Lortie (1977), respectively, as well as the past ratios in the NCDF. While it is important to keep female mortality at a minimum, it does not need to be entirely eliminated.
179
XVIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF A GRIZZLY PUNTING SEASON A. Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided
1. Air
The dust and exhaust from vehicles involved in hunting activity cannot be avoided. These effects will be short- term in nature and are not considered major consequences in view of present levels of hunter participation. Punter campfires in narrow mountainous valleys will create a local source of air pollution that will be difficult to remedy. If it becomes a problem of major order, it can be minimized or avoided by stringent regulation. It will not be possible to avoid all accidental fires. Records do indicate these to be a minor factor at the present time.
2. Soil and Vegetation
The major impacts associated with the soil and vegetation resources can be avoided or minimized through responsible education and enforcement programs. Localized damage will occur to both resources as the result of careless or uninformed persons. The major effects will include destruction or disturbance of the resources by vehicles, riding and pack animals. Fires have potential to denude vegetation which can create a significant adverse impact in some areas.
3. Water
It is anticipated that the adverse environmental effects of hunting seasons on the water resource will be short-term and generally insignificant.
1 80
A possible
exception could be stream siltation relating to soil and vegetation disturbance if such disturbance is severe and has long-lasting effects.
Visual Appearances
The presence of hunters, their vehicles, camping equipment, animal carcasses and gut piles are not considered a significant adverse impact because of the duration of their presence. The effects of disturbance to soil and vegetation by hunter activity could present some long-term visual effects. Littering by hunters cannot be completely eliminated and provides an opportunity for some adverse visual appearances. Some types of litter will be visible for long periods. Most can be removed if the visual impact is of significance to warrant such consideration.
5. Sounds and Smells
The overall sounds and smells of vehicles, firearms, and the general activity associated with hunting cannot be avoided. Smells relating to improper garbage disposal cannot be totally eliminated but can be minimized to acceptable levels through adequate enforcement of existing litter laws.
6. Human Health
Gun accidents, death due to excessive physical exertion, and other accidents are an adverse effect that is to some degree inherent in hunting recreation. Education efforts such as the Hunter Safety Program are showing success in reducing the gun accident rate. The other forms of death or injury can be influenced by education programs
181
but will not be eliminated. The beneficial aspects derived from hunting recreation are substantially more numerous than the adverse effects.
B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Present levels of killing or removal of grizzly bears are not resulting in any irreversible commitment of the resource. Because these levels of removal can be regulated or eliminated on an annual or even shorter time basis (should data indicate that to be prudent), the management program poses no threat to the species. In fact, more precise active management should be of benefit to the species .
On the other hand, subdivision activity, energy develop- ment and other "land development" programs are slowly, but steadily destroying grizzly habitat. For example, logging, clear-cutting in key areas, and the associated road- building, hauling and clean-up can make bears more vulnerable or may disrupt the ranges and social hierarchies of bears (Kemp 1971*).
Pecreational developments in grizzly habitat can also be a negative value (i.e., habitat loss) to the bear (Jonkel 1975). Such action may in fact set in motion irreversible trends in habitat that will be detrimental to the bears.
C. Short-Term and Long-Term Uses
As human populations in grizzly habitat increase, so will the number of conflicts between man and bears. Unless efforts are made to restrict human use of grizzly habitat in
182
the short-term, present conflicts may in fact become long- term problems to the detriment of bears.
Poads which provide easy access into prime grizzly habitat will probably have to be closed. Certain-timber harvest programs will have to be modified. Long-term population, habitat, recreation, and land-use studies will be required to determine the proper levels of long-term use which will allow us to maintain the present habitats and existing viable grizzly populations. Other agencies, organizations and individuals will have to share this concern, and work in a coordinated effort if long-term use is to be compatible with maintenance of the species.
183
XIX. RECOMMENDATIONS
Several recommendations are presented that should make the Department’s management program more effective in the future .
A . Habitat Preservation and Land Acquisition
The key to the continued survival of grizzlies in Montana lies in the amount of habitat which remains available to this species. Therefore, it is recommended that the Department, first, take the lead in designating areas which will be required for grizzly bear survival, second, monitor changes in these habitats, third, pursue habitat acquisition in key areas, and fourth, work with federal, state, and local agencies to preserve key habitats.
Identified areas of key importance are:
1 . CYE
2. Pocky Mountain East Front
3. North Fork of the Flathead River
1I. Swan River Valley
5. Area between the towns of East Glacier and West
Glacier along Highway P.
6. The Mission Front
The Department will also encourage private conservation groups to acquire habitat and conservation easements in these areas.
P . Occupied Habitat Changes
The Department recognizes that grizzly bears can and do occur periodically outside the boundary of occupied habitat
18U
defined in this FIS. Occurrence outside these boundaries will be encouraged as long as conflicts with humans do not develop. If a conflict(s) occurs, the bear(s) responsible will either be transplanted to another area or dispatched. If grizzlies begin to occur in sufficient numbers outside the current occupied boundary, without conflict with humans, then the Department will evaluate modifying the boundary to include the newly occupied area(s). If new areas are incorporated, the Department would seek the necessary changes from Federal agencies which would allow implementing the management program.
C. Intensive Research
Research on grizzlies is difficult and requires a long- term commitment of funds. Therefore, the Department is committed to long-term (10 years or more) efforts in grizzly research .
C. Population Trends
An important aspect of grizzly bear management is the ability to document long-term population trends. The Department will assist in the development and evaluation of new trend monitoring techniques, including systematic subje- ctive surveys of professionals' and various user groups' judgements of population status. Surveys should be developed by professional surveyors to ensure statistical validity.
F. Damage Control
Control mortality is significant in Montana. Therefore, we recommend that there be a minimum of 2 Department
185
Q
personnel available In each region to deal with damage control. These personnel would be specially trained to deal with damage situations and bear handling. Response to any grizzly bear damage complaint should be rapid. Grizzly bear complaints and conflicts must be recorded accurately.
F. Mortality Reporting
It is important that all known mortalities be reported and records maintained at one source. The Department should remain the sole mortality coordinator to which all mortalities for the state from any agency or cause are reported .
G. Enforcement Efforts
Enforcement efforts by all agencies should be directed at those areas with the greatest potential for problems. These areas include the Mission Mountains, Badger-Two Medicine, and the North Fork of the Flathead River. In addition, enforcement efforts should be directed toward roaded areas in the spring and summer, and to backcountry areas during the fall. Continued enforcement is important to keep the bear parts market at a minimum.
H. Unreported Mortality
The importance of this factor dictates that this source of mortality be periodically evaluated. Information from research projects, grizzly parts values, rumo r.e d problem areas, etc. will be reviewed in these evaluations. Major changes in the level of unreported mortality would dictate changes in the management program.
186
I.
Bear Relocations
All grizzly bears which are relocated should be collared and monitored for a period of 2 years to determine transplant success. A thorough review of this technique will improve our understanding of its viability.
J. Sale of Grizzly Bear Parts
The Department should have the option of selling surplus grizzly bear hides at public auction. This action is currently prevented by Federal regulation. Hides are obtained each year from bears lost to control actions, illegal mortality, accidents, etc. By selling these hides when appropriate (after the needs of schools, museums, etc. are met), the illegal market could be reduced.
K . Natural Fires
The Department will encourage land management agencies to allow natural fires to burn in wilderness and other appropriate areas within occupied habitat to maintain the habitat in a condition best suited for grizzly bears.
L . Legal Management Boundaries
There is a clear need to modify the boundary, established in the Federal Register, within which the Department may conduct grizzly bear hunting (i.e. Flathead National Forest, Bob Marshall, and Mission Mountains Wilderness Areas). The Department requires flexibility to implement seasons when and where appropriate within and adjacent to the present boundary. It is therefore recommended that the Department petition the USFWS to change
1 87
these boundary restrictions to conform with current occupied
grizzly bear habitat as defined in this EIS.
In dealing with a species where management is biologically, politically and socially demanding, flexibility is the key to a successful management program. It is therefore recommended that any new information be evaluated annually and incorporated into the management program. In addition, a limited review of the FIS every 5 years should serve to incorporate new information. It is also recommended that the FIS be completely reviewed and updated at 10-year intervals. In this way the document will be as current as is practical and the management program based on it, as effective as possible.
The Department, after reviewing input from the public, wildlife professionals, etc., has the option to amend this FIS at any time in the future as is appropriate to better manage grizzly bears.
188
Q
XX. LITERATURE CITED
Aderhold, M. 1984. Know your bears. Montana Outdoors 15(2) : 36-37 .
Alwin, John A. Western Montana-a portrait of the land and its people, Montana Geographic Series, Montana Magazine, 1983.
Anonymous. 1984. Black or grizzly bear? Montana Outdoors 15(5) : 12.
Archibald, W.P. 1983. Problem analysis: grizzly bears and
coastal development with particular reference to intensive forestry. Fish and Wildlife Bull. B-26. Wildlife Habitat Research Publ. WHR-5.
Arno, S. 1979. Forest regions of Montana. USDA For. Serv. Inter. Mtn. For. and Range Exp. Sta. Ogden, Utah. 39 pp.
. 1980. Forest fire history in the northern Rockies.
J. For. (78) :460-465.
Aune, K., and T. Stivers. 1982. Pocky Mountain front grizzly bear monitoring and investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 143 pp.
. 1 983. Rocky Mountain front grizzly bear monitoring
and investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 180 pp.
. T. Stivers, and M. Madel. 1984. Rocky Mountain
front grizzly bear monitoring and investigation. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena. 239 PP.
Ball, P.F. 1980. Time-lapse cameras as an aid in studying grizzly bears in northwest Wyoming. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:331-335.
Beecham, J. 1980. Some population characteristics of two black bear populations in Idaho. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:201-204.
. 1983. Population characteristics of black bears in
west central Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 47 (2 ): 405-4 1 2.
Bjarvall, A. 1980. The brown bear in Sweden - distribution,
Blanchard, B. 1978. Grizzly bear distribution in relation to habitat areas and recreational use-Hilgard Mountains. M.S. Thesis. Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 74 pp.
189
Bogess, E.f F. Henderson, and C. Spaeth. 1980. Managing predator problems: practices and procedures for
preventing and reducing livestock losses. Cooperative Extension Service, Manhattan, Kansas. 19 pp.
British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch. 1979. Preliminary grizzly bear management plan for British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Victoria. 25 pp.
Buchalcyzk, T. 1980. The brown bear in Poland. Tnt. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 4:229-2??.
Bunnell, F.L., and D.F.N. T a i t . 1 9 8 0 . Bears in models and in r ea 1 i t y- i m p 1 i c a t i on s to management. Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 4:15-24.
• 1981. Population dynamics of bears-implications.
Pages 75-98 i n Smith, T. D. and C. Fowler ( eds.). Dynamics of large mammal populations. New York: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
. 1985. Mortality rates of North American bears.
Journal Arctic (In press).
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. Montana's £ore.s.t £ r£d._ujc.t.s industry: a.
descriptive analysis- 1981, Keegan, Jackson, Johnson.
Carlock, D., D. Conley, J. Collins, K. Johnson, S. Johnson, and M. Pelton. 1983. The tri-state black bear study final report. Unpubl.
Claar, J. 1985. Flathead Reservation grizzly bear management. Draft. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
. R. Klaver, and C. Servheen. Grizzly bear management
on the Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conf. on Bear Research and Management. Grand Canyon, A 7.
Conner, M., R. F. Labisky, and D. P. Progulske, Jr., 1 983. Scent-station indices as measures of population abundance for bobcats, raccoons, gray foxes, and opossums. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1 1 (2) : 1 46- 1 50.
Cooney, R.F. 1941. Grizzly bear study progress report. Pittman-Robertson job completion report. Mt. Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena. 2 3 pp.
. 1 95 3 . Thars bar in them thar hills. Montana
Wildlife 3:3:15-18.
. 1956. Wilderness monarch. Montana Wildlife 6(1):14-
17.
190
Cowan, I. M. 197?. The status and conservation of bears ( Ursidae ) of the world-1970. Int. Conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 2:343-367.
Craighead, F.C and J.J. Craighead. 1972. Data on grizzly bear denning activities and behavior obtained by using wildlife telemetry. Tnt. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 2:84-106.
Craighead, F.C. 1976. Grizzly bear ranges and movement as determined by radiotracking. Int. Conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 3:97-109.
Craighead, J.J. 1980. A proposed delineation of critical grizzly bear habitat in the Yellowstone region. Bear Biology Association Monogr. Series No. 1. 20 pp.
, J.F. Varney, and F.C. Craighead, Jr. 1974. A
population analysis of the Yellowstone grizzly bears. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry. Bulletin 40. 20 pp.
, F.C. Craighead, Jr., and J. Sumner. 1 9 7 6 .
Reproductive cycles and rates in the grizzly bear, Ursus a r c t o s horribilis , of the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Int. Conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 3:337-356.
, J. Sumner, and G. Scaggs. 1 982. A definitive system
for analysis of grizzly bear habitat and other wilderness resources. W i 1 d 1 i f e- W i 1 d 1 a nd s Inst. Monogr. 1. Univ. Mont., Missoula, 279 PP.
Crook, J.L. 1972. Grizzly bear survey and inventory. Unpubl. report. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game. 38 pp.
Curatolo, J.A., and G. D. Moore. 1975. Home range and population dynamics of grizzly bear in the eastern
Brooks Range, Alaska. I_n: F.D. Jakimchuk, ed., Studies of
large mammals along the proposed Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline route from Alaska to British Columbia. Arctic Gas Biol. Fept. Ser. V o 1 . 3?. 79 PP.
Dailey, Richard. The Montana Travel Industry, 1983. Unpublished report prepared for Montana Promotion Division, Department of Commerce and Governor’s Council on Economic Development, University of Montana, 1984.
Daubenmire, R. 1969. Structure and ecology of coniferous forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Rages 25-41 i. ri : F. Taber, ed.,
Coniferous forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Center for Nat. Fesour., Univ. Montana, Missoula.
191
Dean, F.C. 1976. Aspects of grizzly bear population ecology in Mount McKinley National Park. Jnt. Conf. Pear Pes. and Manage. 3:111-119.
Deiss, C. 1 958. Geology of the Bob Marshall Wilderness i_n Guide to the Bob Marshall Wilderness. U.S. Dept. A g r i c . For. Serv. Missoula, MT. 36pp.
Fgbert, A.L., and M.H. luque. 1975. Among Alaska's brown bears. Natl. Geogr. Mag. 1 *4 8 : *4 2 8 - *4 4 P .
, and A. L, Stokes. 1976. The social behavior of brown
bears on an Alaskan salmon stream. Int. Conf. Bear. Fes. and Manage. 3:1*1-56.
Flgroork, K. 1976. A remnant brown bear population in southern Norway and problems of its conservation. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:281-291.
• 1978. Human impact on a brown bear population
(Ursus jirctos L.). Biol. Conserv. 13:81-88.
Erickson, A.W. 1962 Alaska wildlife investigations, bear investigations, characteristics of the brown and grizzly bear harvest. Federal aid in Wild. Restor. Job Completion Rept. Proj. No. W-6-R-3, Work Plan F, Job No. 2. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Juneau. 19 pp.
. 1 96 3. Bear Report. Annual Project Segment
Report Fed. aid in Wild]. Restor. Proj. Rept. W-6-R-**, Work Plan F. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Juneau. 32 pp.
Flath, D. 198*4. Vertebrate species of species interest or concern. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks. 76 pp.
Franklin, S.P. 1980. Fvolutionary change in small populations. Pages 135-1149 in M.F. Soule and B.A. Wilcox, ed s, , Conservation biology: An evolutionary-
ecological perspective. Sinaur Assoc., Sunderland, MA 395 pp.
Fraser, D., J. Gardner, G. Kolenosky, and S. Strathearn. Fstimation of harvest rate of black bears from age and sex data. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 10(0:53-57.
Gilbert, J.R., W.S. Kordek, J . Collins, and P. Conley. 1978. Interpreting sex and ade data from legal kills of bears. PP.
• 253-262 in Hugie, P.D. Fd., 14 the Fastern Black Bear
Workshop. Greenville, MF. l|09 pp.
Glenn, L. P., 1975. Report on 197*1 brown bear studies.
Fed. aid in Wildl. Rest. Proj. Rept. W-17-6 and W-17-7. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, 10 pp. + App.
1 92
o
, J.W. I, entfer, J.P. Faro, and L.P. Miller, 1972.
Feproductive biology of female brown bears ( U r s u s a r c t o s ), McNeil Fiver, Alaska. Tnt. Conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 3:381-390.
Greer, K. 1971. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs in Montana during 1970. Job progress report W- 120-F-2, Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena .
. 1972. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs
in Montana during 1971. Job progress report W-120-F-3, Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
. 1 973. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs
in Montana during 1972. Job progress report W-120-F-1), Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
. 197^a. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs
in Montana during 1973. Job progress report W-120-F-5, Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
. 1 9 7 ^ b . Montana grizzly bear management and public
harmony. Montana Department of Fish and Game, Helena. il6 PP.
. 1975. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs
in Montana during 197^. Job progress report W-120-F-6, Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
. 1 976a. Grizzly bear mortality and management
programs in Montana during 1975. Job progress report W- 120-F-7, Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
. 1976b. Managing Montana's grizzlies for the
grizzlies! Int. Conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 3:177-189.
. 1 977. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs
in Montana during 1976. Job progress report W-120-F-8, Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
. 1 978. Grizzly bear mortality and management programs
in Montana during 1977. Job progress report W-120-F-9, Work plan TV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
. 1979. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife
research. Job progress report W-120-F-10, Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
. 1980. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife
research. Job progress report W-120-F-11, Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
193
. 1981. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife
research. Job progress report W-120-R-12, Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
. 1982. Grizzly bear studies, statewide wildlife
research. Job progress report W-120-R-13, Work plan IV, Job L-1.1, Mont. Dept. Fish Game, Helena.
Habeck, J. and R.W. Mutch. 1973. Fire-dependent forests in the northern Pocky Mountains. Ouat. Res. 3(3) :408 — 1»24.
Hamlin, K. and M. Frisina, 1975. Special Grizzly Bear Survey. Job Progress Report W-130-R-6, Job 1-1, I-1*.
Montana Dept. Fish, Wildl. and Parks, Helena.
Hamer, D., and S. Herrero. 1983- Fcologieal studies of the grizzly bear in Panff National Park--f inal report 1983. Univ. Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 303 PP.
Harding, L., and J.A. Nagy. 1980. Responses of grizzly bears to hydrocarbon exploration on Richards Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:277-280.
Haroldson, M., and R.D. Mace. 1984. Grizzly bear population augmentation: scope of work. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Montana Coop. Wildlife Research Unit. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 25 PP.
Harris, R.B. 1984a. Harvest age-structure as an indicator of grizzly bear population status. M.S. thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 204 pp.
. 1984b. Preliminary experiments on a scent-station
index for grizzly bears. Final report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 30 pp.
. B. 1 984c. Grizzly bear population trend monitoring
- a resource for decision makers. U.S.F.W.S. Tech. Note. Unpublished Report.
Hensel, R.J., W.A. Troyer, and A.W. Frickson. 1969. Reproduction in the female brown bear. J. Wildl. Manage. 33(2) : 357-365 .
Herrero, S. 1972. Aspects of evolution and adaptation in American black bears (Ursus americanus Pallas) and brown and grizzly bears ( ursu a_c_t_p_s Linne') of North America. Pp 221-230 jl_n S. Herrero (Fd.) Bears-their Biology and Management. IUCN new series No. 23.
Herrero, S. 1985. Bear attacks--their causes and avoidance. Nick Winchester Press, New Century Pub., Inc. Piscataway, NJ 287.
1 94
Hickie, P. 1952. Inventory of big-game animals of the United States. U.S. Dept, of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Leaflet No. 3^8. 2 pp.
Hoak, J.H., T.W. Clark, and J.L. Weaver. 198*1. Of grizzly bears and commercial outfitters in Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming. Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. 5:110- 117.
Howe, G. 1976. The evolutionary role of wildfire in the northern Rockies and implications for resource managers. Pages 257-265 in: Proceedings: Tall Timbers Fire
Fcology Conference and Fire and Land Management Symposium. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 675 pp.
Hugie, R.D. 1983. Black bear ecology and management in the northern conifer-deciduous forests of Maine. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage., Grand Canyon, AZ.
Hunt, C. 1985. Descriptions of five promising deterrent and repellant products for use on bears. Office of the Grizzly Bear Recover Coordinator. Montana Coop Wildlife Research Unit. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 55 pp.
Inukai, T. 1972. Bear damage and bear control in Japan. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 2:333
Johnson, L. 1980. Brown bear management in southeastern Alaska. Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage. *1:263-270.
Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availabili- ty measurements for evaluating resource preference. Fcol. 6 1 C 6 ) : 6 5 — 7 1 .
Jonkel, C. 1983. Five-year report. Border Grizzly Project. Univ. Montana, Missoula, Montana.
. 1983. Grizzly bear critical sites. Border Grizzly
Project, Spec. Rept. 69. Univ. Montana, Missoula.
. 1975. Opinion of bears and people. Western
Wildlands 2(1 ): 30-37.
, and I.M. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the
spruce-fir forest. Wildl. Monogr. 27:1-57.
, and R. Demarchi. 198*1. Subdivisions and grizzly
bears: a matter of jurisdiction. Western Wildlands.
Univ. Montana.
Kaal, M. 1976. Ecology, protection and prospect of utilization of the brown bear in the Estonian S.S.P. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:303-306.
1 95
K a s w o r m , W . 1985. Cabinet Mountains grizzly bear study
annual report. Mt. Dept, of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena.
Kemp, G . A . 1972. Plack bear population dynamics at Cold
Lake, Alberta, 1968-1970. Tnt. Conf. Pear Fes. and Manage. 2:26-31.
. 1976. The dynamics and regulation of black bear
(Ursus americanus) populations in northern Alberta. Int. Conf. Pear Pes. and Manage. 3:191-197.
Kendall, K.C. 1985. Grizzly bear population trend studies Apgar Mountains, Glacier National Park. National Park Service Progress Report.
Kistchinski, A. A. 1 972. Life history of the brown bear (Ursus a r c t o s L.) in northeast Siberia. Int. Conf. Hear Pes. and Manage. 2:67-73.
Knight, R.P. 1 9 8 il . Projected future abundance of the Yellowstone grizzly bear. J. Wildl Manage. 4 9 ( 4 ) : 1 4 3 4 - 1438.
, D. Mattson, and P. Planchard. 1984. Movements and
habitat use of the Yellowstone Grizzly Pear, llnpub]. Pep.
, and S. Judd. 1983. Grizzly bears that kill
livestock. Int. Conf. Pear Research and Manage. 5:186—
190.
, and L . L . Fberhardt. 1984. Population dynamics of
Yellowstone grizzly bears. Fcol. 6 6 (2) :3 23 -3 3^ .
Kohn, P.F. 1982. Status and management of black bears in Wisconsin. Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, Technical Fulletin No. 129.
Kolenosky, G.P. 1983. Hunting Ontario black bear. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Conf. Pear Pes. and Manage, Grand Canyon, A 7.
Kolstad, M., T. Kvam, I. Mysterud, 0 . J . Sorensen, and S. Wikan. 1984. Hjornen ( Drsus arctos I..) i Norge, Utbredilse og bestand 1978-1982. Viltrapport 31:1-68.
Lake County Land Services Department. 1985. Letter to P. Mace from N. Thormahlen concerning land use in Swan Valley.
Layser, F.F. 1978. Grizzly bears in the southern Selkirk Mountains. Northwest Sci. 52(2):77-91.
196
LeCount, A. 198?. An analysis of the black bear harvest in Arizona 1968-1978. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Special Report Number 1?.
Linhart, S.P. and F.F. Knowlton. 1975. Determining relative abundance of coyotes by scent station lines. Wildl. Soc. Pull. 3:119-124.
Lindzey, F.G. 1977. Scent station index of black bear abundance. J. Wildl. Manage. 4 1 ( 1 ) : 1 5 1 - 1 53.
, and F. C. Meslow. 1 976. Harvest and population
characteristics of black bears in Oregon (1971— 7^). Int. Conf. Pears Fes. and Manage. 3:213-219.
Lindzey, J.S., G.L. Alt, C.F. McLaughlin, and W.S. Kordek. 1983. Population response of Pennsylvania black bears to hunting. Int. Conf. Pear Fes. and Manage. 5:3*1- 39.
Lortie, G.M. 1978. A new management system for Yukon grizzly bear. Yukon Territory Wild]. Pranch. 15 PP. Unpubl.
, and J. McDonald. 1977. Game harvest report and
summary of questionnaire analyses. Yukon Territory Government Wildlife Research Internal Fept. 32 pp.
Lund, F. 1985. MSUSTAT, in interactive statistical package. Montana State University, Pozeman.
Lyon, L. J., T. N. Lonner, J. P. Weigand, G. L. Marcum, W. D. Edge, J. D. Jones, D. W. McCleerey, and L. L. Hicks. 1985. Coordinating elk and timber management. Final report of the Mont. Coop. Elk-Logging Study, 1970-1985. 53 PP.
Mace, F. D. 1 9 8 M . Identification and evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in the Fob Marshall Wilderness Area, Montana. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 176 pp.
. 1985. Analysis of grizzly bear food resources in the
valley bottomlands and avalanche tracts of the Pob Marshall Wilderness Area, Montana. Paper presented at the Grizzly Pear Habitat Symposium. April 30-May 2 1985, Missoula, Montana. In Press.
, and C. Jonkel. 1 9 8 4 . The effects of a logging
activity on grizzly bear movements. Paper presented at the Predator Symposium, 1984. Univ. Montana, Missoula.
_t . 198O. Grizzly bear response to habitat
disturbance. Pages 70-98 .in: C. Jonkel ed., Annul Fep.
3. Border Grizzly Proj. Univ. Montana, Missoula.
197
, . Regional food habits of the grizzly bear in
Montana. Paper presented at the 6 the. Int. Conf. on Bear Res. and Manage. In Press.
Manley, T. 1 9 8 M . Grizzly bear habitat component summary, Whitefish and Galton ranges. USDA For. Serv. Region 1.
Marshall, P. B. 1955. Grizzly bear investigation and recheck. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Pept. Proj. Compl. Rept. W- 60-R-2, Job No. I-D. Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena.
20 pp.
Martin, P. 1979. Productivity and taxonomy of the Vacci- nlum globulare V . membranaceum complex in western Montana. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 136 pp.
Martinka, C. 1971. Status and management of grizzly bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. Pages 312-322 in: 36
the. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.
. 197k. Population characteristics of grizzly bears
in Glacier National Park, Montana. Journ. Mammal. 55(1 ) :21-29.
. 1 976. Fcological role and management of grizzly
bears in Glacier National Park, Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:1^7—156.
. 1982. Effects of conterminous land use on grizzly
bears in Glacier National Park. Presented at American Association for Advancement of Science Symposium on External Threats to Ecosystems of National Parks in Washington, D.C.
, and K. Kendall. Grizzly bear habitat research in
Glacier National Park. Paper presented at the Grizzly Bear Habitat Symposium. April 30-May 2, 1985. Missoula, Montana. In Press.
McArthur Jope, K. 1983. Habituation of grizzly bears to people: a hypothesis. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:322-327.
McCulough, D.P. 1982. Behavior, bears, and humans. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 10:27-33.
McLellan, 1982. Akamina-Kisinena grizzly project; Progress Rep, 1980 (year 3). B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Cranbrook, B.C. 65 pp.
. 1984. Population parameters of the Flathead
grizzlies. Canadian Border Grizzly project. 28 pp.
198
, and C. Jonkel. 1980. Ackamina- Kishinena grizzly
project. Pages 9-48 in : C. Jonkel ed. Annu. Pep. 5.
Border Grizzly Project. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 222 pp.
, and P.D. Mace. 1985. Behavior of grizzly bears in
response to roads, seismic activity, and people. Canadian grizzly project, Cranbrook, British Columbia. 53 PP.
Meagher, M. and J.R. Phillips, 1983. Restoration of natu- ral populations of grizzly and black bears in Yellowstone National Park. Tnt. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:152- 158.
Mealey, S., L. Marcum, R. Pighter, C. Jonkel, and G. Joslin. 1976. Vegetation studies of disturbed grizzly habitat. Pages 5-34, i. n : C. Jonkel ed., Annu. Pep. 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, Ursus arctos, population. Ca na d i a n F i e 1 d -Na t . 9 6 ( *1 ) : 4 4 8 - it 5 4 .
Miller, S . J . , N. Barichello, and D. Tait, 1982. The grizzly bears of the Mackenzie mountains Northwest Territories. N.V.T. Wildlife Service, Completion Report No. 3.
Montagne, J. and W. McMannis. 1961. Geological resume of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. Montana State Col., Bozeman. Mimeo.
Montana Dept, of Commerce, census and economic information center. 1981. Revised County Population Projections, 1981 .
Montana Department of Commerce. 1 98 4 . 1983 Census
Estimates-October 1984.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1983.
License Sales by County for License Year 1983.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1983.
Montana Hunting and Fishing License Sales, 1939 to 1983.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1983. Re- gional Visitation Figures, 1980 to 1983.
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Montana Recreation Map.
Montana Dept, of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
1 984. Montana Agricultural Statistics-1984.
199
Montana Dept, of State Lands-Forestry Division. 198?. Timber Fesources of Lincoln, Sanders, Flathead and Lake Count! es .
Montana Dept, of Natural Fesources and Conservation, Oil and Gas Conservation Division. 1 9 8 3 . Oil and Gas: Annual
Review for the Year 1983.
Montana Dept, of Natural Fesources and Conservation, Fnergy Division. 1 984. Montana Historical Fnergy Statistics, 5 the edition.
Mundy, K., and D. Flook. 1973. Background for managing grizzly bears in the national parks of Canada. Can. Wildl. Serv. Pep. Ser. 22. 35 pp.
Mysterud, J. 1977. Problems in research management of the brown bear in Norway. Viltrapport 4:19-51.
. 1980. Bear Management and sheep husbandry in Norway,
with a discussion of predatory behavior significant for evaluation of livestock losses. Int. Conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 4:233-21*1.
Nagy, I., and F. Fussell. 1978. Fcological studies of the boreal forest grizzly bear (Ursus arctos L,.). Annu. rep. 1977. Canadian Wildl. Serv. 72 pp.
Nelson, F., G. Folk Jr., F . Pfeiffer, J. Craighead, C. Jonkel, and D. Steiger. 1983. Behavior, biochemistry, and hibernation in black, grizzly, and polar bears. Int, conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 5:284-290.
O'Gara, B. 1984. Identification of Montana's big game mammals. Montana outdoors 15(6):13-24
Ostroumov, A.G. 1968. Aerovisual census of brown bear in Kamchatku and some observations on their behavior. Bull. Mosc. Soc. Natur., Biol. Div. 73(2):35-50.
Pearson, A.M. 1972. Population characteristics of the northern interior grizzly in the Yukon territory, Canada. Int. Conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 2:33-34.
* 1975. The northern interior grizzly bear. Can.
Wildl. Serv. Fept. Ser. No. 34. 86 pp.
. 1976. Population characteristics of the Arctic
mountain grizzly bear. Int. Conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 3:247-258.
Pfister, F., B. Fovalchik, S. Arno, and F. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Int. Mtn. For. and Fange Fxp. Sta. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Pep. INT-34. 174 pp.
200
o
Pfister, and P. Batchlor. 19811. Montana riparian vegetation types. Western Wildlands. 9(10:19-23.
Picton, Harold D. 1983. Using climate data to predict grizzly bear litter size. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage., Grand Canyon, A Z .
. 1 983. Grizzly Link? Yellowstone and Glacier,
its biology and dynamics. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Conf. Bear Pes. and Manage., Grand Canyon, AZ.
Poelker, P.J. and H.D. Hartwell, 1973. Black bear of Western Washington. Wash. St. Game Dept. Biol. Bull. No. 1 U. 180 pp.
, and L.D. Parsons, 1 976. Black bear hunting to reduce
forest damage. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 3:191-193.
Pulliainen, F. Expansion of the brown bear (Ursus Arctos) into Finland from the Fast. Paper presented at the Sixth Int. Conf. Pear Pes. and Manage., Grand Canyon, AZ.
Quimby, P. 1971*. Grizzly bear. .In. : P.D. Jakimchuk, Ed.,
Mammal studies in northeastern Alaska. Reynolds, H.V. 1975. Annual report of survey inventory activities. Pt. II. Black bear, brown bear, polar bear, caribou. P.A. Hinman, Fd. ADF&G. Vol. VII. 156 pp.
. 1976. North slope grizzly bear studies. Fed. Aid
Wildl. Rest. Proj. Rep. W-17-6 and W-17-7, Jobs U.8R and 4.1 IP. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau
. and J. Hechtel. 1980. North slope grizzly bear
studies. Fed. Aid Wildl. Pest. Proj. W — 17 — 11, Job No. 4.1 4 P . Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Juneau. 66 pp.
Roben, P. 1980. Status of the brown bear in the Pyrenees. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:243—247.
Rockwell, S., J. Perry, M. Haroldson, and C. Jonkel. 1978. Vegetation studies of disturbed grizzly habitat. Pages 17-78. iji : C. Jonkel (ed.) Annu. Pep. 3. Border Grizzly
Proj. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 256 pp.
Rogers, L. 1 976. Effects of mast and berry crop failures on survival, growth, and reproductive success of black bears. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 4 1 : 4 3 1 - 438.
. 1977. Social relationships, movements, and
population dynamics of black bears in northeastern Minnesota. Ph.d. Diss. Univ. Minnesota, Minneapolis. 19^ PP.
201
Rognurd,M. 1956. Grizzly bear survey. Fed. Aid Fept. W- 71-R, W-72-R, W-74-R, Job no. A-7. Montana Dept, of Fish and Game, Helena. 9 PP.
Roth, H.U. 1972. Status of the last brown bears of the alps in the Trentino, Italy. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 2:307-308.
. 1980. Defecation rates of captive brown bears. Int.
Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:249-253.
Roughton, P.D. and M.W. Sweeny, 1982. Refinements in scent- station methodology for assessing trends in carnivore populations. J. Wildl. Manage, it 6 : 2 1 7-229.
Russell, P.H., J.W. Nolon, N.A. Woody G. Anderson. 1979. A study of the grizzly bear in Jasper National Park, 1975- 1978. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rept. 1 3 6 pp.
Schal lenberger, A. 1 9 7 ^ . Reconnaissance survey of grizzly bear habitat, Pocky Mountain Division, Lewis and Clark National Forest. Mimeo.
Servheen, C. 1981. Grizzly bear ecology and management in the Mission Mountains, Montana. Ph.D. Diss. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 1 3 8 pp.
. 1983. The status of the grizzly bear in the lower 48
States: Progress toward recovery. Paper presented at
the Sixth Int. Conf. Bear Res. and manage., Grand Canyon, AZ .
, and T. W o j c i ec h o w sk i . 1978. Grizzly bear foods.
Pp. 83-107 in: C. Jonkel ed. Annu Rep. 3. Border
Grizzly Project. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 207 pp.
— 1 a°9 R. Klaver. 1983. Grizzly bear dens and denning
activity in the Mission and Rattlesnake Mountains, Montana. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:201-207.
Shafer, M.I.. 1 9 8 3 . Determining minimum viable population sizes for the grizzly bear. Int. Conf. bear Res. and Manage. 5:133-139.
Shaffer, S. 1971. Some ecological relationships of grizzly and black bears of the Apgar Mountains in Glacier National Park, Montana. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 13-4 pp.
Shemnitz, S.D. (Fd.). 1980. Wildlife management techniques manual. Fourth Edition. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 686 pp.
202
Sidorowicz, G.A. and F.F. Gilbert, 1981. The management of grizzly bears in the Yukon, Canada. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 9(2) : 1 25-1 35 .
Skaar, D., D. Flath, and L. Thompson. 1985. Montana bird distribution. Montana Academy of Sciences. Monogr. 3., Vo 1 . Mil. 72 pp.
Steele, R. I 960. The role of fire in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. Montana. For. and Conserv. Fxp. Sta., Univ. Mont., Missoula. 33 pp.
Stirling, I., A.M. Pearson, and F.L. Bunnell. 1976. Population ecology studies of polar and grizzly bears in northern Canada. Tnt. Conf. Bear Fes. and Manage. 3:421- 430.
Stockstad, D.S. 1953. Grizzly bear investigation and recheck. Fed. Aid in Wild]. Proj. Rept. W-60-R-1, Job no. VII A. Montana Dept, of Fish and Game, Helena, 4 pp.
. 1 954. Grizzly bear investigation and recheck. Fed.
Aid in Wildl. Rept. Proj. Compl. Rept. W-60-R-1, Job No. V 1 1 - A . Montana Dept. Fish and Game, Helena. 13 pp.
Stringham, S.F. 1980. Possible impacts of hunting on the grizzly/brown bear, a threatened species. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:337-349.
. 1 9 83 . Roles of adult males in grizzly bear
population biology. Jnt. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 5:140-151 .
Stokes, A. W. 1970. An ethologist’s views on managing grizzly bears. Bioscience 20:1154-1157.
Sumner, J., and J. Craighead. 1973. Grizzly bear habitat surveys in the Scapegoat Wilderness, Montana. Montana Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 49 PP.
Swenson, J.F. 1985. Fffects of hunting on black bears in southwestern Montana. Presented at Black Bear Workshop in Missoula.
Tait, D.F.N. 1979. Abandonment as a reproductive tactic- the example of grizzly bears. Amer. Nat. 115(6):800- 808.
Their, T., and D. Sizemore. 1981. An evaluation of grizzly bear relocations in the Border Grizzly Project Area, 1975-1980. Border Grizzly Project. Spec. Rept. 47. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 16 pp.
203
Tirmenstein, D.A. 1983. Grizzly bear habitat and management in the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness. M . S . Thesis. Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 213 PP.
Tompa, F.S. 1984. Grizzly bears in British Columbia -- Harvest must be reduced. British Columbia Wildl. Branch, 9 PP. Unpub].
Troyer, W.A. 1961. The brown bear harvest in relation to management on the Kodiak Islands. Trans. North American Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. P6:460 — 468.
. and P.J. Hensel, 196k. Structure and distribution
of a Kodiak bear population. ,T. Wildl. Manage. 28(4) :769-772.
Turbak, G. 1984. Should we hunt grizzlies? North American Hunter. March-April 1984. pgs. 31-34.
U.S. Dept, of Commerce-Bureau of the Census. 1982. L o c a 1 Population Estimates-Montana, 1981 and 1982.
U.S. Department Cf Interior. 1982. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Dept. Inter. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 195 PP.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1982.
Guidelines for determining grizzly bear nuisance status and for controlling nuisance grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Ecosystems. 23 PP.
Vroom, G. 1974. Observations of wolves and grizzly bears. Banff National park. Banff Warden Service.
, S. Herrero, and R. Oglivie. 1980. The ecology of
winter dens sites of grizzly bears in Banff National Park, Alberta. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 4:321- 330.
van Drimmelen, B. 1984. Grizzly bear management plan for the Skeena Region. British Columbia Wildl. Branch. 20 pp. Unpubl.
Waddell, T.F. 1984. Exploitation of two subpopulations of black bear's in an isolated mountain range. J. Wildl. Manage. 4 8(3): 933-938.
Woodgerd, W.P. 1974. Letter to Lynn A. Greenwalt. Montana Dept, of Fish and Game, Helena. 2 pp.
Young, B.F. and R.L. Puff, 1982. Population dynamics and movements of black bears in east central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 46 (4) : 845-860.
204
Zager, P. 1980. The influence of logging and wildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. Pb.D. Dips. Univ. Montana, Missoula. 131 pp.
f C . Jonkel, and J. Fa beck. 1983. Logging and
wildfire influence on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern Montana. Tnt. Conf. Pear Fes. and Manage. 5 : 2211-1 3? .
Zunino, F., and S. Herrero. 1 972. The status of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in Abruzzo National Park, Italy, 1971. Biol. Conserv. 4(10:263-272.
205
APPENDIX A
WILDLIFE
12.9.103
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 1 850 through 1 950 in the bear’s traditional range in all western states; and
Whereas, a significant portion of the remaining grizzly bear habitat and population is located in Montana and these Montana populations occur in wildlands such as wilderness, primitive areas, de facto wilderness areas, national forests, national parks, Indian reservations, and seasonally, on adjacent private lands.
Now, therefore, in order to promote the preservation of the grizzly bear in its native habitat, the commission establishes the following policy guidelines for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks action when dealing with grizzly bear.
(a) Habitat. The department shall work to perpetuate and manage grizzly bear in suitable habitats of this state for the welfare of the bear and the enjoyment of the people of Montana and the nation. In performing this work the department should consider the following:
206
(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
(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. Tt 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
207
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.
(ill) 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
208
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.
(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. 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.
(f) Coordination. The department shall consult with appropriate federal agencies and comply with applicable federal rules and regulations in implementation of this
209
policy. (History: Sec. 87-1-301 MCA, IMPf 87-1-201, 87-1-
301 MCA; Eff. 12/31/72; AMD, 1 977 MAR p. 257, Fff. 8/26/77.)
210
APPENDIX B
PART 17— endangered and THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
Subpart A — Introduction and Conoral Frovlllonl
Sec.
17.1 Purpose of regulations.
17.2 Scope of regulations.
17.3 Definitions.
17.4 Pre-Act wildlife 17.3 Alaska natives.
17.6 Stale cooperative agreements. fRe- served)
17.7 IDcletc-rtl
Subpart B — Lliti
17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife
17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
17.13 Amendments to the lists.
Subport C — Endongorod Witdlifo
17.21 Prohibitions.
17.22 Permits for scientific purposes, or for the enhancement of propagation or sur- vival.
17.23 Economic hardship permits.
Subpart D — Throatonod Wildlife
17.31 Prohibitions.
17.32 Permits— general
17.33 I Deleted]
'17.34-17.39 Permits. [Reserved)
17.40 Special rules— mammals.
17.41 Special rules— birds.
17.42 Special rules— reptiles.
17.43 Special rules— amphibians. (Re
served 1
17.44 Special rules— fishes.
17.45 Special rules— snails and elams. (Re- served)
17.46 Special rides- -ei istaeeans (Re-
served)
17.47 Special rules -insects.
17.48 Special rules— common sponges and other forms. [Reserved)
Subpart E — Similarity of Appaaranra
17.50 General.
17.51 Treatment as endangered ur threat ened.
17.52 Permits— similarity of appearance
Subpart F— Endangered Plants
17.61 Piuliil'ltiohs.
17.02 I’crnulv for scientific purpose-, i.i (or the e.ihaiiceiiieiil of propagation o. survival.
17.03 Economic hardship pcrinils 17.64-1769 |Rcscrvt*ti|
Subpurl G — Thr«ot«n*d Plonft
17. '4! Prohibitions, i 7 72 IVrmits— is«*ru*r:ii.
17 73 17.78 I Reserved 1
Subport H — |t«tirv«d|
50 CFR 17
Subpart I — Intarogarvcy Coo pa rollon (Not Included)
Subpart 3— *ten«te« Protection At*m
17.100 Purpose.
17.101 Scope.
17.102 Definition#.
17.103 Establishment of protection areas.
17.104 Prohibitions.
17.105 Permits and exceptions.
17.108 Emergency establishment of
protection areas.
17.107 Facilitating enforcement
17.106 Ust of designated manatee protection areas (Reserved).
Authority; Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. 88 Slat 1027. as amended, (i 101(a), 102(a)(2). 104. 105. 112(a) (16 U.S.G Si 1371(a). 1372(a)(2). 1374. 1375. and 1382(a)): Endangered Species Act of 1973. 87 Stal. 884. as amended. Si 4 (d) and (Q. 9(a)(1)(G). and 11(a)(1) |18 U.S.G S S 1533 (d) and (f). 1538(a)(1)(G). end 1540(a)(1)).
Subpart A — Introduction and General Provisions
§ 17.1 Purpose of regulations.
(a) The regulations in this part im- plement the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 87 Stat. 884. 16 U.S.C. 1531- 1543. except for those provisions in the Act concerning the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, for which regulations are provided in Part 23 of this subchapter.
(b) The regulations identify those species of wildlife and plants deter- mined by the Director to be endan- gered or threatened with extinction under section 4(a) of the Act and also carry over the species and subspecies of wildlife designated as endangered under the Endangered Species Conser- vation Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 275. 16 U.S.C. 668cc-l to 6) which are deemed endangered species under section 4(c)(3) of the Act.
(40 FR 44415. Sept. 26. 1975, as amended al 42 FR 10465. Feb. 22. 1977]
5 17.2 Scope of regulations.
(a) The regulations of this part apply only to endangered and threat- ened wildlife and plants.
(b) By agreement between the Serv- ice and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Jurisdiction of the Depart- ment of Commerce has been specifical- ly defined to Include certain species, while Jurisdiction is shared In regard
to certain other species. Such species are footnoted in Subpart B of this part, and reference Lb given to special rules of the National Marine Fisheries
Service for those species.
(c) The provisions in this part are in addition to. and are not in lieu of. other regulations of this Subchapter B which may require a permit or pre- scribe additional restrictions or condi- tions for the importation, exportation, and interstate transportation of wild- life.
(d) The examples used in this part are provided solely for the conven- ience of the public, and to explain the Intent and meaning of the regulation to which they refer. They have no legal significance.
(e) Certain of the wildlife and plants listed in §17.11 and §17.12 as endan- gered or threatened are Included In Appendix I. II or III to the Conven- tion on International Trade In Endan- gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The Importation, exportation and reexportation of such species are subject to additional regulations pro vided in Part 23 of this subchapter.
(40 FR 44415, Sept. 26. 1975. as amended al 42 FR 10465. Feb. 22. 1977)
§ 17.3 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions con- tained in Part 10 of this subchapter, and unless the context otherwise re quires, in this Part 17:
"Act" means the Endangered Spe- cies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543. 87 Stat. 884);
"Alaskan Native" means a person de- fined in the Alaska Native Claims Set tlement Act (43 U.S.C. section 1603(b) (85 Stat. 588)) as a citizen of the United States who is of one-fourth degree or more Alaska Indian (includ- ing Tsimshian Indians enrolled or not enrolled in the Metlaktla Indian Com munity). Eskimo, or Aleut blood, or combination thereof. The term in- cludes any Native, as so defined, either or both of whose adoptive parents are not Natives. It also includes, in the ab sence of proof of a minimum blood quantum, any citizen of the United States who is regarded as an Alaska Native by the Native village or town of which he claims to be a member and whose father or mother is (or. if de ceased, was) regarded as Native by any Native village or Native town. Any citi zen enrolled by the Secretary pursu ant to section 5 of the Alaska Native
FWS/l.E ENE /(-REG- 17
(Rev. 10/22/79)
P a e 1 of 4 5
why the applicant la Justified In ob- taining the permit. Including:
(I) The details q’f the activities sought to be authorized by the permit;
<ll) The details of how such activities will be carried out;
(ill) The relationship of such activi- ties to scientific objectives or to objec- tives enhancing the propagation or survival of the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit; and
(iv) The planned disposition of such wildlife upon termination of the activi- ties sought to be authorized.
(b) Issuance criteria. Upon receiving an application completed in accord- ance with paragraph (a) of this sec- tion, the Director will decide whether or not a permit should be issued. In making his decision, the Director shall consider, in addition to the general cri- teria in 5 13.21(b) of this subchapter, the following factors:
(1) Whether the purpose for which the permit is required is adequate to justify removing from the wild or oth- erwise changing the status of the wild- life sought to be covered by the permit:
(2) The probable direct and indirect effect which issuing the permit would have on the wild populations of the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit;
(3) Whether the permit, if issued, would in any way, directly or indirect- ly, conflict with any known program intended to enhance the survival prob- abilities of the population from which the wildlife sought to be covered by the permit was or would be removed:
(4) Whether the purpose for which the permit is required would be likely to reduce the threat of extinction facing the species of wildlife sought to be covered by the permit;
(5) The opinions or views of scien- tists or other persons or organizations having expertise concerning the wild- life or other matters germane to the application; and
(6) Whether the expertise, facilities or other resources available to the ap- plicant appear adequate to successful- ly accomplish the objectives stated in the application.
(c) Permit conditions. In addition to the general conditions set forth in Part 13 of this subchapter, every permit issued under this section shall be subject to the following special con- ditions:
FWS/LE ENF 4-REC-I7
(1) In addition to any reporting re- quirements contained In the permit itself, the permittee shall also submit to the Director a written report of his activities pursuant to the permit. Such report must be postmarked or actually delivered no later than 10 days after completion of the activity.
(2) The death or escape of all living wildlife covered by the permit shall be Immediately reported to the Service's office designated on the permit.
(3) The carcass of any dead wildlife covered by the permit shall be stored in a manner which will preserve its use as a scientific specimen.
(d) Duration oj permits. The dura- tion of permits issued under this sec- tion shall be designated on the face of the permit.
(40 FR 4441S. Sept. 26. 1975. as amended at 41 FR 19226. May 11. 1976)
517.33 | Deleted)
§5 17.31-17.39 Permits. (Reserved)
§ 17.10 Special rules — mammals.
(a) Kangaroo; Eastern Gray ( Macro- pus giganteus). Red ( Megalia ruja), and Western Gray < Macropus fuligino- sus ) — ( 1 ) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions apply to the Eastern Gray, Red and Western Gray kanga- roos:
(I) Import. (A) Except as permitted in paragraph (a)(l)(i)(B) of this sec- tion. or in paragraph (a)(2) of this sec- tion. it shall be unlawful to Import any such wildlife for commercial purposes.
(B) Upon receiving from the Austra- lian Government a certificate that (I) a particular Australian Stale has de- veloped an effective sustained-yield program for such wildlife, and (2) the taking of such wildlife in that State will not be detrimental to the survival of the species or subspecies of which such wildlife is a part, the Director may, consistent with the purposes of the act. permit by publication of a notice in the Federal Recister the commercial importation of any such wildlife originating from that State, upon proof that such wildlife is law- fully taken and exported from that State: Provided, That If the Director determines from all the evidence that a previously certified Australian State no longer maintains an effective sus- tained yield program for such wildlife, he may by regulation prohibit any fur-
ther commercial Importation of such wildlife from that State.
(II) Unlawfully imported kanga- roos. It shall be unlawful. In the course of a commercial activity, to de- liver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce any such wildlife imported unlawfully.
(III) Commercial transactions. It shall be unlawful to sell or offer for sale in Interstate or foreign commerce any such wildlife Imported unlawfully.
(2) Permits. The following permits are available for the Eastern Gray. Red and Western Gray kangaroos:
(I) Economic hardship. (A) The Di- rector may grant permits for the im portation of such wildlife to prevent economic hardship. The provisions of § 17.23 (with the exception of §5 17.23(b)(4), 17.23(b)(8). and
17.23(d)), shall apply to the issuance of such permits. In addition, the re quirements of section 10(b) of the En- dangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539(b)) regarding hardship ex emptions for endangered species shall apply to applications for hardship ex- emptions under this section as If such wildlife were classified "endangered:" and the applicant for an exemption under this section must submit all in- formation required by section 10(b).
(B) The duration of any economic hardship permit issued for such wild- life under this provision will be limited by section 10(b) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as if those species were listed as "endangered" under the act.
(b) Grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horn- bills)— (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions apply to the grizzly bear (i) Taking. (A) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(l)(i) (B) through (F). of this section no person shall take any grizzly bear in the 48 conlermin ous states of the United States.
(B) Grizzly bears may be taken in self-defense, or in defense of others, but any such taking shall be reported in writing to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Division of Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 19183, Wash- ington, D.C. 20036, and to appropriate State officials, within 5 days after it occurs.
(C) Removal of nuisance bears. A grizzly bear constituting a demonstra- ble but non-immedlate threat to human safety, or committing signifi- cant depredations to lawfully present livestock, may be taken, but only if:
(Kev. 10/22/79)
Page 31 of 4
U) It hu not been reasonably possi- ble to eliminate auch threat or depre- dation by live-capturing and releasing unharmed in a reihote area the grizzly bear involved: and
(2) the taking Is done in a humane manner by authorized Federal or State employees; and
(J) the taking is reported in writing to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement. P.O. Box 19183, Washington, D.C. 20036, and to appropriate State offi- cials. within 5 days after it occurs.
(D) Federal or State scientific or re- search activities. Authorized Federal or Slate employees may pursue, cap- ture. or collect grizzly bears for scien- tific or research purposes.
(E) Northwestern Montana. If it is not contrary to the laws and regula- tions of the State of Montana, a person may hunt grizzly bears in the Flathead National Forest, the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, and the Mission Mountains Primitive Area of Montana: Proiuded.That if in any year in question. 25 grizzly bears have al- ready been killed for whatever reason in that part of Montana, including the Flathead National Forest, the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area and the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, which is bounded on the north by the United States-Canadian Border, on the east by U.S. Highway 91. on the south by U.S. Highway 12. and on the west by Montana-Idaho State line, the Director shall post and publish a notice prohibiting such hunting, and any such hunting for the remainder of that year shall be unlawful: Provided further. That any taking of a grizzly bear, for whatever reason, in the above-described portion of Montana shall be reported in writing to the United States Fish and Wildlife Serv- ice, Division of Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 19183, Washington. D.C. 20036. and to the Montana Department of Fish and Game, within 5 days after the taking occurs; and except that any taking on an Indian reservation within the above-described area shall be so re- ported only to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement. P.O. Box 19183, Wash- ington, D.C. 20036.
(F) National Parks. The regulations of the National Park Service shall govern all taking of grizzly bears in National Parks.
(11) Unlawfully taken grizzly bears. (A) Except as provided In paragraph
FWS/LE ENF 4-REG-17
(bXlXUXB) of this section, no person shall possess, deliver, carry, transport, ship, export, or sell grizzly bear taken unlawfully.
(B) Authorized Federal or State era- i ployces may for scientific or research ' purposes possess, deliver, carry, trans- j port, ship, or export unlawfully taken | grizzly bears.
(Ill) Import or export (A) Except as provided in this paragraph (bXlXlIlXA). below, no person shall import any grizzly bear into the United States.
< 7 ) Federal or State scientific or re- search activities. Authorized Federal or State employees may import grizzly bears into the United Slates for scien- tific or research purposes.
(2) Public zoological institutions. Public zoological institutions (see 50 CFR 10.12) may import grizzly bears into the United States.
(B) Except for public zoological in- stitutions (see 50 CFR 10.12). no person shall, in the course of a com- mercial activity, export any grizzly bear from the United States.
(iv) Commercial transactions. (A) Except for public zoological institu- tions (see 50 CFR 10.12), no person shall. In the course of a commercial ac- tivity. deliver, receive, carry, trans- port. or ship in interstate or foreign commerce any grizzly bear.
(B) Except for public zoological in- stitutions (see 50 CFR 10.12) dealing with other public zoological institu- ' lions, no person shall sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any grizzly bear.
(v) Other violations. No person shall attempt to commit, cause to be com- mitted. or solicit another to commit any act prohibited by this paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
' (2) Definitions. As used in para-
graph (b) of this section the term "grizzly bear" means any member of the species. Ursus arctos horribilis of the 48 conterminous states of the United States, including any part, offspring, dead body, part of a dead body, or product of such species.
(c) Primates. (1) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, all provisions of 5 17.31 shall apply to the Lesser slow loris, Nycticebus pyg- maeus; Philippine tarsler. Tarsius syr- ichta; White-footed tamarln. Saguinus leucopus; Black howler monkey. Aloualta pigra; Stumptail macaque. Macaca arctoides; Gelada. Theropithe- cus gelada; Formosan rock macaque.
Macaca cyclopis; Japanese macaque, 1 Macaca fuscata ; Toque macaque. Macaca sinica; Long-tailed langur. Prcsbytis polcnzani; Purple-faced langur. Presbytis senex; Tonkin snub- nosed monkey, Rhinopilhecus avuncu- lus; Pigmy chimpanzee. Pan pamscus. and Chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes.
(2) The prohibitions referred to above do not apply to any live member of such species held In captivity in the United States on the effective date of the final rulemaking, or to the prog- ; eny of such animals, or to the progeny of animals legally imported into the United States after the effective date of the final rulemaking. Provided. That the person wishing to engage in any activity which would otherwise be prohibited must be able to show satis- factory documentary or other evidence as to the captive status of the particu- lar member of the species on the effec- tive date of this rulemaking or that the particular member of the species was born in captivity in the United States after the effective date of this rulemaking. Identification of the par- ticular member to a record in the In- ternational Species Inventory-' System (ISIS), or to a Federal. State or local government permit, shall be deemed to be satisfactory evidence. Records in the form of studbooks or inventories, kept in the normal course of business, shall be acceptable as evidence, pro- vided that a notarized statement is in serted in such record to the effect that:
(i) The records were kept in the normal course of business prior to No vember 18. 1976. and accurately identi- fy (by use of markers. Lags, or other acceptable marking devices) individual animals: or
(ii) That the individual animal tden
tified by the records was born in cap tivity on (Date).
The notarized statement in para- graph (c)(2)(i) of this section, shall be acceptable only if the notarization is dated on or before January 3. 1977. The notarized statement in (c)(2)(ii), of this section, shall be acceptable only if the notarization is dated within 15 days of the date of birth of the ; animal.
! (d) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Min-
, nesota — (1) Zones. For purposes of these regulations, the State of Minne- : sota is divided into the following five ! zones.
(Rev. 10/22/79)
j Page 32 of 45
APPENDIX C
GRIZZLY BEAR POPULATION DENSITY ESTIMATE JUSTIFICATIONS
APPROACH : Several assumptions were made regarding grizzly
bear ecology, habitat use patterns, mortality patterns, and home-range size to estimate current population densities. These assumptions, which we felt would generate reasonable minimum and maximum estimates, are listed below:
1. Existing density estimates could be applied to areas of similar habitat features, food type, mortality patterns, and levels of human activity and encroachment (Zunino and Herrero 1972, Martinka 197^, Pearson 1975, Lortie 1978, Reynolds and Hechtel 1980, Miller and Ballard 1982, Tompa 198k, van Drimmelen 198k).
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 1 980, Aune et al. 198k, Mace 1 985 ). This home-range pattern would help define density unit boundaries .
k. There are several mortality sinks within occupied
habitat and population densities must be adjusted accordingly (Aune et al. 198k).
5. Although the habitat may be excellent, areas of high human activity would reduce a density estimate.
6 . It is not assumed that bears are uniformly spaced throughout a density unit. Rather there are areas of high density and low density. This may result at least partially from the patchy distribution of important components of habitat (Mealey et al. 1976).
RATIONALE BEHIND EACH DENSITY ESTIMATE
Density Unit No. 1 . 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 Cowen (1971) gave
an estimate of 1/13 mi?. Their (USDA 1982) estimated 1/15 mi^ for the area from
21k
fled Meadow Creek north to International border based on instrumented bears and untagged observations.
Dept. FWP Density Estimate: 1/15-1/10 mi2 (14-22 bears)
Unit Size: 215 mi2.
Discussion: It would be illogical to extrapolate the
Martinka (1974) density estimate for Glacier National Park to this area. Furthermore, McLellan's 1984 estimate of 1 per 3-6 mi2 was essentially for floodplain and benchland habitats and could not be directly extrapolated to the U.S. side. McLellan’s area is not as heavily hunted nor as developed as is the U.S. side.
Our density estimate was based on the proximity of this Unit to Glacier National Park (1/8 mi2) and British Columbia (1/3-6 mi2), but lowered to account for mortality and
habitat ifferences.
Density Unit No. 2. Southern Whi tef i sh Range :
Location: fled Meadow Creek south to Columbia Falls, Mt.
Habitat Region 2.
Past Density Estimates: None for this area.
Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/25-1/18 mi2 (18-25 bears)
Unit size: 8 3 1 mi2
Discussion: Grizzlies are much less commonly seen (or
shot) in the area from Red Meadow Creek to the south as compared to the Northern Whitefish (Hadden and Jonkel 1983). These authors reported an average of 5 grizzly bear sightings per year for the period 1 980—1 983 in an area at the southern extreme of the unit. Densities are considered to be less on the west side of the Whitefish Divide than on the east side, and recent sightings collated by Manley (1984) substantiate this. Mealey et al. (1976) graphically showed that the distribution of important grizzly bear habitat components decreased from north to south (Figure 3). Martinka (1971) stated that: "...the habitat within the Park
is more suitable for the grizzly than it is adjacent to the Park, where we find extensive coniferous forests. This appears to be much more suitable habitat for the black bear and the number of grizzlies on those areas is less".
Density Unit No. 3. Glacier National Park :
Location: Glacier National Park, Northwestern Montana.
Habitat Region 2.
Past Density Estimates: Martinka’s (1974) estimate of
1/8 mi2 for a 390 mi2 area within the park extrapolated to the entire Park.
Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/8-1/6 mi2 (193-264 bears)
Unit Size: 1583 mi2.
Discussion: The Department used Martinka’s (1974)
estimate of 1 grizzly per 8 mi2 for the entire Park, but did not feel it appropriate to extrapolate this figure directly to any other place in Montana. This estimate is reasonable
215
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 a unhunted population where human impacts are strictly controlled .
Density Unit No. 4 . South Fork:
Location: From Hungry Horse Feservoir south to Big
Salmon Lake. Swan Mountain Crest east to Continental Divide. Unit includes portion of the Bob Marshall and Great Bear wilderness areas. Habitat Pegion 2.
Past Density Fstimates: Mace and Jonkel (1980) fall
density estimate of 1/10 mi2 for a 128 mi2 study area.
Dept. FWP Kstimate: 1/15-1/10 mi2 (108-160 bears)
Unit Size: 1568 mi2.
Discussion: Mace and Jonkel's (1980) estimate was based
on 1 years data in superior fall habitats, and thus may be considered a seasonal concentration area. A density estimate for this area was recalculated using tagged bears and unmarked grizzly observations for the years 1976 through 1979 for a 228 mi2 study area. We extended this density estimate into the Bob Marshall as far south as Big Salmon Lake. South of this lake the habitat is drier (the Mission Mountains catch all of the moisture) and observations are less. As stated previously, this Unit includes both wilderness and non-wilderness acreage. It seems reasonable to assume that if an estimate of 1/15 mi2 could be made for the non-wilderness portion of the Unit, then densities should be similar in wilderness acreages within the Unit. Additionally, 5 grizzly bears were subtracted from the area inundated by Hungry Horse Reservoir (Pissell 1985). This estimate is similar to the Whitefish Unit which is similar in home range sizes and natural and man-made habitat features.
Density Unit No. 5 : East Front:
Location: West of Continental Divide from Birch Creek
to Sun River. Includes portion of Bob Marshall Wilderness and Sun River Game Preserve. Habitat Regions 3 and 4.
Past Density Estimates: Aune et al. (1983) gave an
average minimum density of 1/16 mi2 for approximately 2/3*s of this Unit.
Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/16-1/12 mi2 (70-93 bears)
Unit Size: 1,119 mi2.
Discussion: The Department used the estimate of Aune
et al. ( 1 984 ) for this Unit. Which extends from the plains to the heads of major drainages on the west side of the Continental Divide. We extrapolated the estimate to include proximate and similar habitat within the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area.
216
o
Density Unit No. 6 . Scapegoat :
Location: Scapegoat Wilderness and southern portion of Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. Habitat Regions 3» 4, and 5.
Past Density Estimates: none. Closest estimate is
1/16 mi2 by Aune et al. ( 1 983).
Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/25-1/18 mi^ (76-106 bears)
Unit Size: 1,903 mi^.
Discussion: There is a general lack of population
information for this area. The Department was reluctant to extrapolate the density estimate of Aune et al. (1984) to this area, although many of the habitat features, and proba- ble food habits are similar. However, inferences from other studies in this area suggest that densities may be lower than areas to the north. Sumner and Craighead (1973) placed 6 horse carcasses in this high country of a 104 mi^ study area. The minimum number of grizzlies visiting the carcasses was 6, 4 of which were 1 family unit. Sumner and
Craighead (1973) also counted tracks seen while hiking wilderness trails between 15 July and 15 September. Five grizzly tracks were seen in 260 miles of trails in the Scapegoat Area, while no grizzly tracks were observed in 95 miles of trails in the southern Bob Marshall Study Area. Mace (1984) observed no grizzly bears nor saw any tracks during a 2-year habitat study in the southern Bob Marshall in a study area of 156 mi'1. There were grizzlies in Mace's study area however, as several diggings were observed near the Swan Crest. There are several problems in using tracks as an index to population density. Craighead and Scaggs (1973) felt that grizzly bears in the Wilderness may have learned to avoid trails frequented by man.
Density Unit No. 7. 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) and Aune et al. (1984).
Dept. FWP Estimate 1/20-1/16 mi^ (16-20 bears)
Unit Size: 323 mi?.
Discussion: Aune and Stivers (1982) consider this area
to be a mortality sink for the East Front population. The Department assumed that this area was potentially the same as the East Front Unit, except for the number of bears suspected to be killed annually in this area. Department personnel observed 7 grizzly bears in this area in 1984 in what was considered the poorer portion of the unit. Aune (pens, comm.) felt that there were undoubtedly other bears not observed at that time.
Density Unit No. 8. St. Marvs:
217
Location: Western edge of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, abutting Glacier National park. Habitat Regions 3 and 4.
Past Density estimate: None for this unit.
Dept. FWP density estimate: 1/20-1/10 mi2 (11-21 bears)
Unit size: 211 mi2
Discussion: Virtually no information is available for
the Blackfeet Reservation. Although it is excellent habitat and is adjacent to Glacier National Park with a density of 1/8 mi2, the Department felt that the Reservation was primarily seasonal habitat for Glacier bears, and not many animals live in the lower elevation sites throughout the year .
Density Unit No. 9. Mission Mountain Core :
Location: Main portion of Mission Mountain Wilderness Area, from the Mission Valley to the Swan River Valley. Northern boundary is Jocko River. Habitat Region 2.
Past Density Fstimate: 1/19 mi2 (Servheen 1 9 8 1 ) based on tagged and untagged observations.
Dept. FWP Fstimate: 1/19-1/15 mi2 (18-22 grizzlies).
Unit Size: 335 mi2.
Discussion: We used Servheen's (1981) estimate of 1/19
based on the minimum estimate for his research.
Density Unit No. 10. 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 Fstimate: Servheen (1981) provided an
estimate of 1/32 mi2 for a small portion of this unit located in this the northern section of the Mission Mountains.
Dept. FWP Fstimate: 1/30-1/20 mi2 (35-52 grizzlies).
Unit Size: 1043 mi2.
Discussion: Servheen’s (1981) estimate for a small
portion of this Unit was felt to be the most appropriate estimate of this large unit. 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 the 12 bears monitored in the South Fork ever went into the Swan Valley (Mace and Jonkel 1980). Thus the estimate of 1/30 for this area represents the number of bears living year-round (except denning). There cannot be many bears living in the northern Missions (near Flathead Lake). If there were, we would see grizzly bears in the cherry orchards. R. Klaver (pers. comm.) reports that black bear problems in the orchards are frequent. We assumed a general lack of grizzly bear movement would take place all along the western and southern boundaries of the Bob
218
Marshall Wilderness Area. Although the riparian zone of the Swan Fiver is excellent habitat, the level of human encroachment is substantial (78? growth in last decade; Lake County Land Services Department 198?).
Density Unit No. 1 1 , Rattlesnake
Location: Northern 2/3's of Rattlesnake Wilderness Area. Habitat Region 5.
Past Density Estimate: 1/80 mi2 by Servheen (1981).
Dept. FWP Estimate: 1/80-1/60 mi2 (6-7 grizzlies).
Unit Size: i»H6 mi2.
Discussion: We used Servheen's (1981) estimate for
this area. There are several recent sightings in the Rattlesnake Wilderness, and there is at least some movement of Mission Core bears into this unit. There is at least limited movement from the Mission core to this area as 1 instrumented female with 1 yearling denned in the northern Rattlesnakes (Servheen 1981). The area is considered a sparsely populated at present.
219
APPENDIX D
Letter mailed to states and provinces.
Helena, MT •>•*020 February 5. 1985
Dear
The Montana Department of Pish, Wildlife and Parks is currently reviewing ita grizzly hear management program under a programmatic FIS process. In order to better define the management options open to us, we would appreciate vour help in answering the following questions.
1. Would your state/province be interested in receiving grirrl\ bears 'row Montana lor re i nt roduct ion lup to ?V year!?
?. Would you be willinq to accept grizzly bears which have caused problems (livestock depredation, campground vbe.ir«. etc. 1 ?
3. Would you be willinq to pay the costs associated with mov i no grizzly bears to your state/province’
t. Does your st at e /prov i nee have any plans to reintroduce grizzly bears into any area’
Tbank you very much for your help. Plea*.* mail your repl- to Arnold Dood. Montana Department o‘ Pish, V. i 1 «•! i ‘ e and parks, Huffman Buildinq, MSt' Campus. Bozeman, MT Sin1..
Sincerely,
Hon Marcoux Associate f'itector
RM/bl 804/2.1 804/7/Ft le
Saskatchewan
Magtes. Canada Mi Oft]
004)8*84130
I
i
mow tton 4m -4i«o
emet of n* mmntoma
Mr. Arnold Dood,
Montana Department of Pish, Wildlife
and Parks, * i
Bay Huffman Building,
M8U Campus,
BOZEMAM, MT. ftftTIS
'j
Dsar Mr. Doodr
I \
Mr. Mareoux* lettar to the for mar Minister, Honourable Bob Pickering, has bean referred to ms far reply.
I
I appreciate your offer of grizzly bears from Montana for re Introduction to the Province. Unfortunately Sadcatchewan has no suitable habitat where grizzlies could ba released without creating conflicts with agriculture. We have, therefore, decided not to reintroduce the frizzly beer.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Maxwell
February 21, 198%
Mr. Arnold Dood
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parka Roy Huffman Building MSU Campus
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Dear Mr. Dood:
This responds to the letter from your department of February 5, 1985, concerning the interest of this state in accepting surplus grizsly bears from Montana. Because Alaska already has a very abundant and healthy brown/grizzly bear popula- tion, the answer to all of the questions posed in your letter is no. If you would be interested in the results of our experiences in translocation of bears, I invite you to contact Dr. Robert Tobey, Area Game Biologist, P.0. Box 47, Glennallen, Alaska 99S88.
On the other hand, we might reconsider our stand in, this matter if Montana were willing to consider a trade of Alaskan wolves for Montana bears. Presumably such an ex- change would be on a pound for pound basis.
3
15 005 OMJ
ARIZONA QAMI
2UJ HU#*-—, foS
A FISH DfPARTMINT •-
(71m. . AS<B 3 ut tax’
March 13, 1915
a
Mr. Hobart D. Brannon, Reaearch Aasietant
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 1 Parka
Wildlife Research Bureau
MSU Campus , Box 5
Bozeman, Montana 59717-0001
Dear Mr. Brannons
Arizona is not ready for grizzly bear transplants nor will we be in the foreseeable future. As I a. sure you are aware, introductions of an animal of this nature would take consider- able planning and public input. In addition. I am not aware of any interest, by our Commission or the public, for the reintro- duction of gristly bears.
Good luck with your mansgement of gristly bears and If 1 can be of any further help please feel free to contact me. If Arizona has any need for gristly beara we will be seeking your advice and counsel.
Sincerely,
BB iBDT : l)t
5 Marr.n
1965
Arnold Dood ,
Montana Department u*
Fish, Wildlife anti Mp.r*s,
Roy ikjffwan Huildlnq,
MSU Campus ,
Bo reman , Mon tan it ,
59715.
Oear Sir:
In response to your letter at February 5, 1965, ue are not Interested In receiving grizzly bear*- from Montana. we reel our grizzly hoar populations are nealthy and ue oo not nave any plans or requirements for inlntrodtictlons.
vours sincerely.
Mr. Arnold Dood
Montana 0«pt. Fl»h, Wildlife and Parks
Roy Huffman Building
MSU Campus
Bozeman . NT
59715
Dear Hr. Dood:
In response to your letter concerning eicess problem grizzly bears from Hontana our policy Is to accept grizzlies from other agencies if.
a) designated release areas with low or nil grizzly populations are available.
b) a maitmum translocation of 500 km.
c) cost of most of the capture and translocat Ion must he borne by *he donor agency, and
d) history of the Individual bear must be reviewed.
Considering the above condit ions, we would evaluate each request to receive a bear independently.
JRG/df
CC: 0. C. Surrendt
v A.
sf
Q.
MOV IQ
March i, 19B5
Nr. Ron Harcoux Aaaoclata Diractor Montana Dopartmant of FI ah. Wildlife i Parks Helena, HT 59520
Filai 0775
received
MAR 2 • “■ %
wimufi
V o
Daar Nr. Marcousi
In rasponsa to your February 5, 1985 Inquiry, regarding the transplant of gristly beara, I am pleased to advise you that at laaat two of our southern-moat regions have shown tentative interest.
Both the Kootenays and the Okanagan regions may accept grlasly bears, which do not hava a human safety record. As the grlasly bear populations in the Kootenay’s are stable or Increasing, re introduction there is not a priority.
Therefor#, they are not in the position to consider costs of translocation.
In the Okanagan region, the area of the Cascades north of Nanning Park may be ear-marked for gristly bear reintroduction but not in the current fiscal year. That region may consider the sharing of expenses.
It is my advice that you contact both regions directly for any possible arrangements In this regard (see contact persons and addresses below).
Yours truly.
/- 1
J.H.C. Walker Oi rector
cc: I. Robertson (Atten: R . Demarch l
105 5th Ave. S. Cranbrook Cranbrook, B.C. VIC 2G2 489-3521 )
1. withler (Atten: Bob Lincoln
1547 Skaha Lake Rd. Penticton, B.C. V2A 7K2 493-8251)
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
April ?. 198$
Nr. Arnold Good
Nontsne 0*pt. of Fish, Wildlife •nd Rirfcs
Roy Huff mtri Building NSU C«*ut Boteman, NT $9715
Door Nr. Oood:
At evidenced by the attached Resolution, the Colorado Olvlston of Wildlife would have to antMor *no* to all four questions on Nr.
Narcoua's Inquiry of Narch 22, I98S.
Sincerely,
' C i.4*7
Robert 0. Hernbrode Terrestrial Wildlife Specialist Terrestrial Wildlife Section
RDHsbc
CC: J. Lipscomb
l« Jnnt} !Mt CM Color*. mint. CovrtHlM Moot* th. following resolution:
RE SOLUTION
MCKAS. the growth of the human population has Im- pinged upon the habitat needed by the grljily bear and the pray (timber) wolf within Colorado, and
MffRCAS, any Introduction of wolves or orlxily bear Into Colorado Is In potential conflict with huntable species of wildlife, the livestock Industry, and the hum
WICREAS, a population of gray (tlnber) wolves or grlaily bear Introduced into Colorado could become a management problem, when not contained within Its desig- nated management area, and
WHEREAS, biological control of big g«e herds through predation is not feasible, and
WHEREAS, the human welfare, and the value of Colo- rado's livestock and wildlife resources Is of considerable Importance.
... !*«'« SE ,T *t**-W0. the Colorado Wild-
life Commission hereby establishes and declares Its oppo- sition to every person or entity which nay now or In the future suggest or plan the Introduction of either the gray or the 9ri|{ ly bear as free-roaming popula- tions within the State of Colorado.
Signed by: Colorado Wildlife Coamhsston
*•" «'! »°"; 0'v«lbl« - yes; HI, bee - yes, Hennedy - yes; MM - yes; Solus • yes; Tool - yes; Fernendei - yes Notion unanimously carried.
As you can see from this resolution our answers to the four questions are HO.
oee«ftTMCNT Of Natumac. ntsouncis d..«i n cwtcn*» t.*c.
Tavotny W Schuttr Ihce OwihikiWicIimi a Sar.alr
W*M» l Radda" M*«tle«.Jl»»o I
• b.'e. ,101. wni our i COMMISSION jm>M C >i«mv Cm
0«J«TAAOIT 08 ASH AND GAME
iW mhm!1
itikon
Oaparbnrnm of Rentable
nooourtma
Bou 77OT. MMtohorae. Yukon VIA 2C« (403) 887-M1 1 Takr* 038-8-280
OvNi »ow rm
J997-1-9
8S 03 18
february J|, ivus
Nr. Arnold Oood
Montana Department of Fiah.
Wtldllf. end Park, hoy Huffman Building NSU C ampul bocaman, NT S»*2o
Arnold Dood
Nontana Department of fish. Wildlife and Parks.
Roy Huffman Building NSU Campus Boieman, Nontana 59715
Dear Wr .
Dood i
Dear Nr.
Dood:
Th. Director a.kad mm to r..pond r. introduction of gricaly bean
to your queit 10 into Cal Uornia.
* -»..«U. nmiia. ru ion lu rant grirely bear, in California. The problem ol man-bear we. the main raaaon we rhow not to ..introduce qri
Current agricultural and recreation activities m til re.uited in high conc.ntret ion. of people grl„,y ,
troi ^ Pr#V#"* V-
A. a .id. not., we haw. had some relocating black beer*. The rat grirrly bear, into California wo concern, a. well «, . haterd to
• aerioua ramific. tonal, m ralocat >uld praa.nt aome public safety.
mg problem
aerioua economi.
Gtkwi luck with tnn pi ep.rat ion and .mol..*.., Crier |y Hear Hana.p-m.-nt plan.
Wildlife Managem-ni Bran t.
- — - ext. >(itt I r i
beers from Nontana, was referred to i
' for reply.
lillll ptlsISHg
Hugh J . i D1 recto/
Fish arf wildlife
CC Brian Pelch.t
85
Panic I
J
DEPARTMENT Of QAME AND R3H
February I), 1)85
Nr. Arnold Dood
Nontene Department of Fish,
Wl 181 1 fa *md Per hi Hoy Huffman build Ing NVi Ceaapul
boieman. Non tana 55715 Dur Nr. Oood:
Thonh you for your lot tor of February 5. I5«S. soliciting information * our ttata't desire Md willingness to accept jrinly bear* Jr
4o not have, nor do we foroiao developing , any plane for ra intro- ! I
Auction of grltxly baart into any arooi of Now Mexico.
I mold Ilka to lug gait that If you have not dona to yot, you night contact Noa I co. They have tone excellent habitat and nay be Interested In developing an Introductory program.
If I can aulit you in any other way plaaia let •» know
Sincerely,
01 rector
cc: till Non toy* j
STATE OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
1 100 Valley Noad P O Boa io*n Hano Nevada Ml JO 0073 <ro7i reeoMO
April t, iggs
Mr. Arnold Dood Monuna Department of Piah, wildlife and Parts Bos M3U
Bote men. MT 597 1 7
Dear Mr. Dood:
7r . ,n> »• «* offer, we do not feel that we have
sufficient habitat In Nevada to support a viable free roaming population of these <mique am mats.
'* *°me question of this M>eeies occurrence in Nevada Nitorieally end it is doubtful that we ever had maybe other than occassional transient piwlies. We eirrently have an estremely limited distribution of black bean as they occur only in a fairly amail area of the Sierra Nevada Mountains between Reno and Lake Tahoe.
Again, we appreciate your offer, but must decline same.
Sincerely,
William A. Wolini Director
WAMimp
ee: Game Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 North 33rd Street / P O Bov 30370 / Lincoln. Nebraska #*503
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF RSH AND GAME #00 South Walnut • Boa »
Boiaa • Idaho • *3707
March 19. 1985
February 12,1986
Arnold Dood
Montana Department of Puh WUdttdfe and Park.
Roy Huffman Building MSU Campus Bosaasan. MT 69716
Dear Mr. Dood:
In reaponaa to Mr Marcoua • Witar of February 5. 1985. concerning our potential interert In griaaly bean In Nebraska, the answrr ie a qualified "No” to each of the four question, which you poeeri
Smoereiy youn.
William J Bailey. Jr AaMant Director
WJB:jb
Hr. Arnold Dood
Montana Department of Fish, Vlldllfe and Parks Boy Huffeen Building Montane State University Caaq>us Bo reman. Montane 59715
Dear w. Dood:
The long-range plans for menagment of grl**|y bear In Idaho ar. quite straight for.ard and siapie. Me Intend to taka care of
hihltlt” th,V. "V# ",*h° *nd *0r'' °° PrOfacf Ing grlrriy
habitat. we will be doing a fair bit of work through th* End.ng.rad Spacl.s Act to beef up anforcMmnt of our grl,„y baar regulation* and Invastlgat. th# distribution and abundance of gr lx* I las In Idaho.
•• .III r.loc.t. gr In 1 1„ ln,l„ Id.ho „„
plan to ralntroduca any from outside the state. We have In th* £!!!* ^l**®*** Pro6 1 am bears from Idaho Into T.iioustone
National Par-h and Into Canada. We will continue to handle soma ' this fashion as c Ircumstances warrant.
problem bear*
Good luck on the EIS.
4
I
>Jl i v-y
Jerry M. Con I ay Olrector
f.CK'AI OWOHIt >NI! Y (MPIOYLN
South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish and Parks
DtvMoa of WIMIf*
Sigurd Anderson Suiting 445 Exst Capitol
PWrre. South Dakota 57501-3185 (60S) 773-3381
February 21, 1985
March 15. 1985
Hr. Arnold Dood Montana Department of Flah, Wildlife and Parka Roy Huffman Building HSU Caapua Bozeman, HT 59715
Dear Mr. Doodi
Mr. Arnold Dood Montana Departaent of F1*h, Wildlife and Parks Roy Huffaan Building MSU Caapus Bozeman, HT 59715
Oear Hr. Dood:
Thia la In reaponae to Mr. Ron Marcoux'a letter of *",w*![* t0 questions in Hr. Ron Harcoux's letter dated February
February 5, 1985 concerning grizzly bear. *3, 198S* >r* •* follows:
To the beat of our knowledge, there la no grizzly bear habitat In Texaa where, if atocked, thia apaclaa would not come into aarloua conflicts with other land uaaa. Therefore, thia Department would not be interacted in acquiring grizzly bear a from Montana or any other atata or province at thia time or in the foreaeeable future. There are no plana to reintroduce grizzly beara into any area of tha atata.
1. No. South Oakota would not be Interested In receiving 2 Mo ** * bear* *rom Montana for re 1 ntroduc 1 1 on .
3. No .
4. No.
I hope this 1 nf oraa 1 1 on helps you.
Sincerely ,
careiy,
fry forty
fries D. travla Executive Director
Ron Fowler
Game Staff Specialist RF/sh
Mr. Arnold Dood
OvM of Fi*. MflldNfo ,od P„t. Roy Huffman Building MSU Campus Bozeman, MT 597 IS
Dear Mr. Dood:
February 21, 1905
Con Harcoua, Associate Director
montane Deportment of Flah. wildlife a Forks
Helens. WT 59620
<■ yD Pwt/J P»c^
Ril'ui*. M*'cWl '•"« •* 5. cooc^oio, ou,
H^ritad four ,nd I coo ,r„, if^o .11 „ by ,imo,y
Dear Hon.-
Thsnk you for your grlssly bear offer, however, Oregon has no plans to reintroduce grlsslys now or In the future. We have enough problems
9
■O MMCMK
(8am4 anti 9Uk Qt/iai/men/
** OOWAtD Of arm
fabruar y 11, IMS
Hr. Arnold bood
Koataaa D*M'ta«(t of Fish, Wildlif* 4 Parka 0S012SS Soy Hut foaa building HSU Cdmpus
Boaawaa, Hoacana 5971 5 Daar Hr. bood:
boa beater baa aakatf that I respond to a lottar written to hio by Son Harcowa, dated February 5, IMS, wherein ba poece fowr queetlone regarding griaaly baar. I will respond to aacb question la tba order In which thay
wara aakad.
1. Would Wyoming ba intaraatad in receiving griaily baar (row Montana (or relntroduct ion (up to 2) a year)? 1 cannot concaiaa of a aituation whara wa would naad to aak Moatana (or griaaly baara (or ra lot roduc t ion purpoaaa. Wa baaa many aituotioaa aach yaar whara griaaly baara ora trappad with tba aaad for tranaplant mg. In racant yaara, wa baaa not auf- farad a abortaga of griaaly baara for tranaplant log, but bava auf farad for plocaa to put thaw. At tba proaant time, wa do not bava any kabitota In Wyoming outaida tba Vallowatona acoayataa whara wa plan to raintrodwea tba griaaly.
2. Would you ba willing to accapt griaaly baara which hova cnuaad problaoa T Wy owing would not ba willing to accapt ao-«allad problow baara. It baa baaa our aaparioaca that whan t ranaplant lag problaw baara, par- ticularly adult baora, wt tranaplant tha problaw with tba baar.
@
lw.
stati or htMhcnx
DEPARTMENT Of GAME 'fc
* w*r. 0M» • nb«a>w bWwykx SBSOfomi • iJtMf nhvw
februsry 22, 1905
*ort Msrcous, Associate Olrector
Hontdng Department of Fish. Wildlife t Psrks
Helena, Hont#n« S96?0
Dear Mr.
Our Director hat referred your letter of February 13 to ««. I appreciate the concerns you and your agency have regarding grizzly bears. We are In- volved in cooperative studies on grizzly bear and cooperate with other agencies through participation on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.
We have no plans to reintroduce grizzly bears in Washington. We have grizzly in the Selkirks and the north Cascades *n minimal nurtiers and feel that natural repopulation will occur if the conditions are present to support the bears.
Sincerely,
3. Would you bu willing to pay tba cotta aaaoctatad with moving griaaly baara to your atatal I prvauwe ny anauar to quvation 1 wakaa ihta guoation moot.
A, boat your atata/provinca hava any plana to ralntroduca griaaly baara into any areal Saa oy raaponaa to question 2.
I bopa tbia lattar baa aufficiantly addraaaad quaationa contained in RJP:cg
Hr, Harcoua'a lattar. If you naad further clarification, plaaaa let wa know.
ASST. CHIEF CAM! WAEOCH
OS: big
CC : bon Dealer
oma MEMORANDUM
Nontaha Department of Fish, Wiujufe t Parks
Tw Arnln Dood Data February 19. 1985
From Ron Harcoux ^1/“^—
*•**••« Telephone Call From Bill Ceer
Uec Thursday. -f^racalvad a call from Bill Gear. Director of Utah’* Wildlife Resources Division, regarding Utah’s position on taking any of *** **i**ly baara. Bill'a response was that "it would take more then an set of Cod for Utah to accapt a ’good' gristly baar, not to mention a problem beer."
1 will continue to keep you informed of any furthar responses we receive in this office.
IM/bfa
c
APPENDIX E1
DRAFT
GUIDELINES FOP DETERMINING GRIZZLY BEAR NUISANCE STATUS AND FOR CONTROLLING NUISANCE GRIZZLY BEARS IN THE NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE AND C ABINET-YAAK GRIZZLY BEAR ECOSYSTEMS
through the interagency cooperation of the MT DEPT. FWP, USFWS, USFS, NPS, BIA, BLM, and Border Grizzly Project, pril 1 , 1 983 , Helena, MT, and reviewed February 23. 1 982 Helena, MT. Modified from the "Guidelines for Management Involving Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Area."
1 This as of draft
document has been revised in 1985 and has not been printed this date. The revised version will be included in the EIS, issued in October, 1985.
226
MT FWP & USFWS Contacts Regarding Grizzly Bear Problems
Montana Department of Fish. Wildlife. 4 Parks. Helena. |
MT Office# |
Home# |
|
Gene Allen, Administrative Wildlife Director |
41)9-2612 |
443-6475 |
|
Erv Kent, Administrator, Law Enforcement |
1)1)9-2452 |
442-8311 |
|
• |
Orv Lewis, Associate Director Kalispell - Region 1 |
449-5656 |
458-5637 |
Tom Hay, Regional Supervisor |
755-5505/5506 |
755-5783 |
|
Louis Kis, Warden Captain |
755-5505 |
257-2951 |
|
Jim Cross, Wildlife Manager Missoula - Region 2 |
755-5505 |
755.4948 |
|
Jim Ford, Regional Supervisor |
721-5808 |
728-7167 |
|
Earle Davis, Warden Captain |
721-5808 |
549-0883 |
|
John Firebaugh, Wildlife Manager Bozeman - Region 3 (Yellowstone Ecosvstem) |
721-5808 |
728-0335 |
|
LeRoy Ellig, Regional Supervisor |
586-5419 |
587-3930 |
|
Ken Greer, Lab Supervisor; Retired |
994-2660 |
586-9213 |
|
Jim Ramsey, Warden Captain |
586-5419 |
586-6779 |
|
o |
Arnold Foss, Regional Game Manager Great Falls - Region 4 |
586-5419 |
587-8625 |
Nels A. Thoreson, Regional Supervisor |
454-3441/3442 |
736-5608 |
|
Robert P. Chesterfield, Warden Captain |
454-3441/3442 |
761-4930 |
|
James L. Mitchell, Wildlife Manager |
454-3441/3442 |
452-9483 |
|
Harley W. Yeager, Information Officer MT FWP Research Laboratory - Bozeman |
454-3441/3442 |
761-0895 |
|
Ken Greer, Lab Supervisor; Retired Dan Palmisciano John Weigand Billings - Region 5 (Yellowstone Ecosystem) |
994-2660 994-2660 994-2660 |
586-9213 |
|
• |
Roger Fliger, Regional Supervisor |
252-4654 |
252-5924 |
Elmer Davis, Warden Captain |
252-4654 |
252-7247 |
|
• |
Charles Eustace, Wildlife Manager Billings Area Office - Billings Bill Rightmire, ADC Supervisor |
252-4654 |
245-2214 |
o |
Chris Servheen, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator |
657-6059/ 243-5372 |
248-5396 |
Wayne G. Brewster, Endangered Species Team Leader |
657-6059 |
248-3045 |
227
U.S. Fish i Wildlife Service ADC District 1
Office#
Home#
Jim Hoover, District Supervisor Columbus, MT
ADC District 1
Carter Niemeyer, District Supervisor East Helena, MT
IrJ-tjsh CffiJjnbjg Fish and Wildlife Branch Ray Demarchi
322-5872 322-5872
227-5711 227-6418
(601) ) 489-3521 (604) 426-7720
SECTION I
Haldellpeg for Determining Grizzly Bear Nuisance Status in the Northern Continental Divide and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Ecosystems.
Grizzly bears must be determined to be a nuisance by specific criteria before they will be controlled. Control must be compatible with Federal and State laws and regulations and in concert with the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan objectives for limiting man-caused grizzly mortality.
A grizzly bear will be determined to be a nuisance if either or all of the following conditions apply:
Condition A , The bear causes significant depredation to lawfully present livestock or uses unnatural food materials (human and livestock foods, garbage, home gardens, or livestock carrion and properly stored game meat in possession of man, etc.) which have been reasonably secured from the bear resulting in habituation of the bear towards people or significant loss of property.
228
Condition B. The bear has displayed aggressive (not defensive) behavior toward man which constitutes a demonstrable immediate or potential threat to human safety and/or a minor human injury resulted from a human/bear encounter.
Condition C. The bear has had an encounter with people resulting in a substantial human injury or loss of human life.
The following are considerations in determining grizzly nuisance status under Condition A.
1. Unnatural foods were reasonably secure from grizzlies.
The following are examples of reasonably secure conditions:
a. Livestock use did not occur in habitat components critically important to grizzlies in time or space; edibles and/or garbage was not dominant (ie. food was canned or in other sealed containers) and edibles and/or garbage was made unavailable (hung out of reach or secured in a solid-sided -bear- proof-structure);
b. Livestock and wildlife carcasses were removed or properly buried so that the material would not reasonably be expected to attract grizzlies.
c. Game meat was hung 100 yards from any camp area;
d. No artificial feeding of grizzlies occurred.
The following are considerations in determining grizzly nuisance status under Condition B:
229
1. The bear has displayed aggression toward man. Sound evidence must be available to establish that the problem bear acted aggressively without provocation (not defensively), and that such behavior constituted a threat to human safety and/or a minor human injury occurred as a result of a nondefensive grizzly attack.
2. If information is insufficient to clearly establish fact 1 under Condition A., the problem grizzly probably should not be determined a nuisance under that condition. If information is insufficient to clearly establish fact 1 under B, the problem grizzly probably should not be determined a nuisance under that condition.
230
SECTION II
Table 1. Guidelines for grizzly Bear Control Action (See Footnotes 1,2,4)
Type of
Grizzly Type of Problem
No Offense Condition A Condition B Condition C
Females Offenses |
1 st |
2nd |
3rd |
1st |
2nd |
1st |
Orphaned Cub*** REL |
REL |
|||||
Cub |
REL* |
REL |
REM** |
REL |
REM |
REM |
Yearling*** |
REL |
REL |
REM |
REL |
REM |
REM |
Subadult*** |
REL |
REL |
REM |
REL |
REM |
REM |
Prime Adult with Young*** |
REL |
REL |
REM |
REL |
REM |
REM |
(Adult) |
(Adult) |
(Adult) |
||||
Old Adult*** |
REL |
REM |
REM |
REM |
||
Old Adult with Young*** |
REL |
REL |
REM |
REL |
REM |
REM |
(Adult) |
(Adult) |
(Adult) |
||||
Males 1 * 3 |
||||||
Orphaned Cub PEL |
||||||
Cub |
PEL |
REL |
REM |
REL |
REM |
REM |
Yearling |
REL |
REM |
REM |
REM |
||
Subadult |
REL |
REM |
REM |
REM |
||
Prime Adult |
REL |
REM |
REM |
REM |
||
Old Adult |
REM |
REM |
REM |
•REL - RELOCATE **REM - REMOVE FROM POPULATION Problem grizzlies that are sick or injured beyond a point where natural recovery is likely will be removed.
•••Cub - Young of the year •••Yearling - 12 to 24 months old
•••Subadult - 24-28 months old or breeding age or conditions •••Ypupg - Cub, yearling, or subadult accompanying mother •••Old - Indicates advanced age and deteriorated physical state, indicates are tooth wear and physical appearance.
1. If a grizzly bear is not determined to be a nuisance
after application of criteria in Section I, no control
action will be initiated.
231
2. After a nuisance bear has been captured during a control action, the decision on where to relocate the bear or whether to kill it must be made within 24 hours of its capture. The relocation must be made as expeditiously as possible after the disposition of the bear is determined. Bears will not be held in a snare but will be immobilized, marked, and placed in an appropriate holding facility.
3. The British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch will accept suitable problem bears (either sex) on a case-by- case basis. Male grizzlies normally considered suitable for relocation under Condition A may also be relocated to British Columbia under particular situations when considered advisable to do so.
4. On-site release may be accomplished if the bear taken is: (a) determined not to be a nuisance bear or; (b) on a first offense when the bear cannot be relocated because of terrain, weather, or inaccessibility to a relocation site. Females with cubs, where relocation is identified in the above table, will be released on-site if relocation is not feasible for previously stated reasons or if the cubs cannot also be caught and relocated with the female. On-site release will not be conducted in developed areas. On-site releases will be accomplished after approval of the land management agency if the release is monitored in such a way to determine its success or failure with respect to bear survival and conflict resolution.
232
SECTION III
RELOCATION PROCEDURE
While guidelines cannot be written to cover every situation, experience has shown that a general sequence of events can be outlined, which, when followed, will enhance efficiency and coordination. The MT FWP Regional Office will be the principal coordination point for all relocations. Once a control action has been determined necessary by application of the guidelines and criteria in Sections I and II, the FWP Regional Office will be notified if not already involved. If the bear is to be killed, the action will be completed by authorized state or federal employees, and the carcass transported to the FWP laboratory in Bozeman for examination and subsequent disposition. If the bear is to be removed and relocated to Canada, FWP will contact the FWO ADC State Supervisor, the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, and/or the ADC District 3 Supervisor in Helena (see page 3). Chris Servheen has the export permit and the ADC District Supervisor has the necessary forms and can execute the relocation to British Columbia. The British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch (see page 3 for list of contacts) will be contacted to obtain approval for relocation.
If the bear is to be relocated in northwest Montana, the FWP Regional Office will contact the other FWP Regional Offices, FWS, and land management agencies and determine the appropriate relocation site from those identified in Section
233
IV. A schematic diagram showing the sequence of notification and the decision process is provided.
The proper selection of a relocation site is dependent upon many factors including age, sex, history of the bear, type of offense, season, distance from capture site, and overall logistics. The rate of successful relocations can be materially affected by the selection of the relocation site. Distance moved appears to be one of the major factors. So bears should be moved as far as possible within the constraints applied by other considerations.
All relocated bears will be lip tattooed and ear-tagged. The information will be recorded on the attached forms (reproduced copies), and forwarded to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for subsequent distribution. All available information should be included to document the relocation, and to aid in future analysis and refinement of procedures.
2 31*
SECTION IV
Identified Relocation Sites U.S. Forest Service
Flathead National Forest
Forest criteria for accepting nuisance grizzly bears:
1. No record of unprovoked encounters with people.
2. In good physical condition and not injured.
3. Repeat offenders will not be approved for relocation.
4. Each bear must be evaluated prior to release.
5. Each bear will be ear tagged and tattooed as a minimum.
6. In most cases, only orphaned cubs and subadult female bears will be accepted from Glacier N.P.
7. Should a bear leave the relocation site, the Regional Supervisor of the Montana Department Fish, Wildlife & Parks will be notified as soon as possible.
8. Bears otherwise meeting requirements 1-5 that have caused livestock depredation on the Lewis and Clark, Helena, or Lolo National Forests may be released to spring range in the South Fork of the Flathead.
During the period May 31 to September 8, bears will be relocated to areas outside the wilderness. Bears may be relocated within the wilderness from March 1 to May 31 and after Labor Day.
235
CHECK LIST FOR PROBLEM BEARS
Ear Tag Radio Frequency
Age Sex
Type of Capture
Location of Release
Distance Moved
Radio Type
Mounted By
v
Offense types:
defending cubs, food, or itself overt attack (pursuit of peopleT^I
cabin break-in_^
cattle molestations_
proximity to people
crop depredation_.
bee hive depredation
repeat offender
Transportation
Drugs used and dosage
Personnel: Capture
Transport
Release_
General nature of animal (docile, aggressive, etc.)
Capture Date Release Date Recorder
Consultations and approval
Remove attractant or cause of problem if possible
Site Location Transportation Specific Restrictions
(T. R.) (Helicopter vs Road) on each site (if any)
Type of Bear Season Unacceptable Unaccept.
Spotted Bear District
1. Slide or Upper Sullivan |
Helicopter |
|
2. Twin Creek Drainage |
Helicopter |
|
3. Sargeant Creek Drainage |
Helicopter |
|
Corporal Creek Drainage |
Helicopter |
|
5. Solider Creek (Tin Basin) |
Road |
|
6. Rock Creek Drainage |
Road |
|
7. Connor Creek Drainage |
Road |
|
8. Bunker Creek Drainage |
Road |
|
9. Upper Trail Creek (via Big Bill Rd.) |
Road |
|
10. Upper South Fork* Hurotrv Horse District |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
1 . Felix Peak |
Helicopter |
|
2. Unawah Mountain |
Helicopter |
|
3. Red Sky Mountain* |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
Jl. Spruce Pt.* |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
5. Hemitite Peak* |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
6. Vinegar Mountain* |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
7. Mt. Bradley* |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
8. Twin Peak* |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
9. Ped Plume Mountain* |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
10. Slippery Bill Mountain |
Helicopter |
|
1 1 . Unawah Creek Drainage |
Road |
|
12. Puzzle Creek |
Road |
238
13. Trapper Bigelow
Foad
■Within Wilderness
Contacts (listed In Order Of Priority)
1. Lloyd Feeseman, District Fanger Office phone - 387-5243
Home phone - 755-8703
2. Tom Holland, Wildlife Biologist Office phone - 387-5243
Home phone - 755-5479
239
Spotted Bear
1. Dave Owen, District Ranger
Office phone - 387-5243 or 755-7311 (Summer)
Home phone - 755-8089
2. Tom Holland, District Biologist
Office phone - 387-5243 or 755-7311 (Summer)
Home phone - 755-5479
Supervisor's Office
1. Bob Hensler
Office phone - 755-5401 Home phone - 755-6813
2. Tom Kovalicky
Office phone - 755-5401 Home phone - 755-5259
3. John Emerson
Office phone - 755-5401 Home phone - 257-5289
Advance approval of the Regional Forester has been received to relocate grizzly bears within wilderness areas. It is our intent that bears be relocated near elk winter habitat in the South Fork where carrion may provide a temporary food source. The exact location can best be determined at the time a bear is captured. Bears may be relocated within the Wilderness from March 1 to May 31 and after Labor Day. Bears will be carefully screened to meet the established requirements.
There are many summer activities with potential for conflict planned near the proposed release sites. The time a bear is ready for release has bearing on potential conflict, so it is essential that the District Ranger be contacted prior to release when the best possible location will be mutually selected.
240
The continued success in relocating grizzly bears is dependent on how well individual bears are evaluated. It is our judgement that bears from Glacier National Park are most often in problem situations because of their interaction with people. In most cases we consider these bears a higher risk for relocation than bears from habitats outside the Park. For this reason, only orphaned cubs and subadult females that meet all the suitability requirements, and which are a "good risk", will be approved for relocation to the Flathead National Forest.
Lewis and Clark National Forest
Forest criteria for accepting nuisance grizzly bears:
1. No grizzly bear which is feeding on dead livestock or is involved in livestock depredations immediately prior to capture will be relocated in any of the designated spring use areas.
?. No grizzly bear involved in cabin depredation will be relocated in any of the designated spring use areas.
3. Grizzly bear captured on the Pocky Mountain Front will normally be relocated west of the Continental Divide.
4. Designated sites will not be available for translocated bears if current use of the area by native grizzlies is known .
5. Grizzly bear will not normally be relocated after October 15 due to heavy dispersed human use associated with big game hunting seasons, a rapid decline in dependable food sources, and the limited amount of time
241
available for an animal to adapt to a new environment prior to denning.
6. Male grizzly bears will be moved at least 70 miles and females and sub-adults at least 30 miles, whenever possible.
7. A maximum of three individual grizzly bears or female- cub groups will be accepted on the Forest during a seasonal use period in a given calendar year.
8. Male grizzly bears will be considered for relocation onto the Lewis and Clark N.F. under the following conditions.
a. The bear has no known history of aggressive behavior towards humans.
b. The bear has no known history of livestock depredation.
c. Approval for relocation of male bears will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
The summer-fall relocation sites were selected to avoid
the more heavily used trails and popular camping areas. An
evaluation of current or expected public recreational use,
forest Service work crew schedules, etc. will be factors to
consider in determining which site is best suited for a
specific relocation effort.
Grizzly bear relocation sites were selected for two seasonal use periods determined by forage availability and accessibility of the area to grizzlies. Spring use areas are those usable by grizzly bears from the time they leave the den until late June when higher elevation habitats become available. Summer-fall use areas will generally be
21*2
considered as those providing the necessary habitat requirements for grizzlies during the period July 1 to October 15.
2k3
Spring Pel ease Sites (April 1 - June 30)
Location Transportation Specific Restrictions (T. P.) (Helicopter v Road) on each site (if any)
Type of Bear Season Unacceptable Unaccept.
1 . Nineroile Park*
2. Pay Creek Trail*
3. Dryden Creek*
4. Two Shacks Flat*
5. Prairie Creek*
6. V. Fork Sun Piver* 21N,11W, S. ?2
7. Grassy Hills* 18N, 8W, S. 31
25N,10W, S. 33 & 34 Helicopter 24N.10W, S. 19 & 30 Helicopter 24N,10W, S. 33 & 34 Helicopter 23N.10W, S. 27 & 28 Helicopter 21N,10W, S. 6 & 7 Helicopter
Helicopter Helicopter
5/31-9/8
5/31-9/8
5/31-9/8
5/31-9/8
5/31-9/8
5/31-9/8
5/31-9/8
Summer-Fall Release Sites
Location Transportation Specific Restrictions
R.) (Helicopter v Poad) on each site (if any)
Type of Bear |
Season |
||||||
Unacceptable |
Unaccept |
||||||
1. Goat Ridge* |
23N.11W, |
s. |
5 |
& 8 |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
|
2. Grizzly Gulch* |
22N, 1 1W, |
s. |
16 |
& 21 |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
|
3. Pine Creek* |
22N, 1 2W, |
s. |
27 |
& 34 |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
|
4. Blind Fork* |
21N, 12W, |
s. |
23 |
& 26 |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
|
5. Flint Mtn* |
18N, 10W, |
s. |
8 |
& 9 |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
|
6. Scapegoat Mtn* |
— * OO 25 «• O |
s. |
13, |
14,15 |
Helicopter |
5/31-9/8 |
* Inside Wilderness — No bears will be relocated to the Lewis & Clark N.F. during summer months because all release sites are in wilderness areas.
Contacts — - — Lewis &. Clark N.F. (Listed in Order of Priority)
1. Lloyd Swanger, District Ranger, Rocky Mt District, Choteau Office phone: 466-5771
Home phone: 466-5625
2. Lewis Young, Wildlife Biologist, Rocky Mt. District, Choteau Office phone: 466-5771
Home phone: 466-2877
244
3
3. Roger Evans, Wildlife Biologist, Supervisor’s Office, Great Falls
Office phone: 727-0901
Home phone: 452-600*1
4. Mike Goggins, P a n g e / W i 1 d 1 i f e / F e c r e a t i on Staff Officer, Supervisor’s Office, Great Falls.
Office phone: 727-0901
5. Dale Gorman, Forest Supervisor, Great Falls Office phone: 727-0901
Home phone: 453-0719
245
SECTION III
Identified Relocation Sites U.S. Forest Service
Helena National Forest
Forest criteria for accepting nuisance grizzly bears:
1. Bears may not be located within wilderness between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
?. Male bears must be sub-adult or younger in view of Forest Service recent experience.
3. No stock killing bears (cattle or sheep) will be accepted due to sensitive nature of stock-depredation in past years.
• AH bears will be equipped with radio collars and monitored through the first hibernating season by MDFWP.
5. A maximum of one (1) bear per year will be accepted in the Scapegoat Wilderness.
Site Location Transportation Specific Restrictions
(T. R. S.) (Helicopter vs Road) on each site (if any)
Type of Bear Season Unacceptable Unaccept.
1. Crow Peak* 1 7N,9W,S.9, 10, 1 1 Helicopter Seeabove 5/31-9/8
(Note: This siteinvolvesLolo, Helena, and Lewis &ClarkNational Forests)
2. Mineral 16N, 10W,S.7&18 Helicopter See above 5/31-9/8
Hill* (Note: This site involves Lolo and Helena National Forests)
•Within wilderness
Contacts - Helena National Forest (listed in order of priority)
1. Jim Mershon, District Ranger
Office phone: 362-4265
Home phone: 362-4518
2. Wayne Worthington, Forest Wildlife Staff
Office phone: 449-5083
Home phone: 4113-3559
3. Nike Goodson, Forest Wildlife Biologist
Office phone: 449-5082
Home phone:
246
1*. Robert S. Gibson, Forest Supervisor Office phone: 1*1(9-5203
Home phone: 1*1*2-1*886
Identified Relocation Sites
Logo. National Forest
Forest criteria for accepting bears:
1. The Youngs Peak area is the forest’s first priority area. Second priority is Mt. Headley, and the third is Lake Elsina.
2. No condition B. or C. bears.
3. Male grizzlies may be accepted as provided below.
Site Location
(T. R. )
1. Youngs Peak 17N, 13W
2. Mt. Headley 23N, 29W
3. Lake Elsina 17N, 17W
Transportation (Helicopter vs Road)
Helicopter/Road
Helicopter/Road
Helicopter/Road
Specific Restrictions on each site (if any) Type of Bear Season Unacceptable Unaccept.
M-old adult F-old adult None
F-old adult F-old adult None w/ young F-prime adult w/ young M-prime adult M-old adult
F-old adult F-old adult
w/young None M-all categories
Footnote - Livestock killing bears are not desired since all sites are adjacent to livestock grazing areas.
Contacts - Lolo National Forest (listed in order of priority)
(use prefix 585 for FTS)
1. Orville Daniels, Forest Supervisor
Office phone: 329-3563
Home phone: 728-1(268
2. Chuck Spoon, Program Officer for Resources
Office phone: 329-3569
Home phone: 251-2065
24 7
3. Greg Munther, Fisheries Biologist
Office phone: 329-3567
Home phone: 728-7083
4. Mike Hillis, Wildlife Biologist
Office phone: 329-3575
Home phone: 777-3967
5. Jerry Delbert, Wildlife Biologist
Office phone: 826-3821
Home phone: 826-3820
248
SECTION III (cont) Identified Relocation Sites
Kootenai National Forest
Grizzly bear habitat on the Kootenai shares a great deal of edge with man and his developments. This "interface" and the sensitivity of managing grizzly bears on the Forest make it imperative that relocated bears not get into conflicts with humans. If a conflict with a relocated bear occurs it could seriously jeopardize any future reloca- tions because many in the general public already perceive grizzly management as a liability or threat to their free use and development of the Forest.
The following criteria are designed to ensure the lowest probability of a grizzly-human conflict with a relocated grizzly. The criteria were formulated in close coordination with the Districts.
Kootenai Forest Criteria for Relocating Grizzly Bears
A. Behavior:
1 . No history of unprovoked attack on humans.
2. Livestock predation is an undesirable trait, but bears with a history of predation will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
3. No history of dependence or continued association with garbage dumps, refuse pits, or other unnatural food source.
4. No "repeat offenders" from any area.
5. Relocatable bears originating in Glacier Park pose a potentially more controversial situation. Due to the sensitivity of relocating bears on the Kootenai, only subadult females, orphaned cubs, and yearlings from Glacier Park will be considered acceptable for initial relocation efforts on the Kootenai.
B. Sex. Age. Physical Condition:
1. Only bears that are uninjured and in good physical condition will be accepted.
2. Age and sex will be ranked in the following priority:
a. Orphaned cubs and yearlings - any sex
b. Subadult females e. Adult females
d. Subadult males, case-by-case only
e. No adult males will be accepted
2H9
Kootenai National Forest Relocation Sites (listed bv priority)*
Site
4 general geographical Areas
Location Transportation Specific restrictions
i-Tj. R, S.»«) (Helicopter vs. Road) on each site (if any)
Type of bear Season Unacceptable Unaccept
Troy Ranger District
Sawtooth Mtn. (S. Fk. of Ross Cr.) |
?8N,34W,S.27 |
Helicopter |
No specific beyond orig. |
restrictions criteria. |
|
N. Fk. Ross Creek |
28N,3ltW,S.U |
Helicopter |
ft |
ft |
|
Upper Dry Creek |
27N,34W,S.2 |
Helicopter |
ft |
ft |
|
Cabinet Ranger District |
|||||
Upper F. Fk. Blue Creek (Billiard Table Mtn.) |
28N,3J»W,S.33 |
Helicopter |
If |
ft |
|
Upper Cateract Creek (Vermilion River) |
24N,30W,S.22 |
Helicopter |
tt |
ft |
|
Yaak Ranger District |
|||||
Upper Caribou Creek |
37N,30W,S.18 |
Helicopter/Road |
n |
n |
|
Murphy Lake Ramrer District |
|||||
Upper Lewis Creek |
36N,2*W,S.8 |
Helicopter/Road |
f» |
ft |
|
Upper Williams Creek |
35N,25W,S.1 |
Helieopter/Road |
f? |
tt |
|
Upper Snowslide Creek |
37N,2HW,S.22 |
Helicopter/Road |
ft |
ft |
|
Upper Blue Sky Creek |
36N,2HW,S.28 |
Helicopter/Road |
it |
tt |
|
Rexford Ranker District |
|||||
Boulder Lakes - Boulder Mountain |
35N,30W,S.2 |
Helicopter |
ft |
ft |
|
•At present time, the Cabinet Wilderness accepting relocations. The controversy Chicago Peak precludes relocating bears |
is not proposed as a candidate for surrounding the exploration near in the wilderness at this time. |
••Sections are approximate — will be dictated by helicopter landing sites, weather, etc.
?50
Conditions. Limitations
A. For the present time a maximum of two relocations a year will be accepted. This may include the relocation of more than one bear at a time if they are considered a "family unit," such as a female with cub(s).
B. All bears relocated to the Kootenai can, potentially,
provide valuable management information if their move- ments can be monitored. All bears relocated to the Kootenai will, therefore, be radio-collared and their movements monitored. Other markings will be limited to what is considered necessary by MDFWP and Kootenai Forest.
Contacts - Kootenai National Forest (listed in order of priority)
1. Alan Christensen, Forest Wildlife Biologist
Office phone: 293-6211, ext. 28H
Home phone: 293-8287
2. Chuck Brooks, Resources Staff
Office phone: 293-6211, ext. 313
Home phone: 293-9858
3. Bill Morden, Supervisor
Office phone: 293-6211, ext. 2M
Home phone: 293-9038
SECTION III (cont) Identified Relocation Sites
Glacier National Park
No release sites available.
Bureau of Land Management No release sites available.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Flathead Indian Reservation: no release sites available.
Blackfeet Indian Reservation: no release sites available.
251
APPFNDIX F
COMPAPISON OF WILDLIFE SPFCIES BY STATEWIDE PRIORITY , * WILDLIFE DIVISION EXPENDITURES (FY82), AND HUNTING RECREATION DAYS
(Arith.) Priority Ranking |
Rank By Expenditure |
Rank By Hunting Davs |
No. Hunting Days (1980) |
f of Davs |
|
Mule Deer |
1 |
2 |
2 |
551,262 |
26.00 |
Whitetail Deer |
3 |
3 |
3 |
259,418 |
12.00 |
Elk |
2 |
1 |
1 |
566,659 |
26.00 |
Antelope |
4 |
6 |
9 |
32,208 |
1.50 |
Bighorn Sheep |
5 |
8 |
12 |
2,904 |
0.10 |
Mountain Goats |
6 |
13 |
13 |
1,695 |
0.05 |
Prairie Grouse |
7 |
9 |
8 |
91,045 |
4.00 |
Pheasants-Huns- Chukers |
8 |
7 |
6 |
148,852 |
7.00 |
Black Bear |
9 |
12 |
5 |
150,116 |
7.00 |
Waterfowl |
10 |
4 |
4 |
228,814 |
11.00 |
Moose |
11 |
16 |
11 |
3,150 |
0.10 |
Mountain Grouse |
12 |
15 |
7 |
113,725 |
5.00 |
Grizzly |
13 |
11 |
|||
Furbearers |
14 |
5 |
|||
Bobcat |
15 |
||||
Endangered Species |
16 |
17 |
|||
Turkey |
17 |
18 |
10 |
10,288 |
0.40 |
Nongame |
18 |
10 |
|||
Mountain Lion |
19 |
14 |
|||
2,160,136 days |
|||||
•Priority is "arithmatic" average of regional priorities, represent true state priority. |
This may not |
252
APPENDIX G
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
The following general management guidelines are applicable coordination measures that will be considered when evaluating the effects of existing and proposed human activities in identified seasonally important habitats for a variety of wildlife species.
1. Identify and evaluate for each project proposal the cumulative effects of all activities, both existing uses and other planned projects. Potential site specific effects of the project being analyzed are a part of the cumulative effects evaluation which will apply to all lands within a designated biological unit. A biological unit is an area of land which is ecologically similar and includes all of the year-long habitat requirements for a sub-population of one or more selected wildlife species.
2. Avoid human activities or combinations of activities on seasonally important wildlife habitats which may result in an adverse impact on the species or reduce the habitat effectiveness .
3. Space concurrently active seismographic lines at least nine (9) air miles apart to allow an undisturbed corridor into which wildlife can move when displaced (Olson, 0., 1981). One line survey crew may be allowed to work between active lines in order to reduce the total time of activity in any one area.
1f. Establish helicopter flight patterns of not more than one-half (.5) mile in width along all seismographic lines,
253
between landing zones and the lines, and between landing zones and other operations, unless flying conditions dictate deviations due to safety factors.
5. Because helicopters produce a more pronounced behavioral reaction by big game and raptors than do fixed- wing aircraft, helicopters will maintain a minimum altitude of 600 feet (18? meters) above ground level when flying between landing zones and work areas where landing zones are not located on seismic lines, unless species, specific guidelines recommend otherwise (Hinman, H., 1 9 7 ; McCourt, K.H., et al., 1 9 7 ^ ; Klein, D.P., 1 973; Miller, F . L, . , and A. Gunn, 1979).
6. Designate landing zones for helicopters in areas where helicopter traffic and associated human disturbances will have the minimum impact on wildlife populations. Adequate visual and/or topographic barriers should be located between landing zones and occupied seasonal-use areas.
7. The use of helicopters instead of new road construction to accomplish energy exploration and development is encouraged .
8. Base road construction proposals on a completed transportation plan which considers important wildlife habitat components and season-use areas in relation to road location, construction period, road standards, seasons of heavy vehicle use, road management requirements, etc.
9. Use minimum road and site construction specifications based on projected transportation needs. Schedule
25*»
construction times to avoid seasonal-use periods for wildlife as designated in the species specific guidelines.
10. Locate roads, drill sites, landing zones, etc., to avoid important wildlife habitat components based on a site specific evaluation.
11. Insert "dog-legs" or visual barriers on pipelines and roads built through dense vegetative cover areas to prevent straight corridors exceeding one-fourth ( 1 / 1») mile where vegetation has been removed (Stubbs, C.W., and P.J. Markham, 1979) .
12. Poads which are not compatible with area management objectives and are no longer needed for the purpose for which they were built will be closed and reclaimed. Native plan species will be used whenever possible to provide proper watershed protection on disturbed areas. Wildlife forage and/or cover species will be utilized in rehabilitation projects where deemed appropriate.
13. Keep roads which are in use during oil and gas exploration and development activity closed to unauthorized use. Place locked gates and/or road guards at strategic locations to deter unauthorized use when activities are occurring on key seasonal ranges.
1M. Impose seasonal closures and/or vehicle restrictions based on wildlife or other resource needs on roads which remain open.
15. Bus crews to and from drill sites to reduce activity levels on roads. Shift changes should be scheduled to avoid morning and evening wildlife feeding periods.
255
16. Keep noise levels at a minimum by muffling such things as engines, generators and energy production facilities.
17. Prohibit dogs during work periods.
18. Prohibit firearms during work periods or in vehicles traveling to and from work locations.
19. Seismographic and exploration companies should keep a daily log of activities. Items such as shift changes, shut down/start up times, major changes in noises or activity levels, and the location on the line where seismic crews are working should be recorded.
256
w
Appendix H
SPKCIFIC GRIZZLY PEAR GUIDELINES All previously mentioned "general management guidelines" are applicable coordination measures that should be considered when evaluating human activities in grizzly bear habitat. The following are additional species specific guidelines .
1. Avoid human activities in identified grizzly bear habitat constituent elements or portions of constituent elements containing specific habitat values during the following seasonal-use periods (see data summarization):
A. Spring habitat (concentrated use areas). .Apr 1-June 30
P. Breeding Areas ...May 1-July 15
(Currently identified breeding areas include upper Muddy Creek, the head of Pinkers Creek, the Ear Mountain area, and the head of North Fork Dupuyer Creek.)
C. Alpine feeding sites July 1-Sept 15
D. Subalpine f ir/ whitebark pine habitat types. .Aug 1-Nov
30
E. Denning habitat ....Oct 15-Apr 15
2. Avoid human activities in grizzly bear habitat components which provide important food sources during spring and early summer (April 1 - July 15). These habitat components include riparian shrub types, Populus stands, wet meadows, sidehill parks, and avalanche chutes. Maintain an undisturbed zone of at least 1/2 mile between activities and the edge of these habitat components where many important bear foods occur.
257
3. Establish flight patterns in advance when activities require the use of helicopters. Flight patterns should be located to avoid seasonally important grizzly bear habitat constituent elements and habitat components during the designated seasonal use periods.
4. No seismic or exploratory drilling activities should be conducted within a minimum of one mile of den sites during the October 15 - April 15 period (Reynolds, P. F., et al., 1983) .
5. Seismic permits should include a clause providing for cancellation or temporary cessation of activities, if necessary, to prevent grizzly/human conflicts.
6. Scheduling of well drilling on adjacent sites, within important grizzly bear use areas, should be staggered to provide a disturbance free area for displaced bears.
7. Pipeline construction required for the development of a gas or oil field should be condensed into the shortest time frame possible and subject to seasonal restrictions when conducted in important grizzly bear habitat.
8. Field operation centers associated with seismic or oil/gas exploration activities should be placed carefully to avoid seasonally important habitat components or constituent elements. Such placement of sites is necessary in order to avoid direct or potential conflicts between man and grizzly bear.
9. Retain frequent dense cover areas adjacent to roads for travel corridors and security cover necessary to protect
258
important habitat components. Three sight distances are desirable to provide visual security for grizzlies. A sight distance is the average distance at which a grizzly or other large animal is essentially hidden from the view of an observer by vegetation cover. The same security cover guidelines also apply to timber harvest units.
10. No off-duty work camps will be allowed within occupied seasonally important constituent elements.
11. Incinerate garbage daily or store in bear-proof containers and remove to local landfill dumps daily.
12. Commercial activities permitted on public land should be planned and coordinated to avoid conflicts with grizzly bear trapping operations being conducted under the monitoring program. General public use of areas where trapping operations are active will be controlled through appropriate administrative actions by the agencies involved.
The following are grizzly bear management guidelines specifically oriented toward livestock grazing:
1. Livestock grazing on important spring habitat for grizzly bears should be deferred until after July 1.
2. Boneyards and livestock dumps are prevalent along the east front and are frequented by grizzly bears. Ranchers and landowners should be encouraged to place carcasses of dead livestock and garbage on remote areas of their land. Dead cows and calves should be hauled a considerable distance from calving grounds to discourage bears from feeding on carrion and newborn calves.
3. Sheep grazing allotments in management situation No. 1, as defined in the Yellowstone Guidelines, on lands administered by government agencies should be eliminated.
*1. In riparian habitats that receive high amounts of bear use, fencing to exclude livestock grazing and trampling may be necessary where livestock turn-out dates prior to July 1 are allowed.
260
iff -5
IN REPLY REFER TO:
FA/SE/Grizzly Bear, IGBC
APPENDIX i
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
MAILING ADDRESS STREET LOCATION:
Poll Office Box 25486 131 Union Bind.
Denver Federal Center Lakewood. Colorado 80228
Denver, Colorado 80225
MAY j 0 1984
INTERAGENCY GRIZZLY BEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS, INVITEES, SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMEN, ET AL .
Enclosed is a copy of our Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that has been signed by all parties, I want to thank everyone for their part in getting it -signed. The Governors' signatures on this MOA exemplify the importance of the document and the IGBC.
I strongly encourage all members to personally participate and remain active in IGBC affairs so that we can meet our responsibility of attaining the objectives established in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan.
Enclosure
Galen L. Buterbaugh Chairman, IGBC
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND STATES OF IDAHO, MONTANA,
WYOMING, AND WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT TO REVISE AND EXPAND THE INTERAGENCY GRIZZLY PEAR COMMITTEE
A . Need ;
The grizzly bear is listed as a threatened species in the 8 conterminous States under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. To achieve the recovery of the grizzly bear, it is necessary that all Federal and State agencies with responsibilities for this species coordinate their management and research actions to the greatest extent possible to insure the best utilization of available resources and prevent duplication of effort.
To attain the objectives established by the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service), the United States Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs), and the States of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Washington find it in the best interest of the grizzly bear to revise and expand the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) established in April 1983.
B. Organization;
Members
3 Regional Foresters, USDA Forest Service 1 Regional Director, National Park Service 1 Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Director, Montana, Bureau of Land Management 1 State of Idaho Representative )
1 State of Montana Representative ) Named by
1 State of Wyoming Representative ) Appropriate Governor
1 State of Washington Representative )
Advisor
Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Invitees
In addition to the members specified above, the following parties involved with the grizzly bear management and research in the State of Washington may participate in the committee and attend committee meetings; Regional Forester, National Park Service Regional Director, and the Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director. The Bureau of Indian Affairs Area Directors from Portland, Oregon and Billings,
262
*
Montana; and representatives from the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta also are invitees to committee and subcommittee meetings.
Subcommittees
Yellowstone Ecosystem
National Park Superintendents (2)
National Forest Supervisors (5)
State Representatives from Wyoming, Montana and Idaho U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Representatives (2)
Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem National Park Superintendent (1)
National Forest Supervisors (5)
State Representative from Montana
D.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Representative (1)
Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or Tribal Representative from each Indian Reservation (2)
Bureau of Land Management Representative, Montana (1) Canadian Representatives
Northwest Fcosystems
National Park Superintendent (1)
National Forest Supervisors (5-7)
State Representatives from Montana, Idaho and Washington D.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Representatives (2) Canadian Representative
Research
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Representative D.S. Forest Service Representative National Park Service Representative States of Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming Representatives
Bureau of Indian Affairs and/or Tribal Representative ( s) Bureau of Land Management Representative Canadian Representatives
(Existing Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team to continue under Research Subcommittee.)
C . IGBC Operation ;
1. Chairmanship of the IGBC shall rotate among represen- tatives with the chairman serving a 2-year term, begin- ning with the representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Chairmen of the Research Subcommittee and Yellowstone, Northern Continental Divide and North- west Ecosystems Subcommittees will be elected by by Subcommittee members for 2- year terms.
2. Meet a minimum of twice per year, with additional meetings as needed and agreed to by majority of Committee .
263
D. IGBC Committee Responsibilities:
1. Implement the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, and all management and research activities necessary to provide for recovery of the grizzly bear.
2. Make provision for implementation of approved actions.
3. Guide and plan research direction.
4. Evaluate implementing activities to determine the effectiveness of achieving recovery plan objectives.
5. Take appropriate action under existing authority where necessary and make joint recommendations to Federal agency heads and States.
6. Review and approve or disapprove actions proposed by Subcommittees .
E. Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. Yellowstone
Ecosystem f and Northwest Ecosystems Subcommittee
Responsibilities:
1. Implement management actions in a coordinated fashion.
2. Propose management policy to the IGBC.
3. Establish necessary task forces to implement approved actions when necessary (i.e,, law enforcement, information and education, improvements).
4. Identify research needs and financial needs for
management and submit to the IGBC.
5. Report to IGBC on progress concerning management
actions necessary for grizzly bear recovery.
F . Research Subcommit tee Responsibilities :
1. Identify and propose needed research programs to the IGBC as directed by the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan.
2. Coordinate and direct needed research activities
approved by IGBC.
3. Review and develop research plans to assure that they
adequately address research needs and that the
objectives, methods, analyses, timetables, and budgets are valid and realistic.
4. Establish ad hoc task forces to examine and report on special topics as approved by IGBC.
264
5.
Peview research findings and reports for scientific validity and make recommendations to IGBC on their adequacy or relevance for assisting management decisions. Circulate these reports for peer review when necessary.
i
265
4
/V c
n
7ojTTT:&- Crowell, Jr
U\S-; Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary fof Natural Re'scurces arjd Environment
G. Ray Arnett
U.S/~-Q€^artiT}&ntl^yf the Interior Assistant^5ecfiTary foT~f>sti fdl ife and Parks \
/Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary - Land, (jrnckl^ateF Resources
-^—^rtrrre^ E. Carruthers
U.S. Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
DLXAgS^-^ohn V. Evans
Ted Schwinden
Date—vJ
5^ L>c £? Date
2-6-84
Date
Date
ATTACHMENTS
267
Attachment 1
TRACKS
COLOR
Hind foot tracks of bears seldom show claw marks, and front tracks of black bears seldom show claw marks, but when they are evident, length of front foot claw marks from toe pads can help distinguish grizzly from black bears Claws of adult grizzlies are rarely less than 1 34 " long Claws of black bears seldom exceed 1 Vi *.
Griuly front foot Black
Color of both black and grizzly bears may range from light brown (blonde) to very dark black. Color is not an indicator of the species. Many grizzlies have light-tipped hairs which gives them a distlc- tlve sheen, and the nickname “silvertip".
PELT QUALITY In spring when bears emerge from hibernation their pelts are prime for tanning. As they begin to shed they rub away patches of old hair and the pelts are no
HUNTER
WHAT KIND OF BEAR IS THIS?
Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks
It is not always easy to distinguish between the black and grizzly bears. Color and size are not de- pendable criteria, so other features must be looked for.
If you are hunting black bears in an area that may be inhabited by grizzlies, take your time and be sure what you're shooting at. Better to pass a shot at a black bear than kill a grizzly.
10 000 copies ol this public document *•>''* published it an estimated cost of * 013 pei copy, for a total cost of *400 00 Which includes JJOOOO lo» printing and J tOO 00 for distribution
AIDS TO IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES
1. No prominent shoulder hump. Highest point of body is the back.
2. In profile muzzle is straight and long. Frontally, head and face appear round.
3. Claws dark, much shor- ter and more curved than grizzly claws.
1. Highest point of back is a muscular hump over the front shoulders.
2. In profile distinct brow gives “dished" look to face. The brow is not as well de- fined in yearlings.
3. Front claws are long, very prominent, and often light colored. Can some- times be observed from great distances.
^0^ Occupied Grizzly Habitat National Park National Forest
greater
yellowstone
area
In the Greater Yellowstone area, all things — including bears and people — function together The area includes portions of 5 National Forests and 2 National Parks in Montana Wyoming, and Idaho Although Yellowstone National Park is considered the heart of grizzly country, the bears roam throughout the area.
Contact a National Park or Forest Ranger or a State Conservation Officer about current bear activity in the areas you plan to visit.
r
Understanding Grizzlies can reduce your chances for conflict and help conserve the bears
The Grizzly has a low reproductive capacity because (i) females may not breed until f^8 years old. and (2) females take care of their cubs for 2-3 years, during which time no other young are produced. If too many Grizzlies are killed the bear population will decrease and may face extinction
Grizzly bears are very powerful and possess a tremendous sense of smell, good hearing, but poor eyesight A Grizzly learns quickly and has a good memory
Bears are attracted to human foods which offer a powerful reward" They can develop a bad habit after only one reward Bears that do obtain human food or garbage may lose their fear of people and become a danger When the behavior of wild bears has been corrupted by obtaining human foods, they oftentimes have to be destroyed to protect the visitors
Preventing bear-human conflicts is the key. Storing your food properly is the best way you can help yourself and the Grizzly while in the Greater Yellowstone Area Don't let your carelessness cause the unnecessary death of a bear
(
MO T too M3
Attachment
WELCOME to the Greater Yellowstone Area a unique and special place Here is one of the last homes of the magni- ficent Grizzly Bear a vanishing symbol of our natural heritage.
Grizzlies once ranged throughout most of the western United States Today fewer than 1.000 grizzly bears survive m the wild areas of Montana. Wyoming, and Idaho
The grizzly is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a THREATENED spec.es - one which may become Endangered unless conservation measures are carried out that minimize bear-human conflicts.
The Greater Yellowstone Area makes up a large and essen- tial part of the grizzly's remaining habitat.
All bears are powerful and potentially dangerous, yet you can enioy this area, provide for your personal safety and usually prevent bear-human conflicts by taking a few precautions.
No matter where you are in Grizzly country
REMEMBER . . .
• Food and odor attract bears
• Bears don't like surprises
• Bears are wild animals
■ Keep a clean camp and store food and garbage properly at all times Store food in your car trunk if available Other wise, place food in a bag. backpack, or pannier and hang from a tree branch at least 10 feet above ground and 4 feet out from the tree trunk Do not store food in tents.
■ Deposit garbage in bear-proof containers where available or pack it out. Never bury it.
■ Avoid cooking smelly or greasy foods Sleep some dis- tance uphill from your cooking area and food storage site Keep sleeping bags and personal gear clean and free of food odor Don't sleep in the same clothes you wore while cooking.
■ Store odorous products as though they were food Don't use perfumes or deodorants Women may choose to stay out of bear country during their menstrual period
■ Where hunting is permitted, keep game meat out of reach of bears. Dispose of fish entrails by puncturing the air bladder and dropping m deep water where it will de- compose naturally
■ Horse pellets should be stored the same as food
Bears don’t like
SURPRISES!!!
Use caution where visibility or hearing is limited Make your presence known to bears by singing, talking, wearing bells, or making other noises. Travel in groups. Do not hike after dark
Be alert If you notice bears, dead animats, or bear signs such as tracks, droppings or diggings, choose another area.
Dogs can disturb a bear and lead it back to you If dogs are permitted in the area don't allow your dog to run free
Bears are
WILD
animals
Bears usually avoid people, but their responses are un predictable. A female may be quickly provoked if her cubs are disturbed or if you come between the cubs and her
If you spot a bear — but it doesn't see you — avoid it by quickly and quietly leaving the area.
e
Attachment 2 Continued
BLACK BEAR
1 No prominent shoulder hump. Highest point of body la the beck.
2 fn profile muzzle is straight and long. Runts** heed and (ace appear round.
1 Claws dark, much shor- ter and more curved than grizzly deers.
■' V- ?. ' . -V.---- ^
GRIZZLY BEAR 1. Hipest point of back la a muscular hump over the
front shoulders.
1 fn profile distinct brow gtvea ‘dtaharT look to face The brow Is not as well de- fined In yearlings 3. Front class are long.
AI bear huning la prohMed In certain areas ot the swa.
hunting disefcts beginning with numbers
» page 8 current legal descriptor's
Hudsrs talctog a grtzzfy bear must report toe kM within 4B hours to an officer of
tfw Doparmenc of Fish, WMMs and Parka and must paraonaly presort toehlde -
ondakuilwtthtn 10 days to on officer of toe Dsportnort tor purposes of Inspection. ' tagging, and recortttng of MB. Evidence of eex must remain fcttoct on tolfattrcaes pr
Hght cotored. Can aome-
S&.
n t* BIFOAL TO BA/T BEARS OR TO HUNT BEARS WTH DOOft
MONTANA
1984 BEAR HUNTING REGULATIONS
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH. WILDLIFE & PARKS
BEAR LICENSES
BLACK BEAR —
Conservation License (Prsreqoisrto) . „
Resident Biack Bear $3 ry>
Nonreaidant Black Bear $100.00
A Mack bear tag la Included on the Montane Resident Sportsman License and Nonresident $30000 Combination Big Game. Bird and Flahing License ORCZ1YBEAA —
$2.00 Conservation License. $35.00 Resident Sportsman License or $300.00 Non - reaident Combination License (Prerequisite* .
Rewdant Qrtzzty Beer $5000
Nonresident Grtzzty Bear $30000
Grizzly Bear Trophy License $25 00
Grizzly bear hunting licensee ate svaila Me only tram toe Department of Fish. WUdHto and Parks. 1420 East Mh Avenue. Helena. MT 59620 Grtzzty bear hunting Iceneea may not be purchssmd alter August 91, 1984
GRIZZLY BEAR HUNTING SEASONS
AppAeadon Deeffitoe tor Grtzzty I Irene n is August 31 ALL DtSTWCTl Oft PORTIONS OF DtSTWCTS NOT LISTED AS OPEN TO GJtGZLY BEAR HUNTING SHALL REMABf CLOSED TO HUMT1MQ OF QRZZZUES.
HUffiTWO DtSTWCTS OR PORTIONS OF SEASON DATES DBTWCTS OPEN TO HUNTING
Portion of 101 east offfighwsy 93. Districts IIO Oct 21 - Nov. 25. 1 984 1 30, 140. 141. 281. Portion of 406 west of Highway 89. Otstict 415. 422. 424. 426*. 441.
442 and 450
•District 428 w« Ctosa to all bear hunting whan toe eft quota in Deer -Elk -Boar - Uon District 424 is reached.
P***^427 Oct 21 - Nov. 11. 1964
Dietrict 150 151 and 280 Sept 15 - Nor 25. 1964
Tha annual limit per gnxzly license holder is one grtzzty bear of either sax. There shall be no more than twenty-five (25) grizzly kitted by hunting or any other human actMty in the ecosystem generatty referred to as the Bob Marshall ecosystem area Airing the 1 964 season. At such time as the total kill by human acthrity equals twenty-five (25) toe hunting season tor grizzly beer wUf be dosed Grtzzty beer season will cioee on 48 hours notice In toe 100 and 200 series hunting districts when six (6» female grtzzty bear have been totted by hunting or other human activity.
Ortzzfjr beer season w« does on 48 hours notice in toe 400 aeries hunttng distocts when three (3) female grtzzty bear have been kfled by hunting or other human actofflp, ^
aaaai^ *** ** Qwot* °°u<d ** r**ch*d ***** hu"**
c£b bw and Mi baa> **. exta » nMW Cum an
'&'.£***** ®BlnO>tzzly battrt -tout* retato jttta ftfdtt and head iron etc* •piljffiton, town tooggh toe head may have bean damaged
U)
Attachment
Attachment 4
OCTOBER RADIO PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT 30 Seconds
ME- 3
BLACK AND GRIZZLY BEAR IDENTIFICATION
ONE OF YOUR BASIC RESPONSIBILITIES AS A HUNTER IS BEING SURE OF YOUR TARGET. BECAUSE GRIZZLIES AND BLACK BEARS ARE SOMETIMES HARD TO TELL APART, HUNTERS ARE ASKED TO BE ESPECIALLY CAREFUL IF HUNTING BEARS THIS FALL.
LOOK FOR A COMBINATION OF FEATURES. MOST GRIZZLIES HAVE A PRONOUNCED SHOULDER HUMP, A DISHED FACE AND LONG, PROMINENT CLAWS. COLOR AND SIZE ALONE CAN BE MISLEADING.
TAKE THE TIME TO IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET, AND IF IN DOUBT,
THEN SIMPLY LET THE ANIMAL MOVE ON.
THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU AS A SERVICE OF THIS STATION AND THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS
Attachment 4 Continued
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS RADIO PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT 30 SECONDS
MAY 1984
SPRING BLACK BEAR SEASON OPENS
THE SPRING BLACK BEAR HUNTING SEASON OPENED IN MID-APRIL.
AND HUNTERS, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BEING ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GRIZZLY AND BLACK BEAR.
REMEMBER, THE GRIZZLY IS PROTECTED IN THE SPRING AND HUNTED ONLY IN THE NORTHWESTERN MONTANA AREA IN THE FALL.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRIZZLIES AND BLACK BEARS, CONTACT ANY FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS OFFICE.
THIS MESSAGE IS PRESENTED TO YOU IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY THIS STATION AND THE MONTATA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS.
Attachment 4 Continued
MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS RADIO PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT 60 SECONDS
MAY 1984
SPRING BLACK BEAR SEASON OPENS THE SPRING BLACK BFAR SEASON IS OPEN NOW IN MONTANA.
HUNTERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR KNOWING THEIR QUARRY AND BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY GRIZZLIES AND BLACK BEARS.
REMEMBER, THE GRIZZLY IS PROTECTED IN SPRING AND HUNTED IN NORTH- WESTERN MONTANA ONLY IN THE FALL. GRIZZLIES AND BLACK BEARS ARE SOMETIMES HARD TO TELL APART. LOOK FOR A COMBINATION OF FEATURES. COLOR AND SIZE ALONE CAN BE MISLEADING.
MOST GRIZZLIES HAVE:
o A PRONOUNCED SHOULDER HUMP,
o FROSTED FUR WHICH GIVES A "SILVERTIPPED" GRIZZLY EFFECT, o A DISHED FACE AND o LONG, PROMINENT FRONT CLAWS.
TAKE YOUR TIME TO IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET... AND IF IN DOUBT, THEN SIMPLY LET THE ANIMAL MOVE ON. IT'S THE SMARTEST THING YOU CAN DO.
YOU SEE IF GRIZZLIES ARE MISTAKEN AND KILLED FOR BLACK BEARS, THE FUTURE OF BOTH GRIZZLY AND BLACK BEAR HUNTING WILL BE JEOPARDIZED.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRIZZLY AND BLACK BEARS, CONTACT ANY FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS OFFICE.
THIS MESSAGE IS PRESENTED TO YOU IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY THIS STATION AND THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS.
Attachment 5
j> the GRIZZLIES'
future
depends on us!
Bears need your CONCERN not your food!
AVOID CONFRONTATIONS:
1. Store food and garbage properly
2. Avoid surprise encounters
3.Stay out of areas of heavy grizz! y activity
PJ&.
US IN MIND
^greater yellowstone area
y
A Ben to at BhcJ? BeZR ALf/ilefjS G nzzly Qsouniry
It you. ore unsuRe of yea r Btigef Oo Aoi Shoot / IjouR coojyetdlon . is ftPcezszry for
ConhntteJ spfiwg bhc/f bed* hwvhtfg
Me ttb
f'is)) lUr /J/'fe fjf. flak's
Attachment 7
Grizzlies are protected by Federal Law.
They are threatened by illegal killing and loss of habitat.
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
will pay up to
mm®
for
M
INFORMATION
leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone
ILLEGALLY KILLING
GRIZZLY BEAR
or transporting grizzly bear hides or parts
Idaho— (208)334-3736 Montana — (406) 449-2612 Wyoming — (307) 777-7604 Washington— 1-800-562-5626
Attachment 8
1. Highest point of back is well back of shoulders. No prom- inent shoulder hump.
2. In profile muzzle is Iona and straight.
3. Front claws dark colored, relatively short and well-curved.
SP-5
GRIZZLY BEAR
1. Highest point of back is muscular hump over front shoulders.
2. In profile, brow gives “dished” look to face. Not as well defined in yearlings.
3. Front claws up to 4 "long or
fonger, slightly curved. Front claws light colored and can sometimes be observed from great distances.
nave ,ish' “fSS
_D^'n9 sprin9> rubbed spots make the hide poor
rubbing
.... BE SURE BEFORF VQU SHOOT
C&VariQ
9
c
*
i
c
3
J
r>»